Louisiana Public Defender Board BUDGET COMMITTEE Monday, June 15, 2020 2:00 p.m. Zoom 1 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88502913089 AGENDA 1. Call to Order and Comments by Chairman, Donald North 2. Adoption of the Agenda* pg. 107 3. Call for Public Comment 4. Adoption the Minutes, May 21, 2020* pgs. 108-113 5. Financial Report as of May 31, 2020* pgs. 114-118 6. Solvency Projections pg. 119 a. Current Needs* i. District 22 (St. Tammany/Washington Parishes) - $51,825 ii. District 34 (St. Bernard Parish) - $8,375 iii. District 35 (Grant Parish) - $8,171 7. DAF - FY21* pgs. 120-126 8. FY20 Contracts Cancellation* 9. FY 20 Year End Scrub* pg. 127 a. SPD Recommendation* 10. FY21 Professional and Consulting Contracts pg. 128 a. SPD Recommendation* 11. Miller-Montgomery Contract Proposal, FY21 a. SPD Plan pgs. 129-134 a. Funding of Cases 12. Next Meeting 13. Adjournment* 1 This meeting is being held by Zoom video-conference pursuant to Executive Proclamation 75 JBE 2020 Section 2(C). 107
28
Embed
Louisiana Public Defender Board BUDGET COMMITTEElpdb.la.gov/Meetings/txtfiles/pdf/Budget_Committee/Z...Louisiana Public Defender Board BUDGET COMMITTEE Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:00
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Louisiana Public Defender Board BUDGET COMMITTEE
Monday, June 15, 2020 2:00 p.m.
Zoom1 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88502913089
AGENDA 1. Call to Order and Comments by Chairman, Donald North
2. Adoption of the Agenda* pg. 107
3. Call for Public Comment
4. Adoption the Minutes, May 21, 2020* pgs. 108-113
5. Financial Report as of May 31, 2020* pgs. 114-118
6. Solvency Projections pg. 119 a. Current Needs*
i. District 22 (St. Tammany/Washington Parishes) - $51,825ii. District 34 (St. Bernard Parish) - $8,375iii. District 35 (Grant Parish) - $8,171
7. DAF - FY21* pgs. 120-126
8. FY20 Contracts Cancellation*
9. FY 20 Year End Scrub* pg. 127 a. SPD Recommendation*
10. FY21 Professional and Consulting Contracts pg. 128 a. SPD Recommendation*
11. Miller-Montgomery Contract Proposal, FY21a. SPD Plan pgs. 129-134 a. Funding of Cases
12. Next Meeting
13. Adjournment*
1 This meeting is being held by Zoom video-conference pursuant to Executive Proclamation 75 JBE 2020 Section 2(C). 107
1. A meeting of the Budget Committee of the Louisiana Public Defender Board,pursuant to lawful notice, was duly convened and called to order by ProfessorDonald North on Thursday, May 21, 2020, via Zoom video-conference (see footnote),at approximately 2:00 p.m.
The following committee members were present:
Donald North, Chairman Flozell Daniels Mike Ginart Chaz Roberts Lyn Lawrence
The following members of the Board’s staff were present:
Rémy Voisin Starns, State Public Defender Barbara Baier, General Counsel Natashia Carter, Budget Officer Jean Faria, Capital Case Coordinator Anne Gwin, Executive Assistant Richard Pittman, Deputy Public Defender, Dir. of Juvenile Defender Services Tiffany Simpson, Juvenile Compliance Officer/Legislative Director Erik Stilling, I.T. Director
2. Adoption of the Agenda. Mr. Flozell Daniels moved to adopt the agendawhich was seconded by Mr. Mike Ginart and passed unopposed.
3. Call for Public Comment. No one presented for public comment at this time.
4. Adoption the Minutes, April 28, 2020. Mr. Chaz Roberts moved to adopt theMinutes of the April 28, 2020 meeting, seconded by Mr. Daniels and passedunopposed.
5. Financial Report. Budget Administrator Natashia Carter gave the financialreport as of April 30, 2020. She indicated $37,519,578 expended or encumbered;
1 This meeting is being held via a ZOOM video-conference pursuant to Executive Proclamation 59-JBE-2020, Section 2(C). 108
$1,931,749 expected to be spent by the end of the fiscal year; and, $1,057,655 available for reallocation. She clarified that of the funds available for reallocation only $567,136 is actually available at this time. Ms. Carter has submitted a request to the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) for the balance of $490,519 in personal services monies to be released for reallocation to the districts. Ms. Carter clarified that those monies are unspent funds from salaries, other compensation and related benefits from the unfilled statutory positions. She indicated permission from OPB is required before those funds can be used for any other purpose. If the funds are not released, and the statutory positions remain unfilled, the monies would go unused. Mr. Daniels asked if OPB is given specific information which districts are getting how much would improve the likelihood of obtaining the release. Ms. Carter indicated that it would. Professor North expressed concern using funds allocated for a specific reason being used for something else. Ms. Carter clarified that the $490,000 is a fraction of the funding to be disbursed between now and the end of the fiscal year and is separate from the $1.4M remaining in DAF funds which comes from the exigency or the residual funds. Professor North indicated he would want a recommendation on the use of the funds from SPD Starns and Ms. Carter.
Mr. Daniels urged that the Budget Committee support the SPD’s recommendation as far as getting the approval from OPB in order to move forward. He expressed concern that the money could be lost if not spent. Ms. Carter clarified that the unspent monies would be taken into account when the next fiscal year appropriation is given -- the unspent funds would go to support the LPDB budget for the next fiscal year.
Chairman Holthaus reminded everyone of the Board’s recent certification of an emergency funding situation that has been brought to the attention of the Chief Justice and how that has served in the past to protect the agency against clawback of funds.
Mr. Mike Ginart moved that staff make a recommendation as to how to reallocate the personal services money for review and vote by the whole Board at the next Board meeting. Mr. Lyn Lawrence seconded the motion. Clarification was made that the amount being discussed for reallocation is $490,519 remaining in personal services. Upon oral vote, the motion passed unopposed.
6. FY 20a. Solvency Projections. Dr. Stilling gave a detailed explanation of thesolvency projections to better assist the Committee with immediate needsallocations.b. Immediate Needs. SPD Starns reported that funds were disbursed toDistrict 11 (Sabine Parish), District 13 (Evangeline Parish), District 25(Plaquemines Parish) and District 37 (Caldwell Parish) pursuant to BudgetCommittee and Board directives at the last meetings. District 41 (OrleansParish) District Defender Derwyn Bunton reported his district will need$225,000 by mid-June as his district cannot go to zero fund which would risklosing grant funding. No funds were approved for disbursal at this time.
7. District Defender Salary – District 29. SPD Starns reported that the Boardhired Mr. Fenwick Swann as the District Defender for District 29 (St. Charles 109
Parish) at the last meeting but did not set his salary. Mr. Starns is recommending Mr. Swann’s annual salary of $95,000. Professor North inquired if that salary is consistent with other districts’. Mr. Starns confirmed that it is. Mr. Lyn Lawrence moved to adopt the recommendation and Mr. Daniels seconded the motion. Upon vote, the motion carried without opposition.
8. Districtsa. COVID 19 – District Needs/LCLE Grant Update. Dr. Tiffany Simpsonreported that the LCLE application is still not available; however, thestatewide survey results came back at $40M. There is only $8M available forallocation. She reported that staff will re-send the survey for district needs inorder to complete the application timely. She indicated it is possible that theacceptable uses for the money may have changed but districts should includeoffice cleaning, PPE – items originally asked for -- and that lost revenuescannot be included. Mr. Daniels urged all districts to put in their requests.She also reported money from the CARES Act in the amount of $800,000,000is available to local districts for application.b. DAF – FY 21. SPD Starns report he continues to work on the DAFwith districts and Dr. Stilling but there is a great deal of uncertainty. Heexpects a special session in June.c. FY21 District Contracts. SPD Starns reported the district contractswill be the same format as last year’s but he is working on a more concisecontract that is more in line with the statute.d. Salary Increase Request – District 40. SPD Starns reported thatDistrict Defender Richard Stricks has requested a salary increase. Once staffhas had the opportunity to meet the requirements of the protocol, he willcome back to the Committee/Board with a recommendation. DistrictDefender Stricks addressed the Committee. He indicated he has had thesame salary for the last decade, but given the recent fiscal environment of hisdistrict and the state he would withdraw his request until a later date. Hedid indicate he would ask that the committee consider an amendment to hisrequest to include less work hours – from 40 to 30 -- to be included in hiscontract. Professor North directed staff to assess District 40 (St. John theBaptist Parish) and place the issue of reinstatement of funding to thatdistrict on the next budget agenda. Mr. Chaz Roberts indicated that theCommittee would look at the ability to increase his salary but he is not sureof the protocol on how many hours that the Committee can mandate work onthe contract. He indicated that the SPD would have to decide if he could gethis work done within the time he is willing to put in. Mr. Stricks indicatedhe could get his work done in 30 hours – going to jail twice a week, going tocourt, court appearances. Now he has a staff of well-qualified lawyers to dothat. He can perform all the services of the chief defender that the contractrequires in 30 hours – less time than he is putting in now. Mr. Robertsencouraged him to bring his request back to the Committee at a later date forfurther consideration.e. Revocation of MOU (Draft). SPD Starns reported that he has receiveda letter signed by several district defenders exercising a clause in theirMemorandum of Understanding with LCCR withdrawing their consent tohave LCCR to handle Miller and Montgomery cases. He indicated he hasinformed LCCR Director Aaron Clark-Rizzio. He stated that he has asked 110
Mr. Clark-Rizzio for a proposal to reflect that some of the district defenders still want to use LCCR for Miller and Montgomery. Professor North asked that this issue go to the full Board. Mr. Roberts agreed and asked staff to provide the actual Memorandum of Understanding. Board Chairman Frank Holthaus asked that all Board members get all the MOUs and every document that accompanies or relates to the initial awarding of the money by the Legislature for this purpose in order for the Board to better understand to MOU, the non-unanimous revocation efforts and the original awarding of the money. Mr. Daniels requested a staff analysis of the implications of the revocation, the transition of those cases, the expense and what it means for the representation of those clients. Mr. Starns reported it was his plan to compile the documents, review the implications and come to the Board with options on a path forward. Mr. Clark-Rizzio stated he was beginning to prepare a response and would have that as soon as possible. Mr. Starns said he would have a recommendation when he got Mr. Clark-Rizzio’s response. Mr. Daniels asked that staff include evaluations of the programs with the compilation of materials. Mr. Roberts indicated he wants to analyze the MOU, legislative mandates for any of the programs and/or the funding for those programs and the policy for who is going to handle these types of cases. Judge Foote asked staff to provide documentation where these cases are throughout the state for the upcoming Policy meeting. Mr. Roberts asked that the documentation being requested be consolidated in one place for access by all members. Mr. Holthaus agreed.
9. FY 21 Appropriation. SPD Starns reported he has met with severallegislative committees since the regular session reopened. He reported Dr.Simpson and he met with Representative Gary Carter, Vice Chairman ofAppropriations, about LPDB issues and made a request to be included in asupplemental bill for FY20 in the amount of $3.5M. That amount reflects twomonths of courthouse closures and loss of conviction and user fees at a 75%collection rate (75% of that is from traffic tickets). They informed him of thedistricts’ mitigation efforts and a request for FY21 for an additional $28.6M (inaddition to the FY20 budget appropriation). Mr. Daniels asked that staff share therequests so that everyone knows the amounts.
10. FY21 Contracts and Contract Amounts. Mr. Starns reported that he hasgotten some feedback from his earlier recommendations not to renew somecontracts for the upcoming year and has produced a memorandum in response.His intention was not to not do the scope of work but to change the way the scope ofwork is performed, the best place(s) to perform the work and how much LPDBshould be paying for the services. He is recommending non-renewal of fourcontracts. He had hoped for a July 1 implementation date but with the fiscaluncertainties the first quarter of FY21 is more feasible. Mr. Daniels expressedconcern about the level LPDB’s statutorily required oversight. He stated that thisis an extraordinary, representation restructuring step for a significant number ofpeople which should require a detailed plan that shows what is going to happen,where the money is going, who is going to be responsible for the representation andwhat LPDB expects outcomes to be.
111
The Committee then took public comment from Ms. Denny LeBoeuf, Ms. Melanie Carr, and Ms. Jee Park on this issue.
Judge Foote asked Ms. Park if her program keeps separate track of the time expended on LPDB mandated representation. Ms. Park reported their contract with LPDB is $360,000 annually which only covers 65% of mandated representation. The remaining 35% comes from fundraising.
Judge Foote announced the Policy Committee meeting next Tuesday to address the MOU issue and the policies going forward regarding program contracts so there will be a chance to address the issues then.
11. Next Meeting. The next meeting was not set.
12. Adjournment. Mr. Lyn Lawrence moved to adjourn. Mr. Daniels secondedand the motion passed unopposed.
Guests: See attached Zoom participants report.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct account of the proceedings of the Louisiana Public Defender Board’s Budget Committee meeting held on the 21st day of May, 2020, as approved by the Committee on the 15th day of June, 20202.
___________________________________ Donald W. North, Chairman
2 The meeting at which these minutes were approved was held by Zoom video-conference pursuant to Executive Proclamation 75 JBE 2020 Section 2(C).
112
Budget Committee - May 21 2020
eve hampson Brett Brunson COMMITTEEJee Park Bruce Unangst# IIChanel Long Frank Holthaus Mike Ginart Mickie AndrePont Christopher Aberle Donald NorthPaul C Fleming Jr kerry cuccia flozelldanielsG Paul Marx W Ross Foote Lyn Lawrence Carla Edmondson J.Albert Ellis Chaz RobertsMeg Cecelia Kappellaurenjames Mary MurphyJill Pasquarella Maggie LeBlancLouis Champagne iPhoneHarry Fontenot Dannielle Bergerbrian mcrae Reginald McIntyreRobert Noel CHall STAFFDerwyn Bunton# Thomas GernhauserAngela Claxton Melanie Carr Richard Pittman Renee Bourg Jacqueline DeRobertis Erik StillingDenny LeBoeuf Frazilia Wiggins Jean FariaAlan Robert Una A. Dean Chase MayEmily Zolynsky JDRAJD18 Tiffanydeirdre fuller Bettye RStarns Elizabeth mike courteau NcarterRichie Tompson Herman Castete AgwinRichard Stricks Joshua Newville BbaierSteven Thomas SteveMichael A. Mitchell Renée SlajdaMichael Miller derrick’s iPhoneemily ratner 15047568880Aaron david marcantelAndrea Stentz Kristen RomeCarol Kolinchak John LindnerTrisha Ward Kenn Barnes Jr.Darrilyn Favorite Dan SchillingKristin Wenstrom Tim AmbroseLindsay Blouin M. NaquinRichard Bourke 12259382495Una Dean derrick carsonFen Swann kylaTony Tillman Una DeanHannah Van De Car JRNMatilde Carbia Anthony ChampagneKristen Rome Fen SwannDon Kneipp Andrea Stentz
15046699079
113
LPDB APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
SUMMARY FY 20
For the period ending 05.31.2020
FY 2020
Budget YTD Expenditures YTD Encumbrances
Total Expended
& Encumbered
Projected thru
06/30/2020
Available for
Reallocation
MEANS OF FINANCING:FEES & SELF GENERATED -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ GRANTS 57,000$ 41,559$ 15,365$ 56,924$ 75$ 1$ STATUTORY DEDICATIONS: DNA TESTING POST-CONVICTION FUND (CR5) 50,000$ 9,204$ -$ 9,204$ 40,796$ -$ INDIGENT PARENT REPRESENTATON FUND(S08) 979,680$ 979,680$ -$ 979,680$ -$ -$ PUBLIC DEFENDER FUND (V31) 39,422,303$ 34,643,293$ 2,103,280$ 36,746,573$ 2,112,294$ 563,437$
TOTAL MEANS OF FINANCING 40,508,983$ 35,673,736$ 2,118,645$ 37,792,381$ 2,153,165$ 563,438$
Total Other 2,523,907 2,088,819 362,589 40,796 2,492,204 31,703
TOTAL LA PUBLIC DEFENDER FUND - OTHR CHRGS 37,249,105 33,419,171 1,970,221 1,910,767 37,300,160 (51,055)
* These contracts were cancelled
118
Refined Model: Solvency Projection Using ACTUAL APRIL CUF/Approps and ACTUAL APRIL Expends (plus estimates for future months' Expenditures)
INSTRUCTIONS: running expenditures projections‐‐ Each new month, enter the new month's actual CUFs/Approps in COl 3a‐d, in Col 4 Add'tl State Funds create a running formula [= initial col 4 amt from prior mos + this months new add'tl amt]; in col 5 Est. X‐June expds##
1 2 3a 3b 4 5 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
District
Date of Most Recent
Report of Cash on
Hand (COH)
April CUFs & Local Approps
(Green+Also incl. local approp; Yellow=not
transferred via formula from
tabs‐‐ conveyyed via email)
May CUFs & Local Approps
Additional State Funds
from Capping Residual & 5% Contingency
Funds April ‐ June (also 490K from DoA release of Admin Sal funds to 15th, 25th & 41st)
Estimated Jun 2020 Expenditure
Data
Estimated @1 x Mar'20 Monthly Expends
Actual Expends April
(Orange=No April Report, used 3xMarch))
Actual Expends May
Chief planned cuts in expends MAY‐Jun 2020 (b/c APRIL is accounted
for in ACTUALs 3a) ELIMINATED FROM Formula ‐ b/c chiefs
expect return to biz as usual
Total March Cash on Hand (COH)
Initial FY20 Ending FB
IF NO NEW CUFs nor general nor Special local Approps arrive thru
June
Capping and Contingency Funding
Amt needed for Solvency for ALL BUT Three
greatest Shortfalls (15th, 22nd & 41st)
Final Ending Fund Balance June 30th AFTER Capping & Contingency Funds applied
(Col 7)and Cuts applied (Col 9)
No Cap/Conting llargest shortfall 15,.
Amount needed to Get District through May 31, 2020 with NO MITIGATED Expense Cuts
(11th not yet yet actually paid for April‐covered by 42nd but
Incl. in May
Amount needed to Get District
through June 30, 2020 with NO MITIGATED Expense Cuts
LPDB Solvency Projection THRU JULY with SOME April 2020 CUFs and assuming NO NEW CUFs May‐July and KEEPING CUTS IN PLACE THRU JULY (Incomplete April Data)(Note: As new CUFs/Approp data arrive we enter April in Col 3a, adding Col 3b for May & 3c for June )
STEP ONE STEP TWO STEP THREE STEP 4
Running total of cap/conting
distributions deducted from total to cover shortfalls (green, bottom Col 7)
Total Capping + Contingency Funds needed to cover all except 3 largest
shortfalls (15th, 22nd & 41st)
July Total NeededPotential Shortfall All Districts in
red before Capping and Contingency Funds applied
Capping + Contingency Funds Remaining to cover
15th District
Remainder at 6/30/20Available Tota (inl.
$490K Admin unfilled Sal)l to Cover Shortfalls MINUS running total cap/conting distributions (bottom col 4 to left)
Additional July Special Appropriation Need
119
HB1 FY21 DAF at $31M per the current FY20 Formula
District
Col 1Pro rata % of the Total State Funding Needed by Each District (districts with surplus local revenues after total expenditures not included in
Distribution)
Col 2DAF Amount from
$31M DAF Pro Rata based on % of total
statewide need in Col 1
Col 3Operating Balance
(Revs, Spenddown and DAF minus Expends) ASSUMES
71% CUFs in FY21
Col 4Estimating FY21 Ending FB (after depleting or accruing
FB)
Col 5% of accrual total among
accruers
Col 6Solveny Modification
Decrease NEEDED
Col 5Solveny
Modification Decrease availabe
Col 8Solvency Modification Increase
Col 9Final DAF BEFORE
enahancements in Cols. 6 & 7
Col 10Final FY21 DAF after capping
Col 11Final FY20 Ending
fund balance assuming 71%
CUFs
Col 12Est. FY20 Ending FB as % of Total Annual Expends
Total CY19 50,986,275 Total PDF Appropriation 40,372,000
Miller/Mont'y 0 Non‐DAF LPDB fundstot to general DAF 26,241,800 14,130,200 95% to general DAF 24,929,710
5% Contingency Reserve 1,312,090 DAF X 4,573,547 DAF Y 6,304,939 DAF Z 6,305,216 DAF A 9,125,120
Total X‐A 26,308,822 Additional DAF needed (67,022) this will need to come from the 35% PDF
DRAFT: 10% exp cut Tiered Funding Mechanism using Tier Average for next Tier Amounts FIRST ADJUSTING FOR 71% LOCAL CUFs TO DEFINE ACTUAL NEED FROM STATE 6.2.20
DRAFT: FY21 Solvency Month by Month assuming Tiered Funding Mechanism AND UNEVEN QUARTERLY Disbursal and 90% of CY19 Spending Levels and assuming reduced Local CUFs (July=0%, Aug=50% and Sep‐June 80%)
Total Final Q1 DAF
Total Final Q2 DAF
Total Final Q3 DAF
Total Remainder Q4 DAF (also incl. 104K from 19th & $43 from 5th
124
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
DistrictCY19 Expends reduced by
12.5%
Projected FY21 Revenue
(assessed at 71% of CY19; 0% July, 50% Aug, 80% Sep‐
Jun)
Annual Gap between Local revenues and expenditures
Spending Tier
Min Max
DAF X(in orange
where$107K DAF X amt is
too high due to loc CUFs)
DAF Y (in orange
where$116K DAF X amt is too high
due to loc revenue)
DAF Z
DAF A Amt. (includes SMALL AMT of 5% Contingency
Funds )
DAF B Amt.TOTAL DAF BEFORE ASSESSING
GROWTH/SHORTFALL (X Y Z and A)
TOTALS SHORTFALL / GROWTHAFTER APPLYING DAF (X Y Z & A
only)
DAF X Y Z and A after deducting growth growth (if short, deduct zero)
Shortfall after DAF X Y Z &A incl growth deduction
DAF B FROM REMAINING
CONTINGENCY FUND pro rata based on % of total Remaining DAF Needs districts 15, 19
Avg Gap Spen 2,279,036 4,416,164 5,938,054 5,950,437 8,701,352 25,006,007 (2,696,276) 25,006,007 (1,383,805) 1,235,792.61 25,894,792 (1,807,492)Running Total 10,354,219 16,304,656 25,006,007 26,241,800
Total CY19 w/125% cut 49,569,990 41st 2,739,271 capped at 2.3M
Total PDF Appropriation 40,372,000 347,008 capping residualMiller/Mont'y 0 Non‐DAF LPDB funds
tot to general DAF 26,241,800 14,130,200 95% to general DAF 24,929,710
5% Contingency Reserve 1,312,090 DAF X 4,416,164 DAF Y 5,938,054 DAF Z 5,950,437 DAF A 8,701,352
DAF B (Incl. 5% Contingency Fu nd) 1,235,793 Capping Residual 347,008
Total DAF X‐B 25,894,792
DRAFT: 12.5% exp cut Tiered Funding Mechanism using Tier Average for next Tier Amounts FIRST ADJUSTING FOR 71% LOCAL CUFs TO DEFINE ACTUAL NEED FROM STATE 5.28.20
125
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB
Distric
t
Proposed Tiered FY21 Annuall DAF
Amount based on 12.5%
EXPENDITURE CUT
Initial Quarter One DAF (1/4
annual total)
Final Q1 DAF (1/4 annual total + add't'l DAF if needed
Col. 11)
Q2‐4 DAF (Remainder minus any additional
DAF Needed for Sept Solvency)
April Est. of Starting FY21 FB
Burn Rate July
Burn Rate Aug
Burn Rate Sept
SEPTEMBER '20 Projected Operating Balance w/
reduced Rev & Exp (untouched Starting FB)
Additional Break‐Even Q1 DAF
Amount due to low summer CUFs
Burn Rate Oct
Burn Rate Nov
Burn Rate Dec
Q2 Dec '20 Projected
DAF (untouched Starting FB)
Remaining DAF AFTER Q2
Burn Rate Jan
Burn Rate Feb
Burn Rate Mar
Q3 Mar '21 Projected DAF (untouched Starting FB)
Q4 FINAL DAF Amt
(Remaining DAF AFTER Q3)
FY21 Starting FB (5th makes 2,744 & 18th $564 cuts or use small amt FB)
Burn Rate Apr
Burn Rate May
Burn Rate Jun
Q4 Jun '21 FINAL Balance (negative number
requires cuts of use of FB)
June 30 2021 ENDING FUND BALANCE AFTER applying against Q4 Final Balance
DRAFT: FY21 Solvency by Quarter assuming Tiered Funding Mechanism AND UNEVEN QUARTERLY Disbursal and DAF based on 87.5% % of CY19 Spending Levels and assuming reduced Local CUFs to 71% (July=0%, Aug=50% and Sep‐June 80%)