Anchorage Assembly: Municipal Audit Committee Meeting

Hello everybody, welcome to the Municipal Audit Committee meeting. Today is October 21st. We're noticed from 1 to 2 PM. It is 1:05. Uh, let's begin with member introductions.

Sydney Scout. Donald Handeland. Jared Goecker. Anna Brawley. Erin Baldwin Day.

Bill Falsey. Lance Wilber. We are also joined in the room by, uh, oh, Stephanie Ryan, controller.

We also have Director Rash and Ms. Darcy Montalvo from the Health Department. Our first item of new business is a review of the CDBG Community Development Block Grant audit, internal audit, and I believe there is a presentation prepared for us. Go ahead, Director Rash. Thank you. Kimberly Rash, Anchorage Health Department, and with me I have Darcy.

Montalvo, who's a Human Services Division Manager. And in anticipation of today's presentation to the Audit Committee, we created 27 slides in case Member Baldwin Day has any questions for us. That never happens. We have created a plethora of information and resources. One of the things I want to first off say is that Anchorage Health Department always puts forth a request to internal audit for various programs, and this was a holdover from previous year that we brought forward to this year, a request to audit this specific grant out of Community Safety and Development.

And the reason why I brought it forth was because it had not been audited in some time, staff have changed over, and HUD rules have changed continuously. And so understanding that, you know, we're not the best set all the time, and so I'm here to go over some of the findings and knowing that this was a learning opportunity for all of us. So today I'm going to summarize the audit results, focus on control management that we have put in place and that we are putting in place to address the findings. My intent isn't to go over every single detail, but at least high level, and then there is an appendix after slide 17 that goes over each of the actual findings for reference. So introductions.

Alright, so CDB CDBG is also called Community Development Block Grant. We are a HUD entitlement community, meaning we receive federal funds from HUD themselves directly to the municipality of Anchorage. CDBG is only a portion of our funding that we get from HUD. The other two buckets of funding we receive is HOME and ESG. ESG stands for Emergency Solutions Grant, and that grant is run through our ADRC, which is our Aging and Disability Resource Center.

This is a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This creates the opportunity and the responsibility for the local health department to abide by not only the federal program rules and regulations, but also the municipality of Anchorage, uh, Anchorage Municipal Code. And so really what we are here to do is support the activities that are, uh, that can develop a viable community, and the benefits are directly, uh, principally to low and moderate low income residents.

Administering these funds, these federal funds, carries a significant responsibility to maintain strong internal controls, comply with federal and municipal requirements, and demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources. In addition to this internal audit, we are often audited directly by HUD on certain segments of the three different buckets of funding. HUD will review everything from our annual action plan, our consolidated plan, to specific grantees that we have granted funds out to. This next slide here illustrates the broad— and then when I say broad—. Dr. Ashton, can I pause you for just one moment?

We have a question from Everon. Okay. Yes, I just think very brief clarifying question on the prior slide, because I think what you said— I just want to understand what you said, which is the internal audit has not looked at this program or this spending for a while. But can you— I know these are very heavily regulated funds, so can you just very briefly describe some of the controls that are in place? You mentioned audits of of our various plans.

I know that's a whole other discussion about various plans, but is that annual? You know, is it— what kind of paperwork are we submitting to HUD? I just want to be super clear and not create any impression that these have not been looked at by anybody. Is that correct? Yes, that is a very accurate statement.

HUD reviews all of our documentation on an annual basis. We have to submit our annual action plan every single year. HUD has to approve it and make sure that it abides by the federal regulations. Every 5 years, we are required to submit to them a consolidated plan, and all of these plans have to be approved before they come to the body. And so it has to meet every single criteria that they have on the federal side to meet those requirements.

In addition, we do have to submit our CAPER report, which looks over our performance for the past year. In addition to that, we do receive audits every single year from them. We work very closely with HUD. We have meetings with them on a weekly basis. One of the topics that we often work on is the— HUD has a system that's called IDIS, and then we have to match that to SAP.

And so oftentimes those do not match, and so we have to often converse both with the Controller's Office as well as HUD in order to make sure that the funding is matched. But this program has not been internally audited in some time, but they— we do get a lot of auditing from the federal government for these funds.

Okay, thanks.

So this illustrates again the broad— and when I say very broad, it's broad— activities that CDBG does support. These include housing rehabilitation, property acquisition, public facilities, infrastructure, parks, public services, accessibility improvements, and the list goes on. The ones that are highlighted in orange here are the ones that we have within our action plan. So that focuses on housing rehabilitation, which is to improve the quality and safety of existing housing. Acquisition of real property, that's to acquire property for eligible activities and community use.

Public facilities and improvements, which is to construct, improve, or expand public facilities. Public services, there is a 15% cap on this, that provides services to address community needs. Homelessness facilities, supportive housing, that creates that supports facilities that address homelessness, and program administration, which really funds the team to do all the work, and that's a 20% cap. So again, every year we work off of our consolidated plan, which is created every 5 years. So at the 5-year level, we can pick any one of these topics to focus on for the next 5 years, and then every year we have to describe how we are going to focus that year's funding on that specific topic.

These topics are decided with community input. They are not necessarily something that we do in a vacuum. We do get a lot of community input when we do put out our annual or our consolidated plan. Excuse me. So really, how does CDBG work?

It's managed by us in the Community Safety and Development team. They like I mentioned earlier, have experienced a lot of turnover within the last couple of years. We have lost a lot of institutional knowledge. A lot of the historical documentation had been in individuals' heads as just time has gone by. And so really what we are working on, we have worked on extensively since Darcy came to the Anchorage Health Department, is to document and create processes that are well defined by role so that everything is documented and so that if we do lose an employee, we have something that they can go off of.

And so really how this works is we receive the funding from HUD that comes directly to the municipality of Anchorage. We create that 5-year Consolidated Plan. Every year we create an Annual Action Plan. We do a competitive funding process. I will say this is an area in which previously— and when I say previously, I want to say probably 5 years ago— that this was not really adhered to by the team.

The team was under the understanding at the time that the federal regulations superseded Anchorage Municipal Code, which is not the case. The competitive funding process has thus been implemented. We work with our grants and contracts team, but also the team itself works on grant agreements and contracts, project monitoring, and we have implemented— and I will go into much detail later on here. But we have implemented systems and projects through Microsoft Office Suite to track these projects. And then again, we have to report out to HUD often.

So understanding CDBG compliance, really what this talks about is we are mandated to follow federal regulations as well as any additional requirements that HUD has on top of the additional requirements that we have while working in the municipality. So everything that goes to Title VII, procurement requirements, any policies and procedures that we have internally to the health department that the municipality has, the requirements that HUD has specifically, that is through their notices and guidance, which those are things that change often, and then obviously all the way up to any additional regulations.

We do obviously, through this audit, have noticed that our documentation was lacking and our overall ability to monitor and assure that the documents and processes were being adhered to. And one of the last things that we have worked on within the last year and a half is continuous improvement and making sure that we do deploy any funding, that it is intentional, that is well thought out,, and that it's really meeting the need of the community. So really the objective that we had was to evaluate the administration of the CDBG program. The scope was just focused on the grant agreements, the contract administration, procurement, monitoring, public participation, reporting, and documentation. That resulted in 9 findings, and we at the Health Department as well as the municipality concurred with the recommendations that internal audit put forth.

And, uh, actually right upon that same day, uh, Darcy met with the team to start putting in corrective actions. So those were initiated immediately.

All right, so the 9 findings, the audit results, um, at a glance. The findings can be categorized into 4 recurring themes. So performance oversight— so the goals were not consistently verified and agreements and requirements were not enforced. Grant agreements and contract management, subrecipient selection agreements were not consistently managed, which is what I mentioned before about procurement. Reporting and public participation, there was one citation in which we did not meet the HUD definition and guidelines to participate in a public process.

And then documentation controls files did not consistently contain the documentation needed that could verify our compliance in which internal audit could review.

And so, uh, the first one that we want to focus on is performance oversight. So our expectations were not consistently tracked, updated, or enforced. These findings include the project deliverables that was meant, penalties were not enforced, and yearly deliverables were not always updated. The pattern showed that goals, due dates, and performance results were not managed through one reliable tracking process. Our escalation enforcement depended on informal follow-up rather than the written procedures.

So when we work through grant— any grant agreement or documentation, there is an ability to send out notification through a process that indicates to the grantee or the contractor that they are not in compliance and that they do have to cure the deficiency within a certain timeframe. Previously, this was all done via emails and telephone calls and not properly documented. And then there was no supervisor review to identify performance risks early enough for timely action. So our response to this was we need to track our deliverables, due dates, and outreach and corrective actions through invoice tracking spreadsheets. Like I mentioned earlier, we did activate the Microsoft Planner.

Sorry, I called it projects before, but it is a planner. Um, and we currently did that in 2025, early 2025. Uh, we're using written monitoring, escalation, amendment, and enforcement procedures. One of the things that is unique within the Anchorage Health Department is that we have a very robust grants and contracts team. But within this CSD team, they manage their own grants and contracts.

And the reason why we have that delineation is because historically The HUD rules were— the HUD knowledge and the HUD regulations stayed with that team. So there wasn't a lot of crossover in training for grants and contracts team. And like I mentioned, additionally, the team was not always adhering to Title VII, which is our procurement process, which our grants and contracts team does very well. We do— we now conduct quality assurance and risk-based file reviews. So our supervisor now has put into place a documented process process for, for reviewing these agreements and contracts for compliance.

The team understands when things are not being adhered to, they need to bring that, escalate that to their supervisor, and then the supervisor would work with that individual in order to make sure that we are doing this timely and accurately. And then our project managers— so we have, uh, 2 project managers, and we have a planner on the team, and we have an outreach coordinator. The project managers will develop quarterly compliance reports for program— for the program manager to review starting Q1 of 2027. I have some, I think, questions that are more specific to the individual findings and timelines as laid out in the audit, but I think I might just hold those until the end and then we can do them all rapid fire rather than trying to— there's first. So yeah, any other questions from— yeah, uh, please.

I guess I wanted this— probably, um, feel free to say you'll get to it. Uh, it seems like kind of a lot of the findings here are related to process. You mentioned like putting something out for public comment, etc. I guess I'd be curious now or later if you can highlight, you know, is that the general theme? Because I know there is a lot of process to follow Or I know this is, you know, funding that goes to organizations.

I just want to be clear too, you know, are we talking about findings that are mostly related to the processes we have to follow, or is it, you know, that there was some grant at some point that, you know, was outside of the scope of what CDBG allows or things like that? So if answering now doesn't make sense, that's fine, but that's what I'm looking for because my assumption is that there's not going to be a lot of those where they went to a place that it shouldn't have. And I know that funds are really hard to use, that's another discussion, but anyway, I just want to kind of put that on the table. Thanks. That is correct.

None of the funds or what was cited in the audit had to do with CDBG funds going to a non-eligible project. All of them were process-based within the team, that there was an overall lack of really adherence to any processes and documented policies that they were following internally. Okay, okay, thanks. And obviously those are important to understand and correct going forward. I just want to make sure that's Thanks.

So the grant agreement contract management was another item that was cited. So everything from monitoring requirements were missing. We had two property acquisition agreements submitted required continued use and monitoring provisions. We had a procurement process that was not documented, so we couldn't— the internal auditor could not verify if there was an unbiased eligible compliant selection of 4 subrecipients, meaning we did not go out to competitive procurement for those. And agreements were not allowed— were allowed to expire.

So 4 of the 6 sampled agreements expired, some repeatedly, before being restarted by an amendment. So really what happens when you have a contract or a grant agreement, we have to follow that very closely. So when it does expire, we either activate an extension or we activate an amendment before it expires, and if allowable under that specific grant agreement or contract. In this case, one was almost a year later before it was— before an amendment was put into place. So we have now worked on tracking these more clearly and timely in order to make sure that that does not occur, because obviously that you cannot allow something to expire and then decide months later, up to a year later, that you're going to complete an amendment.

So the agreement controls did not consistently cover the full lifecycle from solicitation to renewal to closeout. The templates and files did not always establish that federal, municipal, and program requirements were met. Expiration dates and required contract actions were not reliably elevated for management's attention. And so we now standardized our solicitation selection records and agreement put into place agreement templates and pre-execution review. So now any disbursement of funds out of either CDBG, HOME, or ESG goes through Title VII, so a competitive process, whether that's an RFP, an RFP, an ITB, anything that is allowed in Title VII.

That is the process that we are following. We are now tracking the agreement terms, amendments, and responsibilities with expiration dates case, like I mentioned, to assure that we do not let things expire and then decide later on to amend that contract or that grant agreement. And then we're using our quarterly compliance reports, the program manager, to approve before the execution or renewal.

All right, so reporting and public participation. Um, the first of 4 required hearings for the 2024 Annual Action Plan was not noticed or conducted. It was an oversight by the team. Per HUD, we have to not only notice it in the newspaper, which as you can imagine is becoming not so popular anymore, but we are required per HUD to notice that publicly on our website. We also do it through the HAN Commission, and then we also put it in the newspaper.

Part of that process is we have to document that in the file. And so for the 2024 Annual Action Plan, we missed the first of that process. We had done subsequent ones, but we never could show that we actually conducted the first one. And really what those public hearings are, as you probably imagine, are to get the public's input on how we should spend these funds and which of those categories that still meet our consolidated plan that we need to focus on for that upcoming year. And then 95 of 101 individual monthly reports for subrecipient agreements reviewed.

Had requirements that were not fully followed. So the reports were missing, they were partial, they were late, they were undated. And so really what this comes down to is that compliance deadlines were not consistently scheduled, tracked, and supported by complete evidence. Missing or incomplete submissions did not always trigger documented follow-ups and enforcement. And management review did not consistently verify compliance with agreements of rules in the citizen participation plan.

So now we are tracking every hearing and report deadline, recipient dates, compliance, and follow-up actions. We maintain those notices, agendas, attendance, submission as evidence to put in each of those files, and then we use reminders. Like I mentioned before, when you have a non-compliant grantee or contractor, the proper way that we are supposed to notify that contractor or grantee is through a notice secure, and that outlines what they are not in compliance with and to give them a set timeframe, usually 30 days, to comply. If they do not comply within 30 days of that noticing, then we can move forward with potential contract termination. However, in the past, the team was either not doing this and the, the agreements were expiring, or they were informally doing it through conversations, which is not the proper process.

Document controls. Um, and so the next theme is the files did not consistently contain the documents needed to verify compliance. 4 Out of 8 reviewed files had missing or untimely documentation. One 2023 agreement file contained only 3 of the 9 required documents to make it compliant. So the— what it resulted in is missing records prevented CSC from consistently verifying the compliance.

Agreements could proceed before all the required documentation was received and approved, meaning there is a certain process that takes place in which we have to— when you go through Title VII and you work with the purchasing department, you have to follow certain tasks before the item can even be executed or in queue to purchasing. An example of that would be updated COI, which is a certificate of insurance, which meets the contractual needs. And there was incomplete files, limited monitoring, and audit review. We have now used a standardized documentation checklist for this, in which each of the planners or each of the managers as well as the program manager uses this to make sure that everything is in process before it finally gets executed so that there are no delays. And everything is complete.

We require complete documentation before the agreement is executed, as notated in that checklist, and then we conduct quality assurance review before execution and then during the monitoring.

So really what this all results in, we needed to have more management controls within the team, so we need to be able to track and escalate the issues We need to standardize our processes. We need to review all of our documents before they are submitted. And we need to maintain complete records and conduct risk-based file reviews. This is— when we do receive funds from the federal government, it really is very broad in nature in stating that the municipality or the entity receiving the funds essentially has to abide by their own rules. In order to execute those funds.

And so our own rules are the municipality, which is governed through Title VII policies and procedures, whether those are AHD policies and procedures or, uh, municipal policies and procedures.

So the audit provided a clear path for us, uh, towards stronger, more consistent CDBG administration. Um, we identified our gaps as seen in the audit itself. We put in corrective actions. So as stated in the audit itself, um, we had put— we have stated that we had worked, or we would put into place in August. Um, I am happy to say that all of our comments that are in the audit have been put into place.

Um, and then the last thing is that we need to sustain these results and so that we can make them effective practices for the team. And so one of the things that I think is really important to highlight with, with what the work that internal audit does is that they can always come out 6 months later and complete a follow-up audit. And I would just have to request that through Alden, which I think is a great idea. And what the internal audit team would do is they would look at those 9 findings specifically and see if we are in compliance. I would assume that the documentation would have come out the same way, um, through a report.

And all the Michigan said yes.

Um, so what, uh, we have through slides, um, 16 on is just the detailed audit findings, supporting detail in the 9 findings, corrective actions, and ongoing maintenance or monitoring. Um, and then we also at the bottom there, uh, if you click on the Return to Summary, it actually brings you back to the previous slides, of which we have documented topics that we have spoken about. So any questions? And I'm sure there will be lots of questions. So I'm prepared.

Well, first, I think you, you get the unofficial award for most comprehensive presentation to date at an audit committee meeting. So thank you for that. And the hyperlinks between, um, the audit findings and the body of the presentation is really handy. So kudos to whoever, um, put that little treat in there. Uh, do I have any questions from members at this point?

Go ahead, Miss Cow. Yeah, thank you. Um, apologies if I missed this. So you mentioned the 5-year planning cycle. Where are we at in that right now?

So our current Consolidated Plan goes until 2027. So next year we will start the next 5-year process, and then we are putting forth our Annual Action Plan. So Annual Action Plans are due— Annual Action Plans are due every year by August. Consolidated Plan is due at the same time in August to HUD. Thank.

You. Um, and then A second question related to the 9 findings.

Does under— does like non-compliance impact our ability to receive or compete for funds from HUD, or are they just letting us know that we missed the mark? So that's a great question. So if we were to receive a non-compliance from HUD themselves, yes, that would— HUD could potentially withhold funds from the municipality. With this internal audit, since this is all documentation in compliance with local regulations, it could, yes, potentially, because then potentially it could lead all the way up to a HUD finding. We do also, as a notation, as a side note and a side journey for another time, but CDBG does require a spend down every year.

We have to meet that by the end of by mid-October to end of October. And so November 2nd is when they look at how much we have spent. If you do not meet that spend ratio, HUD will first give you kind of a slap on the wrist and say you need to start spending your money. The second violation would be you have to attend particular trainings by HUD. The third violation is then they withhold the funds.

I will also mention that we do not receive as much funding as we probably should for a state our size. And so that becomes ever more important to really remain in compliance and receive all of the funding we can get from HUD. One of the things that we also try to do is apply for every type of HUD funding we can to show HUD that we have tried all of these arenas of all of the funding opportunities and it's still not enough to to meet the need. I will tell you that the funds that we receive annually does not meet the need, and it continually is dwindling down. I have one more question, if that's okay.

Um, with these, both the annual and the 5-year plans, is there room for flexibility in these plans, um, to adapt and respond to public response through the public engagement process? That's a great question. So with the Consolidated Plan, since the topics which I showed earlier on are very broad in nature, we stick with those for the 5 years. However, every year you can change and pivot the work that you're doing that still meets that category. And so you see those through substantial amendments.

So those actually come to the body and you approve them when we need to move funding from one area to another area. As long as they still stay within the categories as listed in the Consolidated Plan. So let's say, for instance, we needed to move funds to do a new project starting, you know, in 2 months. The team would then put together a substantial amendment to say we're going to move— we have extra funds over here that may not be used as of yet, we're going to move it to this category. And then we have to explain to you all through assembly documentation, what we're doing and why we're doing it.

In addition to that, you always have to have a public comment period if it is over a threshold of funding. And so that has to happen before. That is a 30-day process. So when you— we do move funds, it's not quick, um, just because it does require those extra steps in it, which makes sense, um, considering these are federal funds and not Anything else? Thank you.

Other questions from members?

Okay, well, um, you're shocked, I'm sure. I have a bunch. Um, so I think I just like to sort of run through, um, some of the, uh, some of the individual findings and get a little slightly more granular about what has actually happened in the intervening time since since this audit was completed in June. So first, were the monitoring escalation and enforcement procedures finalized by August? They were.

Awesome. Yes. Fantastic. How many, how many units has the mobile home repair subrecipient completed in 2026 to date? In other words, 12 as of March 31st.

And are they being measured against the goal of 20 or the goal of 40?

Okay, uh, so there are— we have completed 16 environmental reviews, which is the first step of that process. Um, 9 are currently in environmental review and 25 have been completed. Um, 25. Environmental reviews have been completed, or. 25 Repairs have been completed, and that is against 40 units.

Thank you. Um, is, um, was there any— was, was the withholding clause applied to that model?

Darcy's going to answer this question.

Thank you, Chair. Um, one thing I would like to explain is when we were doing the audit, it did look like we had only done 1 or 12 of the homes, depending on how you look at it. However, I think as we were looking into it it's more expansive than that, um, as Kim explained with the environmental reviews. So there's different steps to the process. So the 25 have been done.

To answer your question in terms of any withholdings, we are a reimbursable program, and so we don't pay out before anything's done. And since we didn't meet that timeliness this, in accordance with our changes that we have made, we will be withholding some administrative costs at the end of their thing depending on what they have missed timely. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think so. Um, yes, that.

Makes sense. Thank you. Um, one, one follow-up there. So was there another secure letter that was that has been sent to that subrecipient? No.

Okay, have we, have we needed to send any notice to cure letters out? We do. I think we have sent out one or two, is what I'm aware of, to a subrecipient, so a grantee.

Yes. And have we had any requests for for legal services sent to— sent to what? Sent to DOL, like as a follow-up to the notice to cure. Like, have we needed to go—. Oh.

No. Okay. Uh, and have we— have there been any penalties or withholdings applied by CSD since June 15th? No, not going back. Okay.

Cool. And does the, does the written procedure for monitoring escalation and enforcement, is there a distinction made as to when a penalty is mandatory versus discretionary?

So in each agreement, um, we have set forth the stipulations and also depending on the funding source, there are some instances that are defined as just cause in the agreements, and we follow those. Gotcha. So that would be sort of the mandatory— Excellent. Okay. I think— I'm trying to keep my questions is sort of bucketed.

I think there was a, there was a, some comments about option periods and that we would be discontinuing option periods. Has that, has that actually happened? Yes. Fantastic. Yes, it has.

So really what we are going towards and what we have implemented is we use, if we need to, it's utilize an option period, we have to put that in the original grant agreement or contract. We can't just decide after the fact that we're going to have option years. Option years are also, as you know, with any contract or grant agreement that we have, is based on funding, which does need to be approved by the body. So, um, these contracts and these grant agreements are now adhering to our normal everyday AHD processes. Yay for consistency.

Um, there— I think there were a couple of subrecipients that have just repeatedly amended agreements. Have those been updated with new year-by-year goals? Uh, we are currently working on those at this time, um, and continuing to figure out if we need to end those agreements and go back out for competitive procurement as stated in the audit itself. But the team's currently working on that. Cool, so that's in progress.

Um, and circling back just briefly, has the mobile home repair agreement actually been formally amended to reflect the new goals and funding for 2026?

Hold on, let me see.

And thank you for tolerating the loud sirens. No, you're fine.

So the team is working— sorry, the team is working on, uh, they have a plan to put the amendment in place, um, and then the indication is to extend the performance period to 2027. So it has not been done yet. Gotcha. Um, so that will— but that will be a formal amendment that will extend through— and yes, by 2027. Okay.

Um, and then Is that one of the two repeatedly amended agreements, or is— are there two others that also need to update?

I believe it was theirs repeatedly. Um, Dalton may be able to answer that question if there was.

Yeah, I believe it was, um I believe it was the organization repeatedly, but the adult doesn't have that. We can find that for you. Yeah, that would be— happy to get a follow-up email on that.

Um, is the review of existing agreements for procurement compliance complete? Yes. Awesome. Did we have any corrective actions that we needed to take as a result of that review. Yes.

And how are we doing on those?

We have met with grantees. We found that it would be important to do resets. So we've met in person and reconveyed expectations, updated our agreements, And then we're following up with our quarterly reports, and as those are going across, which Jed will be starting to review quarterly, like at-risk reviews and program compliance, but the information is given to the program manager by the project managers, at which time we'll follow through with the Notice to Cure following requests for legal services. And do we have an idea of how many grantees are still out of procurement compliance at this point? I believe there was 3 or 4.

And do we have a— do we have a timeline for when we're hoping to have all of our— all of our grantees and procurement to Mike's? I would say I would hope for, uh, January 1st, the start of a new year. Um, but I also know that the team is working very, uh, fast on some other large projects, and so, um, trying to make sure that we still really focus on that, uh, first and foremost, but then balance the expectations of the other projects that are coming at us.

Matt, is That is the way it goes, isn't it? How many things can we juggle? I think then, let's see, the two property acquisition agreements that lacked the real property use language, have those agreements and templates been updated? Yes. Awesome.

Have both of those been amended to add the 5-year national objective use requirement?

I would say no because we were looking for it, so I assume the answer No, we have not put the language in it as of yet.

And is there, is there a plan to include that in the template? Yes, for the next go, the next go around. Yes. Excellent. Do we have at this point a pre-execution checklist that really consolidates on the basis of federal, state, and local provisions.

Yes, we did. Cool. And who— how does that flow and who signs off on it now? Yes, so each of the— like I mentioned, we have two project managers. They have the checklist, they start the checklist.

That checklist then goes to another individual on the team. Right now we are using our outreach coordinator, does a review. Then once that review is completed, it goes to the program manager, which is supervisor, for the final review. And then if there is still some hesitancy on which direction to go to, it then goes to Darcy's attention. And then if there is additional information or hesitancy on something, it would come to my review.

We have not had it escalate past the internal group at this time for any things that we're working on currently. Gotcha. Thank you. So I think the last question I have is with respect to, I think, process management. I'm curious, it sounds like your Microsoft Planner has been sort of used as this tracking and management tool.

Is that really like a unified tool now that's being used to sort of manage CDBG? Yeah, so, um, it did require some training because the staff had never used Microsoft Planner, so it did take a little while for the team to all get on board. Some were more savvy with the system than others. However, it is tracking all of our projects regardless of CDBG, HOME, or ESG is handled elsewhere, but any other funds that we get. So CDBG-CV, which is COVID funding, everything is now tracked in that planner, and it has the timeline and then they are required to look at that on a daily basis as part of the workload.

Gotcha. And so do— is that both managing the funds that are coming in and the funds that are being granted out, or are those happening in two different places? Well, the funds are a whole different topic in that we, uh, we did put in a request for internal audit to review the funds side because, as I mentioned, IBIS does not always sync up to SAP, and So there's oftentimes, more than often, those two are not melding well together. But for the projects themselves, that is what is in Planner. And so the funds are in a separate system.

Then we have the Project Planner that says we have these funds, we did an RFP, and Sally Sue's organization was selected. And then that goes into the Planner, and then that starts the timelines moving forward. And so right now it will always be two different assistants. And we do have one thing to notate, we do have a full-time senior accountant, senior staff accountant that is paid out of HUD funds that handle our HUD funds and reconciliation of those. Well, thank.

You. Yeah, I know implementing new project management tools is never as straightforward as we want it to be, right? So are there any processes at this point that are actually being managed manually, or, or is everything sort of moving into this more automated, more automated tool where it's maybe a little bit easier to see deadlines and due dates and needed interfaces with grantees and those sorts of things? Yes, I would say everything is in that process. One of the things we mentioned in our last presentation in the health and homelessness was the new software that we were trying to obtain called Neighborly, which will additionally help us on projects.

But everything that was previously manually done in a file folder has now been, at least digitally, is being tracked. And so there's a lot less need for paper tracking.

Yay! Welcome to the 21st century. Very cool. Um, let's see, I think that is— I think that is all of my— actually, I lied to you. Um, there were 4 subrecipients that were selected in 2021-23, uh, that audit couldn't verify how they were chosen or how selected, and some of them are still funded.

Are those foresight recipients still receiving CDBG funds at this point? And if not, what's the pathway? Are we resoliciting? Are we doing a new RFP? Like, what's the pathway?

Are we resoliciting? Are we doing a new RFP? What's the path? So they are not receiving the funds, and kind of like what Darcy mentioned before, we are reimbursable. So we have to be invoiced for an active contract or active agreement in order to pay that invoice.

So those ones are not, and so those funds are still held in an account, and so we do still have to figure out what we are doing with those funds in order to move those to a category that we would need.

That's fun. Okay, thank you. Um, no, plus no additional No questions from me on this item. Anything else from other members?

Okay, thank you so much for all the work that you've done to address all of the things, um, and please keep us posted as to how things transpire. Yeah, thank you so much. Have a great day. All right, next item, AF 2026-132, Pre-Sunset Reporting Requirements for Boards and Commissions. Who gets to take this one?

All right, Jessica. Thanks. Um, I don't have anything formal or official prepared, but wanted to socialize this idea and proposal, um, with this group before we have it on our agenda. I believe it's on the November 4th agenda, um, along with a few other things. So The idea for this proposal came from, um, really just looking through my binders over the past 6 months and seeing a lot of these very thorough and well-done, um, sunset reports that we typically just accept into the record, um, and I think take a significant amount of capacity from the auditor's office while we are also, um, in my time on the assembly, have tasked them with some other big projects as well that I'd love for them to be able to prioritize.

So I spoke with, um, our auditor, Alden Thurn, about this idea Um, sounded like there was broad support. Would love for him to talk a little bit more, um, about, yeah, his thoughts about this. But thought it could be worthwhile for us to consider changing our, our approach, um, thinking about these boards and commissions and really, um, the amount of time it takes to audit them versus, you know, I think we could learn the same information in more efficient ways, particularly by having them submit reports themselves about their work. And if they're delinquent in reports, I think that also is data for us about how those commissions are functioning. So yeah, Alden, would love to get your take here and hear from our colleagues too.

Welcome, Ms. Taylor. Please introduce yourself, and, uh, we'd love to. Hear. Thank you. I kind of lost my voice.

I didn't get into town until 3 o'clock this morning, so I'm a little gravelly from flying back from Europe. And if you noticed, there was a little plane incident in Chicago yesterday where the tires blew out and everybody had to be evacuated. That was my plane. So anyway, thank you for having me in. I'm glad to be here.

Pleasure to have you. Through the chair to Member Stout's comments, yes, we've kind of talked about this topic for some time now. At least threw it out there as a possibility. For your memory, we're on like a 10-6-3 schedule. There's approximately 19 to 20 different sunset audits that we do over a 3-year period.

Next year is the big year, the one that we have 10. We did an estimate, I think, for the assembly, for a couple months ago, it's taken between 40 and 50 hours of staff time for each sunset audit. So we're looking at between 400 and 500 hours of time next year to be able to do these. These reports are in code, so we obviously, you know, we're doing what we're required to do. But I think it really just comes down to, is this the, the best use of time of internal staff department resources.

Where, as Kim just mentioned, we did have a financial CDBG we were supposed to be doing this year. That, that did not happen. So you just asked questions about the revenue side, and we didn't get a chance to do that. So that one is being kicked probably into the next year. So when we're doing these, these particular sunset audits, they are timely.

I will tell you that the challenges this is similar to some of the other things that we do. You're asking us to go back and look at what's happened in these committees for the last 3 years, um, and then make the decision whether or not you keep them or not. Well, in my opinion, you know, if they did something wrong or didn't meet a year, 2, 3 years ago, it's— what are you going to do about it now? It's not as timely as you need it to be able to, to look at to create action, create things that you want them to be working on and meeting. It's such a delayed time period.

You know, we struggle, the ones we did this year, half of them, the people on the committee or the secretary wasn't employed anymore, didn't know about, we were going to contractors at the port to try to figure out what happened in meetings. You're asking for something that's such a long time in the past to put in there. It is challenging, and that's what takes a lot of time of our tracking to be able to come up with a report that we can say with all honesty, this is indeed what happened or what occurred with that particular committee. If there's, in my opinion, if there's a way to get the committee to do it on an annual basis, you can ask for the exact same things or modify whatever topics you want. Then you're getting more current information from the committees and you'll know, are they meeting?

Are they fully staffed? Are they doing anything? Are they meeting the public notice requirements things that you're getting from us now, 3 years after the fact, and nothing's going to happen to those things. So if they're done more currently, I think that would be, be a help to the assembly. And then as you're looking at them, you can be making determinations.

Is this committee really doing good work? Do we want to keep them in the same task? Maybe we want to direct them to focus something a little bit more this coming year. So you have a little bit more flexibility. Those are just the conversations that I've had with different assembly members with regards to these reports.

And, and there have been ones that I know prior to me being the internal auditor where we recommended that the committee, because they hadn't been meeting, go away. And the assembly is like, yeah, we're not going to do that, we're going to keep them anyway. So then you're actually with a report that, that we spent spent a fair amount of time on that was of little to no value to the assembly members at that point in time in their making decisions. So I guess we're just throwing out ideas of ways to, one, be efficient, focus on higher priority, maybe things, or things that might have a bigger impact, as well the same for the, for the internal audit team, as well at the same time, is there a way of providing the committees to enable them to provide the Assembly more timely information that you can learn what they're working on and make, make more recent decisions on the success of each committee that you want to have reports back on. And as you've seen here, this was, I think, member Scout's efforts at working with law to put forward something that you can look at and review and discuss and say, is this a direction that the assembly has a desire to go?

And that's what you basically have, have it, have it for you at this particular point to consider. Thank you, Mr. Thurn. It is 2 o'clock. Is there anyone here for audience participation? Okay, and I'm going to ask the committee to extend until 2:05.

Is that all Do we have any questions for Mr. Thurn or Ms. Kapp? Yes, go ahead, Member Raulston. Yeah, I'll try to be brief. So I just want to put a few comments on the record. First is, I appreciate looking at this.

We had a little discussion about it earlier. I think the big, big question that this is not going to address by itself, but we should all keep in mind, is how many boards and commissions should we have? Because they all have a cost— staff cost, time cost, volunteer effort. And so that's a big question And I'll mention in the record there's an AIF from a while ago I helped compile with staff, and it's a list of all the boards and commissions. There's like 40 of them.

It has their code sites, you know, what— whether they're advisory or not, what they do. So I would say that's a reference if you're looking at the whole big picture, because I've been trying to reduce the number of boards even though I've also been involved in creating new ones. But I think that's another— so it's parallel to this discussion, but the question of how much resources does the municipality put toward boards and commissions organizations is a really big question. So this is one piece that I think— my comments specifically, just to run through very briefly, I think it's important to remember the mayor's office manages most boards and commissions. And so I see, for example, the clerk notifying the assembly and mayor— you know, we have our sun sunree authorization.

Consider where the mayor's office fits into that because they're the ones who are managing most of these boards. They are staffing them. They're in departments often, but the mayor's office is in charge of most appointments. And then there are some that sit with the assembly slash the clerk. So I think that's, um, that's just a comment there, not necessarily with D, but just in general.

Similarly, you know, in terms of who's preparing this report, the vacancies and things, I think slotting in either mayor's office or clerk as part of preparing that in addition to the board members. I also know some boards do have required annual reports that are done by the chair of the board, so they don't go through the whole board or commission election process. So that's something to consider as well, um, not instead of this, but just that exists for some and not others. And then also just to note, in that there's a note here, number 7, with minutes. To my knowledge, most boards and commissions do not keep minutes.

They do keep a recording of their meetings, so usually that's on YouTube. For example, Budget Advisory Commission, we never had minutes. We did have a recording of the meeting, so there's a record. So I think that's something also to think about just in terms of how specific the language is. So sorry, just an info dump on all of this, but those are my thoughts just for— because I support the concept of this, but that's some things just to think about, kind of making sure the language is accurate.

Thanks. Or not accurate, but speaks to kind of how things work. Cool. So maybe we change that for someone to say records or recordings. Yeah, yeah.

Very small kind of small tweaks to this. Thanks. Any other comments from members? All right, um, thank you, Ms. Scout, for your— or Member Scout for your work on a more efficient, efficient procurement process.

Um, let's move to audience participation. I don't know if we're—. Just one final comment. Um, I welcome co-sponsors on this, right?

Mr. Lopez, or do you like your mom? Oh, my dog. Yeah, I thought somebody was emotionless at that time. Nope, I think that was the parting shot. All right, all right, apologies, you know, it was long.

So, uh, Chugach State Park, um, where do I go with this? So, um, Miss Radhika survived the fireman squads, uh, Mr. Thurn survived the tarmac, um, Miss Erin Baldwin Day is still looking for a Gantt chart, and you know, um, Mr. Paulsy checked out, I think I think he thought he was going to get radiation poisoning from standing too close to me. So anyways, uh, interesting presentation from CUPG. Um, I don't know everything about it, but I'm learning. And so it was nice, it was informative.

Uh, since we're talking about boards and commissions and this one, so I learned long ago advisory boards and commissions are nice. If you say the right thing, you know, you get a pat on the head and a cookie and a thumbs up. If you do not say the right thing, you've just created an enemy and people ignore you. And so typically there is not shared power within the throne. The people above you have to be receptive to what you're saying, and it just sometimes— it's at least not some— got a small story, maybe I fit it in 2 minutes.

So spring 2024, I'm taking 130-150 meals over to Chugach State Park, National Aircraft Slot, and a sheriff short-brained me down, and more or less That's where it goes from here, is she was trying to get me to testify before the House Intelligence Intelligence Committee report, and at that point in time it was a pet project of Felix Rivera. I was sort of standing up, I think, in fall of 2023, right around November, December, and then at last, and it just disappeared. Again, this is from March, and so more or less they told her the same thing. It just, you know, there just doesn't seem to be enough time. They talked for a few hours.

About things. And then, uh, out of pure curiosity, you know, months later, it's around December 2024, uh, I just decided to check the video and it was stopped. And around May, April last year, I think, happened this thing. It's only there 5, 6 months and it just disappeared. And so I gave her a call up and asked a question, and she told me, uh, basically that two members basically sending emails to people right now.

I think I said, uh, thank you very much for your time, we appreciate, uh, your service, uh, but we no longer need you. And then so a little bit after, around April, May, uh, two former assembly members. And then you get into July 30th, and I went to an assembly meeting and watched this play out where, uh, Mr. Mullins and Ms. Zolotow were debating the finer merits of an electric assisted scooter policy. And the one guy in the room who sort of had a nice comment was Zac Johnson, "Force equals mass times acceleration. He sort of got it, but he didn't get it out in passes.

I wanted to shoot myself." And he gets to the end, and they basically disbanded the House of Slope experience device report in all of 5 minutes. And again, I'm like, "What the heck happened?" So the only thing that I could think of is it was a political vehicle. It served its purpose until Paul Bronson retired, and then it just disappeared because somebody questioned policy. Policies that may or may not move forward. They may not like what those people have to say.

And again, advisory boards typically do not have a lot of power. So, uh, sorry, political football. Thank you very much for your time. I'll let you go.

Thank you very much. All right, um, it is 2:07. We are adjourned. Thank you all for being here.