Loading...
Government & Public Enterprise
Budget execution reviews, outcome reports, council information requests — write the rule your department already uses into the app, and the next deadline pulls the same records the same way. Your databases and document stores stay on your own servers, and only the access path opens, inside the permissions you already set.
Pulls expenditures and open encumbrances from the ERP and rolls them up by fund, department, and program, so amended budget, actual, encumbered, available balance, and percent expended sit on one screen. Programs tracking toward a year-end lapse go to their owner together with the requisitions and invoices behind them. Write the review rule into the app once and the next quarter is measured the same way.
FY2026 budget vs. actual by program
Internal use onlyPre-decisionalBudget analystGeneral Fund, all departments| Program | % spent | Status |
|---|---|---|
| SSidewalk and ADA ramp program | 25.1% | Underspending |
| YYouth business incubator | 42.0% | Underspending |
| CCommunity co-location | 59.5% | Underspending |
| RRegional festival program | 76.0% | Monitor |
| HHousehold utility assistance | 76.8% | Monitor |
| PPublic Wi-Fi expansion | 77.0% | Monitor |
| SSchool zone safety | 78.0% | On track |
| EEmergency operations center | 78.0% | On track |
| UUrban tree canopy | 78.2% | On track |
| SSmall business subsidy | 78.9% | On track |
| SSenior employment program | 79.0% | On track |
| RRoad maintenance and paving | 82.0% | On track |
| DDisability support services | 84.0% | On track |
| LLibrary operations | 84.0% | On track |
| BBus service subsidy | 84.0% | On track |
Pulls the prior year's plan, actual spend, and reported indicator values into a draft in your own template. Figures are quoted from the source rather than written by the model, with the document and field they came from attached. Your reporting style guide and last year's audit findings live in the app, so the analyst edits only the sentences that call for judgment.
FY2026 senior employment program — outcome report
Subject to public disclosureRecords retentionBudget analystAging Services filing · 16 programs consolidatedFY2026 Senior Community Service Employment Program — Outcome Report
Aging Services · prepared Sep 15, 2026 · program analyst
III. Budget execution
Of the $5.4 million appropriated for the program in FY2026, $5.24 million was spent, an execution rate of 97.0%. Wages were paid for community service assignments of 20 hours per week, the program standard. The remaining $162 thousand is unspent wage funding left by participants who exited in the second half: the local share reverts at the June 30 close and the federal share is deobligated at grant closeout.
1. Funding sources
Funding was $3.78 million federal and $1.62 million local. The federal share was spent at the awarded amount, and the local share was spent from the adopted appropriation with no supplemental allocation.
Table 3. Expenditures by object ($ thousands)
| Object | Amended budget | Actual | % spent | Remaining |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant wages | 4,320 | 4,190 | 97.0% | 130 |
| Operations | 620 | 600 | 96.8% | 20 |
| Training | 180 | 174 | 96.7% | 6 |
| Supplies and gear | 150 | 146 | 97.3% | 4 |
| Administration | 130 | 128 | 98.5% | 2 |
| Total | 5,400 | 5,238 | 97.0% | 162 |
IV. Indicator attainment
Participants served reached 401 against a target of 385, an attainment of 104.2%. Host site coverage reached 96.7% against a 90% target, an attainment of 107.4%. Both indicators cleared their targets for the year.
The unsubsidized employment rate fell short at 31.2% against a 35% target, an attainment of 89.1%. All three indicators were derived with the formulas in the indicator register, filed as attachment 2, using the participant roster matched against state UI wage records.
Corrective action for the indicator that fell short is recorded separately in section VI. For FY2027, host site agreements are executed in May so placements no longer slip into October, and 20% of assignments move to host sites that carry a hiring commitment.
Council committee requests, public records requests, and audit submissions differ in form but ask the same question: where is the source. Enter the items and the app finds the requisitions, invoices, and approvals behind them, lays them out in the required format, and lists what is still missing next to the department that holds it. Committee requests run on the committee's calendar while public records requests run on the state clock, so each queue keeps its own deadline and its own redaction rule. The handling history accumulates, so the next hearing and the next audit do not repeat the same search.
Council committee information requests
Contains PIIPre-decisionalBudget analystBudget Office intake9 open · 12 submitted · 3 referred
Provide, for every contracted service program in FY2024 through FY2026, the annual amount paid by department, the vendor name, the contract term, and the closeout result. Indicate the procurement method (sole source or competitive) and whether any work was subcontracted, and flag separately any program held by the same vendor for all three years. Report amounts in thousands and align every period to the fiscal year.
Pulled 1,284 payment records against the contracted services account (307-04) for FY24–FY26 from the ERP, grouped them into 42 programs, and consolidated everything into the single workbook filed as attachment 1. Closeout reports for 38 of those programs were in the document store and ship as filed in attachment 2; the remaining 4 are still in closeout, so only the paid amount is populated. Repeat awards were matched on vendor ID and EIN against the contract register, flagging 11 programs. The extract is dated Nov 10, so payments posted after that date are not in this filing.
Participant personal data — names, addresses, and dates of birth — is redacted under state privacy law and the county's records handling policy before the packet goes to the committee; every other field goes to the committee as filed. Vendor names, EINs, and the names of principals are public record and are not redacted. Each redacted cell carries the citation next to it in the submission format; 214 cells are redacted in total, counted by citation in attachment 3.
Of the 4 programs still in closeout, 2 are waiting on Neighborhood Development and Parks & Tourism; the other 2 have their closeout reports in hand and are awaiting final invoice reconciliation. If nothing arrives from those 2 departments, their cells will read “closeout in progress,” and attachment 4 sets out the supplemental filing after certification. The same items were requested last cycle, so the column layout matches what was filed then, and the packet goes up through the clerk's electronic filing portal.
Your databases and document stores stay exactly where they are. What inline AI owns is the access path, not the records. You decide which records each role can see, and outside that scope nothing is visible — not even to the person who built the app.
Runs on-premises or inside your own government cloud tenancy, and supports StateRAMP- and FedRAMP-authorized environments. We work through your security review and ATO before anything is deployed.
What a screen shows follows the account, the department, and the role behind it. The viewing rights and the personal data scope you already defined apply as they are.
Every lookup is logged with who, when, and what, and any write can be rolled back. When an audit asks for that trail, you hand over the record itself.
Network topology and security review come first; scope follows from there.
Book a demo