delegated our authority and decision-making to engineering to then spend it somewhere else, or do we dictate to them? How does that work? No, it has not been delegated. Basically, we tell them how much we have available. At that point in time, they will know what they have available. They would just have to figure out what they can do with $820,000 on Highland Park Drive. So they can break the bid down as to how much can they do. They'll have to figure out, and I don't know the technical terms, okay, but they would just have to figure out can they do it and how much can they do. Or, like I said, Shawnee is next at $960,000. Can they go to Shawnee and actually make a better dent on Shawnee? And they would have to work out the mechanics as to what can they do or can they do anything with the $820,000. So if I understand you correctly, they have to make the tough decision. Can you do something with the $820,000 if you don't have the extra money you need? And if you can't, then we start walking down what sounds like a list with Shawnee being next. Can we work on Shawnee? I'm a little worried because I think I heard you say that we needed to put this into the plan that we approve here in a few days to make sure that that's what engineering does. I can add Shawnee as a street, as an eligible street, because it is in and the reason why I have to add it is because we have to do environmental clearance. So if I don't add it now, it delays the process. So if they want to do it later, it would delay it. So if we're looking at them possibly doing Shawnee, which is fine, then we would go ahead and add it so that we won't create a delay for them later on. Okay. So it seems wise to me to add a couple just in case. That would be fine. That's not an issue. Does it increase our costs in any way? It does not increase our costs to add it. The only thing it does, it sometimes creates a public perception problem. When you put the street down, they're like, okay, they're ready to do my street. Right. That's the only thing it does. But other than that, that's the only downside of it. Okay. All right. I'll let it go there. I'll just say that generally it makes me a little uncomfortable that we seem to be giving a little bit of decision-making to engineering, and I would hope that you keep a close eye on things. I can't. I'm not at liberty to tell engineering how to decide what projects to do. That's really not my role in this. Well, then, yeah, I think it is. Here's why. The original decision for, say, what are these two? I'm sorry. I've got to put my spectacles on here. Highland Park and Meadow Park. There's an idea of what we want to accomplish there, and you all are giving $820,000 to solve that problem. But engineering is telling us that the solution that's been proposed is going to cost more. So we either settle for less than what we originally planned to do because we don't have all the money we need, or engineering finds the money. If they don't find the money, selling for less seems to me ought to be your decision. Do we want to settle for less, or would we like to move that money over to Shawnee? Or any other. I'm sure you've got a laundry list beyond Shawnee as well. Is that correct? The reason why I say it's not my decision is because when we did Meadows North on Arlington, we did a plan. So in my opinion, it's their decision to pick out the streets that are most. They have to do this to me the way that is most feasible. So I don't, I can't tell them what street to do next if I pick a street and it's going to cause a water problem for them. So that's why I say it's not my decision, because I don't know the impact of me picking out a street, of what it's going to do to them as far as drainage goes. So that's why I say it's not my decision. I say it's theirs because they know the mechanics of how they, they have a plan as to how they're doing this, you know, as to how they're going to accomplish all that they're going to do in this whole area. So that's why I say it's not my decision. The decision for me came in that the next area that we were doing was Meadows North on Arlington, okay, and that was the public's decision to do that area next. And that limit, that was the limit of my decision as to which streets came and as to how they were going to do that. That's an engineering decision because I'm not the mechanic and I don't understand how to do all of that. That's their decision to make as to how they figure out how to get it done and the best way to do it. Now, my decision comes in that I can only give you a certain amount of money just because I'm limited on my dollars. So in a sense, yeah, I mean, I can only give you what I have, so I can't give you more than what I have. And I consider that a limited decision making, so. I understand. And that makes good sense. What is the design for Meadows and Highland Park? Who owns or who's made the decision of what exactly we're going to do with either 820,000 or 1.15 million? Where is that decision made? Division of Engineering. Okay. I think I'll stop there, Chair. Thank you, Paula. It's all right. I wish to speak. We'll give you a rest, Paula. Do both of you want to speak? Okay. Maybe we'll take the Salvation Army first, and Major Deborah Ashcraft, who is the area coordinator for the Salvation Army, will present her information regarding this year's funding. And we also distributed a letter, and I don't think you've seen it yet probably, Paula. And have you seen it? Distributed a letter that a copy was furnished. This is to Mayor Newberry, but a copy was furnished for our committee today, and it's been distributed. So please proceed. We have a custom here that time is valuable, and so we're going to put the three-minute clock up for you. Okay. Well, thank you for the opportunity to present to you and for the opportunity for the public comment. I think it's very important that you as council members are very much aware of this plan because you are the ones who are saying it's okay, or you have the opportunity, as you just heard, to amend the plan. I want to share some of the comments that I had made in my letter to the mayor. I'm here really on behalf of the many women and children who are homeless and the fact that the Salvation Army provides a vital service for these individuals. The proposed consolidated plan does recommend that the Salvation Army receive, as was shared with you, $12,688 in ESG funds and zero for community development block grant funds. I had sent an email to the grant manager, Irene Gooding. When I heard this and in the email, I expressed my concern. I have given the mayor a copy of the email. And basically, I was first told that regarding the loss of $85,000 CDBG funds, please remember that last year's allocation was a one-time only windfall. Ordinarily, CDBG funding is much less. And I realize there are many worthy organizations who ask for funding, and it's impossible for you to fund them at the level that you want to because you do not have the amount of funding. To go from funding of $85,000 to zero is completely we cannot understand this. We cannot understand this at the Salvation Army. Our board members do not understand this given the fact that we are serving a very important group of people. Second, I was informed by phone that we actually did not receive any CDBG fundings because we were late. And I want to share a portion of what my husband has written to the mayor because he could not be here. Each year, the CDBG application asks for a contact person. The Salvation Army application has consistently listed one of the area coordinators, Major Steven Ashcraft or Major Deborah Ashcraft, as the contact for the Salvation Army. The March 4, 2008 letter stating that the Salvation Army was recommended to receive no CDBG funds was addressed to me, Major Steven Ashcraft, until this year. Letters regarding the grant submission deadlines for both the ESG and the CDBG proposals were always addressed to Major Steven Ashcraft. However, this year, he did not receive a letter indicating the submission deadline was November 16, 2007, which was seven weeks earlier than in years past. Therefore, our staff began preparing the proposal in early December, as usual, in order to make the anticipated January deadline. We noted from the LFUCG website at that time that the due date had passed. A phone call was made to Ms. Gooding, who instructed us to get our proposals in by Friday. We submitted both the ESG and the CDBG proposals in good faith. This critical information was not sent, again, to Major Steven Ashcraft. We understand it was a clerical error. However, we do not want our homeless women and children we serve to pay the price for this error. Human beings make mistakes. In view of this error, I request that the Council give consideration to the Salvation Army's proposal and that it be considered for funding. Thank you, Major. I wish I had a couple more minutes, but I'll respect that. Well, one of the Council people has requested we extend you to five minutes, so you have 120 seconds. Okay. I wanted to just say something, again, about our process. We, and I have the documents if you want to see them, that Major Steven Ashcraft is, in fact, listed as the contact person for the Salvation Army. That letter goes to him. It is the area coordinator who makes the decision regarding whether or not we write for a grant and puts that information on the grant calendar, the development calendar, for our staff. So, again, the contact person, the city has asked for it. We have given that information, and we feel that we were not properly notified. Regarding how important this funding is, and going from $85,000 to zero being unacceptable, I would point out that you did see on your screen a list of very wonderful organizations that are providing housing to individuals. I would point out that you saw one organization that recommended to receive $53,000. If you read in your packet, you will see that that's to serve 45 to 50 families. The Salvation Army will serve over 1,100 people. Another very great organization, $53,000 recommended to serve 5 to 15 mentally ill persons. Another one, $45,000 recommended to serve 75 individuals. So I would request that the council allow the Salvation Army proposal to be considered and be seriously considered with the understanding we're providing very comprehensive services to move people out of homelessness and that we are serving a large number of people, over 1,000 people, who are very vulnerable citizens, mostly women and children. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for? Yes, Mr. Blevins. Ms. King, could you come up? Was the Salvation Army's late application considered in its entirety or was it completely rejected because it was late in your all's deliberations this year? It was not considered for CDBG. Not considered at all? No. Okay. That's all I had, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. James. I just had a question for Major Ashcraft. In the letter from your husband, I'm sorry, from Major Ashcraft, the other, to the mayor, it's in the second paragraph it says a phone call was made to Ms. Gooding, who instructed to get our proposals in by Friday. Was that with the assumption that they would be considered for funding? When we went to the, it's on the development calendar for December, thinking we have four weeks to prepare this. So we went to the website. We do not go to the LFUCG website on a regular basis. We went to that. We immediately made the phone call saying we've missed the deadline. We just realized we missed the deadline. And we were told by Ms. Gooding, present, can you get them in by Friday? Get them in by Friday. I'll take them upstairs. Both, not only the CDBG, but also the ESG. They were both presented in Friday in good faith that they would be considered. At no time were we told they would not be considered. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Lane. Ms. King. Just being sort of a business person and realizing that losing a substantial chunk of your annual budget to operate would put a real hardship on the Salvation Army. I was thinking along the lines of making a motion to reduce the allocation to the other entities under the supported services category in the amount of 10% and providing 10% to the Salvation Army. Do you see a problem if this was approved by the council that we go ahead and change that as far as a recommended project? I don't. They would. I mean, I don't personally. I mean, it can work. Okay. Well, then, in that case, I'd like to make a motion to restore the funding to the Salvation Army by allocating 10% of the supported services budget to them and reducing the allocation to the other entities receiving funding. That would be approximately $31,051, I believe, for the Salvation Army under that proposal. So moved. And I guess this would be presented to the full council for deliberation as a recommendation of our committee? Yes. If the committee votes approval of that motion, then we would take that to the work session a week from tomorrow. Okay. Is there a second? No meeting next week. There's no, I believe if we look at the council calendar, there's no work session next week. Okay. It would be April the 8th, then. That's right. It's April Fool's Day, and we don't want to take a chance with the government on that day. Is there a second to the motion? Second. The motion has been made and seconded that we, from the support services portion of CDBG, we allocate the Salvation Army approximately $31,000 by reducing the other agencies by 10%. Is there discussion? Yes. Mr. Blevins, then Vice Mayor. Paula, the total services budget, according to this document, is $310,000, as Council Member Lane has said. Is that 15% of the total exactly? No, the 15% would be $344,000. But what happens is that when you get to exactly 15%, that puts us at risk when we do an annual performance report, because the 15% is calculated based on actual expenditures at a particular point in time. And when we get to that 15% maximum, we are at risk of being over 15%. That's why we try not to go right at 15%. Wow. Sorry, but it is what it is. I know you would think that the federal government would work with you a little on that. That's sort of silly. The reason I ask is so. But technically you can take it up some more, yes? You could probably do another $15,000, $20,000, but don't go to $344,000, please. That's a little close. But you can go up more, yes, if you can go up another $20,000. Do you have this, the one you gave us in the packet, in front of you? I don't, but I will. I'm just looking for other angles. The ones that are listed under supportive services, are any of these new programs that have not been funded in previous years? The new ones are down at the bottom, $10,000 for Ruby Bailey and $20,440 for Manchester Center. I don't see that. Oh, I see it now. Thank you. One final question. No, never mind. I think I've got that covered. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Dr. Stephens. I'm just trying to confirm the numbers. The question would be to Council Member Lane. The 10% would be 10% of what amount? My thought was 10% of the $310,510 would be $31,051 would be the amount of the grant. Okay. Thank you, sir. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. King, that buffer that you tried to keep in there, that $30,000 or so, what happens at the end of the day if that money, if you didn't need the buffer and the money is sitting there? What happens to that $30,000? It's, the buffer is, I mean, the buffer is there, but all of the money is already allocated. So even though it's not under services, it's already still allocated somewhere else. Okay. So then if we go over, if, you said we could go up to a little bit, but don't go to the My preference is to not go to the $344, which is the 15%. Okay. So if the money is already allocated somewhere else, then if we bump that up, then where are we taking the money from? You have to tell me. All of the money for the CDBG is already allocated in all of the projects as presented. You just have to take it from somewhere else. Okay. Thank you. My motion was to reduce the amount of supportive services by 10% for the other parties. Therefore, we would still be in balance. And that's correct. Okay. I understood that. Yes. Thank you, Doctor. Mrs. Gordon. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify the past history beyond last year. Did I understand last year the Salvation Army received $85,000? They received $85,000 last year. Last year we had an organization that did not want to receive half of their requested amount. So that left additional money on the table for services that the committee chose to give to Salvation Army. And then previous to last year? They had got normally between $38,000, as low as $30,000 and as much as $40,000. For how many years before? For the past, this would be their eighth year. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Blevins. Major Ashcraft, what is your actual request in CDBG for this year? Our actual request for CDBG funds based on the increased number of people that we're housing at the Salvation Army was actually $100,000. So you requested $100,000 out of the CDBG block. Yes. With that request, too, please keep in mind we don't have in front of us the overall pot of $250,000. Actually, last night was the first night I saw that figure. Having said all of that, we requested it based on the fact that that's what we really need. And due to the large number of people that we're serving, you know, our board is very dedicated. My husband and I are very dedicated to trying to raise this money. There's no way we could close the gap of a loss of $85,000. You know, Lemonade, I stood before you in the summer, is one of the fundraisers that we started last year, and we're going to continue. We're going to do everything we can to serve this very vulnerable population, but we need financial support. What was the amount that you requested in this year's request for ESG funds? $20,000. You asked for 20 and got 12, and you asked for 100 and got zero. Is that a correct assessment? That is correct. And also in my comment letter, I had called Ms. Gooding to find out what is the process to express your comments, and so I was told to write it to the mayor. So I also sent a letter to the mayor, and I made sure that Ms. King received a copy of that that same day. I delivered it yesterday, and I requested that the council actually consider funding our full $20,000. You know, that's for emergency shelters. The Salvation Army is the emergency shelter for women and families. Thank you. Ms. King, can I ask you another question real quick? I think I heard you say over the previous years the Salvation Army has been receiving between $30,000 and $40,000 of CDBG funds. That's correct. And last year, because of a one-time special situation, we bumped them to $85,000. Is that correct? That's correct. And then what have they been receiving in previous years under ESG? Around the $12,000. Around the $12,000? Yes, sir. Okay. I would Mr. Lane's motion is going to net you about $30,000. And I wonder if the council, if you would consider a friendly amendment to move another $10,000. And, Paul, I would like for you to comment on what I'm about to suggest. If we were to take another $10,000 from, say, the $820,000 infrastructure line and move it down to support services, it will increase your total to $320,000 and keep you well under your comfort zone. It will give the Salvation Army a continuation grant of roughly $40,000 total. But I want to make sure that that's not going to cause grave harm up in the infrastructure area. Would you accept, Mr. Lane, a friendly amendment to move $10,000 from the infrastructure area over to supportive services and then to continue with your original plan? Yes, I will. Thank you, sir. The motion has been amended to move $10,000 from the continuation, from the infrastructure allocation and to the supportive services, which would bring the total there to then to $320,000. And 10% of that would be allocated to the Salvation Army. Okay, does everybody understand the motion? Do you have the motion, Vicki? Okay. Yes, Mr. McCord. Mr. McCord. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a couple things that kind of hit me funny in this deal. I'm extremely supportive of the Salvation Army and have been and appreciate the work that you all do. You're the beneficiary of being the first person to the mic. And we're doing this, and there may be somebody that comes behind you asking for that, and it just happened to be they got second place where somebody couldn't come down here and do this. That causes me some problems from a process standpoint. And, again, I'm looking at that it's normally, Paula, somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 is what the allocation is for Salvation Army, and we had kind of this one-time bump to $85,000. And I think we've seen this in other places in the outside agency over the last couple years where a one-time bump puts an interesting spin on things in later years where we keep trying to meet those things instead of just letting it do what it was supposed to do as a one-time bump. I have a difficulty with the motion, not because I'm not supportive. In fact, Major, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but I wanted to go ahead and put this out there again to you all that two years ago in the outside agency process, we found out that the Bluegrass Area Development District, Bluegrass AD, actually has some monies that are available for the Salvation Army because you are the only game in town in this region to do what you do, and you do it so well. And I had asked for folks from your organization to contact the AD, and for whatever reason that just didn't happen and so forth. So, again, I think that there's some other opportunities for you that are out there with that. But regardless of all of that, I just have a really, I guess, a dilemma in this situation that we've got one situation here, but there's potentially another three or four that are coming behind this, and I just wanted to speak to that issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. McCord. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. McCord. I understand where you're coming from on that, too, but here's my thought. These are all charitable organizations, and for them to give back 10% to help the Salvation Army, which had been a recipient of grants from this program for eight or nine years, I think is, if you ask all the other organizations, I think they would all say that would be okay because they are charitable organizations, and I can't see how they would deny one of their, you know, brother and sister organizations from funding. And I think also, you know, maybe the urban county government could have done just a little bit better job. You know, if you have somebody that's been getting a grant for eight or nine years and their application didn't come in, you know, maybe we could have called them and said, we haven't gotten your grant, just to give them a heads up. But I don't think we were obligated to do that, but I just felt, you know, maybe we could have done just a little bit better in that area. So those were the considerations that I had. I think we just, you know, have to keep in mind that mistakes are made, and when we can fix them. This budget has not been fully recommended yet or not fully approved. It's been recommended but not fully approved. So it's not like we're actually going back and changing something that was already approved by the council. So, you know, I feel like this is a time, if we made a correction, it would be today. Thank you. Ms. James. Thank you, Chair. I do support the 10% suggestion Council Member Lane proposed. An increase from that I'm having difficulty with only because I know that we need some more time. We need to hear from the other folks that are here to speak, and we need to maybe even get a recorded document of what was proposed at last night's, what was addressed at last night's public hearing. And I don't know what infrastructure costs you're talking about to pull additional money from. Council Member Blevins, if you could help me clarify where that is. It's in your packet toward the top of page five. You'll see infrastructure, coal and meadows, Northland, Arlington, so forth, for $820,000. Oh, so the project we were just talking about that we didn't have enough money for, you want to pull money from it? Right. I don't think that's a good idea. I really don't. I mean, as a matter of fact, when I went through this packet, one of my post-its on here says, need more money for infrastructure. So I think when we already know that we are at a low point somewhere, to pull from that, it just is not a smart idea to do, I do not believe, in my opinion. And being that these projects are in the first district, maybe that's one reason, because I know that if there's not money in any little bit of money that we have, $10,000 could maybe go a little ways when it comes to infrastructure. So I'm very supportive, and Major Ashcraft knows I'm supportive of Salvation Army and all that they do. At this point, though, without hearing from all of the public hearing comments and really having some time to look through this, I just don't feel comfortable going beyond Councilmember Lane's motion. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to back us up just a minute because, to me, the real issue here is that the Salvation Army didn't get its application in in time because it wasn't notified of the seven-week moving up of the deadline. And as the chair of the outside agency subcommittee, we've worked really hard with the administration to come up with a plan for funding or for allocating these monies that doesn't destroy the process. And that's, I think, what we're getting ready to do here today if we pass this motion. I'm in favor of the Salvation Army receiving monies probably in the amount of what it used to get, not that one-time bump of the $80,000, but what it used to get before that. But I think that we as a council, actually this committee first and the council as a whole, voted to put this recommendation in the hands of the administration rather than that commission. I think what we need to do is send this back to the administration, ask them to relook at this, revisit this issue, and take into account that the deadline was moved up seven weeks, Salvation Army wasn't aware of that, and didn't get their application in. Let the administration then go back and determine where to find that $40,000 that they usually received, if that's what they want to do. I think in good faith the administration would take a look at that because they moved the deadline, not the Salvation Army. But I think for this committee to make a recommendation to completely blow up what the administration came up with as a recommendation is a mistake, and I think that we worked hard with the administration in good faith to change the process to something that would work. The other piece of this is outside agencies is an oversight committee, and one of the things that we've moved hard to get away from is having agencies come to our committee when they didn't like what the commission recommended. We're in effect setting up the same scenario where if you don't like what the administration came up with, you come to budget and finance and they'll change it. I think that we ought to, I'm going to vote no on this motion, make a new motion at the appropriate time to send this back to the administration and let them try to work this out, being that Salvation Army didn't make the deadline because they didn't know the deadline had moved. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon. Well, would your motion then include asking them to find a certain amount of money, which I heard you state in your comments, but, I mean. That was sort of my personal opinion on how much they should receive because they've been receiving that in the past. I won't make that recommendation to the administration because that's, the way we set it up is their role. So I would just move that we send it back to the administration, have them in good faith look at this application as if it made the deadline, and then hopefully they're going to change their recommendation and include them in the funding. But I'm not going to say what I think it should be. Second. I see. So you're amending the motion on the floor? So moved. Second. Okay. I'll accept the motion from Mr. Myers and withdraw my motion. I think we have to vote on that. You can withdraw your motion. The motion belongs to the group and not to the maker once it's made, as I understand parliamentary procedure. The motion you need to state, please. Could I ask a question first? The motion you're moving to create a substitute amendment. Yes. Could I ask a question to the administration that's key? Yes. Okay. Sure. Ms. King, we need a timeline. We need a date certain that you guys will come back with that new recommendation if you're going to change it so that we meet your deadline with the federal government. So in my motion I want to include a date so that does that make sense? Yeah. My people laugh. I'm assuming that when we present it on the 8th that it will have the recommendation that you have requested. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We were trying to whisper back and forth. I think what we can do is reconsider and then whatever you have before you on the 8th will be our recommendation. I'm not saying that our recommendation is going to change, but that we will reconsider. Okay. Okay. Mr. Stennett. Thank you. I've got one question. How much money does the Salvation Army receive from outside agency pool last year? Does anybody know? The LFBCP fund? Yes. Yes. $160,000 is what we received. That's in addition to the CDBG portion? Yes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Lane. Could I ask a question too, please? Could you give me your annual budget just to put it in perspective, please? Cash for the shelter is $1.2 million. If you read the proposal, you'll see that there's another $700,000 that is in-kind donations. People may donate shampoo if, like, for example, Channel 18 donated $12,000 that's in-kind when they promoted the lemonade fundraiser. So it's a very small amount of money. I mean, the Salvation Army is working very hard to raise public dollars. And there, again, I see, I understand about we were never told it was one-time windfall, but to allocate, you know, $40,000 or $50,000 to the Salvation Army that's going to serve over 1,000 people with very comprehensive services when the development staff feels very comfortable to recommend $50,000 for an agency, a great agency, that's going to be serving 10 families, 75 people? I'm sorry to cut you off, Major, but you've answered the question. He wanted to know what your total budget was, I think, and not just the budget for the shelter. Thank you very much. I appreciate your response. Is there further comments? If not, then we can vote on Mr. Meyer's amendment, which is to return this back to the Community Development and to the Department of Finance with the recommendation that this allocation for the Salvation Army and others be considered again and before the final plan is presented to us on April the 8th. Is that correct? I'd like them to consider the application of the Salvation Army as if it had made the proper deadline. So in good faith, look at it and say it made the deadline. Because they made it clear that they weren't funded because it didn't make the deadline. And so in good faith, we want them to go back and look at this as if it did make the deadline. All those in favor of this motion, signify by raising your hand, please. All those opposed? The motion carries. And that would remove your motion from the docket as this was a substitute amendment. The motion to amend is carried. So we can move and technically we can go ahead and vote on the main motion then. All those in favor of the main motion, signify by raising your right hand. Can I ask a question first, Chair, over here? There you are. This is just for the Salvation Army and not for all that have made, that have missed the deadline? This is just for the Salvation Army? No, I think as it was worded, it was for all. Is that? I would accept that, yes. Pardon? I would accept that interpretation. I'm sorry, but I don't have an application for the rest of them that missed the deadline. They didn't submit an application. So for those that submitted applications only. If the Salvation Army is changed and included, then the others have to change, because you can't go over a certain 15 percent limit on support services. I think it's a different question. For clarity, I would say that my motion was just for the Salvation Army and the application that they submitted. I'm sorry. Say again. Just for clarification, my motion is just for the Salvation Army and the application that they submitted. Okay. The motion, the main motion then, is that the community development be requested to reconsider their plan to include the Salvation Army as if they had submitted their request in time. I kind of shortened it a little bit, but that's what I think your gist of it was. Okay. All those in favor, signify by raising your right hand or your left hand, any hand. Good. The motion carries. Thank you. Now, we do have another group that were here, was present last night, who made an appeal. They were not funded. So if you want to, please, we'll give you a few minutes. We have another item on our agenda after this is completed. So you have three minutes, and then we have a report from the Internal Audit Board. Good afternoon. My name is Yolanda Bradford. I'm the Executive Director of the Road to Homeownership. Our organization started in October of 2006. We funded the organization until we received funding from the city in July of 2007. We just recently applied for the home funds. And my concern is the process and the opportunity to receive these funds. When I've attended every single training and every public hearing, when I was speaking with Ms. Gooding about our application, I was discouraged from putting in that application because she had voiced that the funds would already be, they were wanting to give the funds to REACH. So I think our opportunity for receiving these funds were limited because a decision was already made prior to us being vocalized to me. It was, the decision was already made, and the process was not going to be followed. We turned in our application, and I guess I just have a concern because I don't think we were given the proper opportunity to receive funding from the home funds, because it was the choice agency is REACH. As I said, we have been in existence for a year and a half, and we, our standards are the same as REACH, and we have received, we have homeowners that have a need, and we're serving the same dynamics, which is low to moderate income. So basically, that's my concern. Okay, thank you. Are there questions from the council? And would you repeat your agency's name, please, and your name and address? REACH, the Road to Homeownership, it's 3288 Eagle View Plaza, Lexington, Kentucky. And my appeal is that we receive some type of funding from the home funds to help serve the low to moderate income with down payment assistance. We met all the other requirements, and we're just asking, REACH was given $400,000, Community Ventures was given $200,000, and when asked about that, they did not want to, it was expressed to me the administration did not want to separate the funds. But we're serving the same dynamics, and we have clients that are in need of down payment assistance. So we're just asking that those funds be spread out to all the agencies. Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. McCarty has a question. I would just ask, I'm sorry. Are there speakers? No, actually, this is to Commissioner Coe. Just as a matter of concern, it troubles me that that name has come up twice, that we've got some serious issues of liberties being taken or, you know, misunderstandings maybe, but I would ask you to take a look at that because that does trouble me to hear that people have already made decisions or we have staff members speaking on behalf of the administration in this government, in this council. So if you would look into that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. If there's no further questions on this matter, we'll go to the internal audit report. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. It is my pleasure to come before the Budget and Finance Committee on a more or less quarterly basis and report out to you on activity by the Office of Internal Audit. In your packet today, you have a couple of summaries of internal audit activity that has taken place recently. A couple of points that I want to point out, both for the committee and also for the public as large, is points on the internal audit process. It's important to understand that internal controls are the responsibility of management. Each individual department and division has the basic responsibility for establishing, maintaining, and periodically reviewing its internal control system. The objectives of the Office of Internal Audit are to assist members of the urban county government in the effective discharge of their responsibilities by furnishing them with analysis, recommendations, counsel, and information concerning the activities reviewed and by promoting effective internal control at a reasonable cost. The second point that I would like to make to the committee and also for the public is some findings are quite minor in nature and are communicated to responsible management verbally, while others are considered more significant and are therefore included in the internal audit report. It should be noted that findings are a common result of an audit, and they do not in and of themselves indicate carelessness or negligence on the part of management. Deficiencies identified during an audit can be the result of many factors, some of which may be only partly controllable by management. In addition, internal audit reports are designed to draw attention to opportunities for improvement, and therefore they do not address the areas of satisfactory performance that may be noted during an audit. Therefore, counsel is encouraged to maintain a balanced perspective regarding the nature and extent of internal audit findings. In your handout there, you have the summary of audit results for two internal audits. I realize that we're probably short on time, so I will try to be very brief with this. The first audit to report out on was an audit of the Division of Accounting Journal Entries, which was completed and reported out on February 29th of 2008. A couple of points of information here so that as you look through the findings, it kind of makes sense to you. Journal entries are first included into what is referred to as a journal voucher, and the best way to explain this in terms of how it works in the STAR system is that a journal entry may be a record and that you can have any number of those records that roll up into a file that you would refer to as a journal voucher. And so once all the journal entries that a person wants to post are in the voucher, the voucher itself is posted to STARS as a complete file. The second thing I think it's important for the counsel and for the committee to understand is that some of the findings in here, particularly those that relate to the many unrelated journal entries that were placed into vouchers for posting, is I think largely because that in the past under the mainframe system where accounting entries used to be posted, you had a limited number of journal vouchers that could be posted during a quarter. And, therefore, there was a practice that developed of batching unrelated journal entries into one voucher and then posting them in the mainframe. Now, when STARS was implemented, that limitation no longer existed, but for whatever reason that was either not fully understood or fully communicated to accounting personnel, and, therefore, the practice of batching a large number of unrelated journal entries into a voucher continued. So when we get into a couple of these points about a lot of unrelated journal entries being in the vouchers, that is the primary reason, I think, for that. The following findings are reported to senior management. Division of accounting should develop written procedures clearly establishing requirements for supporting, recording, and processing journal vouchers and their related journal entries. Descriptions or other supporting documentation was generally inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that non-cash side of cash and bank journal entries were posted to the correct account. Now, in our focus, in our audit, we focused on cash and bank entries, and we looked at 79 large journal vouchers affecting the cash and bank account. Now, we had no issue with support for what was going into the cash account. We had bank statements. We had other supporting documentation that we felt was generally sufficient. What we didn't see was sufficient documentation for the other side of the entry, whether it be going to an expense account or whatever. Journal entry source documentation standards needed to be established. Journal entries should be consistently posted in a timely manner to ensure compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. And what that related to was that we noted a large number of journal entries that were posted 60 or more days after the date in which the journal entry was actually created. So they would sit out there in a voucher for 60 or 90 days before being posted. And for generally accepted accounting principles, typically you want to get those in in a monthly accounting period. The journal vouchers contained too many unrelated journal entries, which created confusion in the record of financial transactions and made their review cumbersome and difficult. Journal entries were posted to various journal vouchers with generic or nondescript explanations, which also made that review difficult. The STARS workflow process, which would provide systematic tracking of journal voucher approvals, should be activated, and an approval process should be established in order to track journal voucher approvals in STARS. User ID field in STARS journal header screen, which could be used to track originating and possibly editing information on the journal vouchers, needs to be put in place to improve review and oversight capabilities. The Division of Accounting and Computer Services should examine options to create standard naming conventions and sequential numbering to prevent possible duplication of journal voucher IDs and again improve transaction tracking into the financial records. And management's responses to the findings indicated that appropriate action would be taken to correct the deficiencies identified. Management and staff were very courteous and cooperative throughout the course of the audit. The second audit summary that I want to very quickly get through was an audit of the Parks and Recreation payroll process audit. I think it's important to note that as you look through the findings that we have, you might say, well, this seems like pretty straightforward recommendations. But in fact, the process for assigning part-time and seasonal employees and deciding whether they should be listed as CERS at being County Employee Retirement System or Non-County Employment Retirement System was not a simple thing at all. And because of that, I think there had been a good faith effort on the part of Parks and Recreation and HR for quite some time to try to work through their understanding of what was required as well as in their communications with the Kentucky Retirement System. So our audit basically, in many ways, our goal was to try to help clear up some of that confusion. The following findings were recommended to senior management. Improvements are needed in Parks and Recreation's initial seasonal and part-time job classification process for new hires to ensure proper contribution to the CERS and to help Parks and Recreation and HR in that process. Internal audit worked very closely with the Kentucky Retirement System personnel, and we developed a decision matrix, a flow chart, that Parks and Recreation personnel could use to help them decide whether a person should be classified as part-time, as a seasonal, a seasonal non-CERS, a seasonal CERS. We had that flow chart examined by Kentucky Retirement System senior management, and they said, yes, that this is an accurate flow chart. This would take care of the confusion and eliminate any future misclassifications if that flow chart were to be used. We recommended that LFUCG require all seasonal part-time employees at the initial hiring date as well as any point during their employment with Urban County to notify human resources of any other employment that collectively makes them eligible to participate in the county employee retirement system. The reason for that being is an employee might come on board and work with Urban County government, I say a seasonal employee, maybe to work in the pools during each season. But if that employee is also working for state government or some state agency, that with all of their government work taken as a whole, the state and ours collectively, if that would make them eligible to participate in the county employment retirement system, then they need to notify Urban County government of that experience so that we can make sure that we properly put them into the retirement system system and properly contribute to that retirement system. Parks and Recreation senior management need to establish a process where the oversight of seasonal and part-time employee pay rates is shared in order to ensure consistent compliance with wage parameters for specified positions and make sure any variances are reasonable and justified. The Department of Law should confer with the Administration and Council regarding certain ambiguities between Section 2259.01 of the Code of Ordinances and other ordinances that also address vacation and sick leave accrual for which there seems to be some disconnect between what 2259 is trying to achieve and what the other ordinances state should take place. So this would just be to try to clarify in the ordinances what the Council's intent is and to make sure that that intent is consistent. And finally, as a risk observation only, and I call it a risk observation because it is not a finding, it is not a violation of policy, it is not a violation of good control practices, but we feel that it is a good best practice for Urban County government to consider converting to a 100% direct deposit for payroll purposes with electronically issued pay stubs. I would encourage all Urban County employees who go to a direct deposit process, and I think the Commissioner of Finance told me earlier today that they're also looking at, I think they call it a bank pay card. Maybe I'm using the wrong term. But if somebody does not have a bank account, they could still use this bank pay card to withdraw their funds from the bank without having to open up a bank account. But it would give a lot more control over the payroll process. It would help much more with reconciliation of payroll, tighten down the internal controls to make sure that payroll payments are properly made and timely paid. Management's responses to the findings indicated appropriate action would be taken and to correct the deficiencies identified, and management and staff were very courteous and cooperative throughout the course of the audit. And with that, if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them for you. Thank you. I have several requests. Ms. Myers was first then, or last. Mrs. Gordon. Thank you very much, Dr. Bruce. Thank you very much. I continue with every report that you give to think that when we created your shop, we did one of the best things we've ever done for urban county government because you and your associates have really been able to highlight some places where we could be better. You have two items on your fourth bullet there about the ambiguities in sick leave and vacation. Can you clarify that a little more with any more detail? I'm not sure what the ambiguities are. This is on Section 2259. Yes, I'm sorry. It's on page 9. Well, what we noted in looking at the wording of that ordinance was, let me look to the language of my reporter real quick so I answer your question correctly. The ambiguity, I'm trying to go off of my memory here, this report was issued I think at the end of February. The ambiguity, as I can recall, was whether or not in some of the ordinances, as I recall, there was the understanding that a seasonal or part-time employee would have to be so employed for two years before they would be eligible for other benefits, like sick and things of that nature. But in 2259, again going on my memory, 2259 did not make that clear. It created some confusion as to the intent there. So all we're saying is that the other ordinances that affect the sick, vacation benefits and so forth, that counsel just take it in law, look at these ordinances taken as a whole and establish what is the exact intent. Is it they would be able to participate in their first season of seasonal part-time or would it be after two years? And that is the ambiguity we thought that needed to be clear of, as my memory allows me to bring it back. If you think of anything else, will you e-mail me? I certainly will. I'd be glad to. And then on the next point about direct deposit, for quite a long time I felt direct deposit would be a good thing. I know that the armed forces, which is hundreds of thousands of people, have direct deposit. You're required to have direct deposit. I've never been sure why we couldn't do it. I think one of the arguments has always been that some of our employees don't have a bank account. So I'm glad to hear about the bank card idea. And I guess my question to you, Dr. Stephens, would be do we need any kind of motion? Is the administration already going forward with this or do we need a motion out of this committee to move that forward? My understanding is they're looking into it. I can't speak to exactly where they are in the process. I don't think that would be appropriate. And so then on the previous bullet point about the ambiguities in Section 2259, do we need a motion to set the wheels in motion for that or are they already doing that? Do you know? I do not know. Clarify. But you discussed this with the management of that. Management is aware of it, and management concurs that it does need to be examined. So do you think we need a motion to move that forward? No, I don't think so. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your work. You're welcome. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chair. In the last minute left of our meeting, two quick questions. One, what prompted the Internal Audit Division to look at accounting? We had some communications with the director of accounting, and she had indicated to us that they had become aware that there was a point in time where journal entries or journal vouchers, I should say, may have been posted without a proper oversight and approval.