The Los Angeles City Council on an October 2000 meeting approved an ad hoc committee report reviewing the LA Bridges programa multi-agency juvenile prevention initiativeafter debate over fiscal "questioned costs," documentation and program oversight. The committee recommendation moved by Ridley Thomas passed by a 13-0 roll call.

Rick Tuttle, representing the Controller's office, said his office had raised concerns about questioned costs identified in its fiscal review and requested further discussion on the matter. "These are concerns having to do with question costs," Tuttle said, and he asked the council to send item 1 of the committee recommendations back to committee so the Controller could present and resolve those concerns. Tuttle referenced a letter the Controller's office had sent in July and said the Controller's concerns had not been adequately addressed in the committee file.

Administrative and Research Services (ORS) responded that documentation submitted by participating agencies substantially reduced the Controller's initially reported questioned costs. "As we've mentioned in our report, the total question cost in the the controller's audit was 488,000. And, with the, documentation that was received and reviewed by the oversight committee, it's now been reduced to 20,000," said Helen Chris of ORS. ORS recommended expenditure adjustments and directed the Community Development Department (CDD) to develop adjustments and recover funds as needed.

Bakar Khorsani of CDD explained lead-agency invoicing and fund-release practices, saying lead agencies often hold funds until they receive proper supporting documentation and then release those funds. CDD reported it had disallowed and recovered certain amounts and placed one agency on sanction, saying it had recovered roughly $33,000 in disallowed costs and that one agency still owed about $4,000. Khorsani described steps to require more timely expenditure-plan amendments and better documentation going forward.

Council members weighed the administrative burden on small subcontractors: one member warned that more stringent documentation and delayed payments could force small providers out of business because they often receive relatively small subcontract amounts and cannot wait months for reimbursement. Others, including the committee chair, said the panel had conducted a thorough review: the committee considered the Controller's audit, ORS review, CAO analysis and independent subcontractor audits and concluded the recommendation should move forward.

Councilmember Chick praised the collaborative scrutiny, saying the review would continue and that an in-depth program evaluation would take longer: "This is not an overnight evaluation ... at least 6 months," she said. After discussion, Ridley Thomas moved the committee report; the council prepared the roll and recorded 13 ayes, approving the committee's recommendations.

Actions recorded: committee report approval (mover: Ridley Thomas; tally: 13 ayes; outcome: approved). The transcript records that ORS had reduced questioned costs from $488,000 to about $20,000 based on subsequent documentation and that CDD recovered approximately $33,000 with one subcontractor owing about $4,000. The transcript does not record further specific recovery deadlines or an explicit timeline for final reconciliations beyond ongoing review and an anticipated multi-month evaluation.

For follow-up, the committee and departments discussed additional monitoring, more frequent expenditure-plan amendments, and clearer documentation standards to prevent late invoices from delaying payments to subcontractors.