Laserfiche WebLink
Budget: <br />State Grants <br />Cash match <br />In kind match <br />Total Revenue <br />Expenses: <br />Equipment: <br />2-13-80 <br />2500.00 <br />1250.00 <br />1250.00 <br />5000.00 <br />1500.00 <br />2000.00 <br />250.00 <br />1250.00 <br />5000.00 <br />Vehicle rental <br />Lawnmowers <br />Garden tools <br />b�Dl( 4 eA&E 702 <br />(to be derived from Workshop funds) <br />(Building) <br />Salary <br />Equipment <br />Travel (Gas & Oil) <br />Rental Space <br />Total <br />1500.00 <br />400.00 <br />100.00 <br />2000.00 <br />ExecutO"D�i�r—e ctor <br />HE COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD MUST BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL WHEN SIGNING <br />A CONTRACT FOR A GRANT THAT WE HAVE PROPER PROVISION FOR AN AUDIT, <br />AND THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH THE FINANCE OFFICE. <br />THE BOARD CONCURRED, AND THE CHAIRMAN ASKED THE ATTORNEY <br />AND THE FINANCE OFFICER TO DRAW UP THE PROPER AUDIT PROVISION, WHICH <br />HE FELT SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMIS - <br />SIGNER LYONS,THAT THE BOARD, AS SPONSOR, APPROVE THE GRANT, AS OUTLINED <br />IN THE ABOVE MEMO, SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT REGARDING <br />THE AGENCY IS RESPONSIBILITIES TO INCLUDE AND COMPLETELY HANDLE AN <br />AUDIT; THIS AGREEMENT TO BE MADE A PART OF THE CONTRACT. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS DISCUSSED A CASE WITH <br />CETA IN 1975 AND IF THE FINANCE OFFICER HAD HAD A SIMILAR DOCUMENT, <br />HE WOULD HAVE HAD MUCH STRONGER GROUNDS WHEN HE APPEALED HIS CASE IN <br />TALLAHASSEE. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. <br />IT WAS VOTED ON AND <br />