[{"_1":2,"_121":-5,"_122":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6345534,"mediaKeyId","2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34","parentId",2249044,"title","Commissioners approve payroll cadence, timekeeping changes and revise vacation carryover rules","audioSeconds",6887,"startMs",6887000,"endMs",-1,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34&start=6887&end=0","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34/thumbnail_6887000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345534/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Commissioners-approve-payroll-cadence-timekeeping-changes-and-revise-vacation-carryover-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345534-6bcf223793afcf3d9590341fbf80a8ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1777337009&Signature=jk9GNewz8f2WUOf2T6fPQSFuL2xo0tvKP7kbSlIflKCVudMdoxJTBUiBjodPD8yDTlc3dyt8sOMOOSlXyVqMRKHt0o0vsE07KSYkSkXAVrTmXDOjtLKO89YuprqhvR-mVbPofF7zWeOCtX2JFRxWmHWFPyrVC9CsB8y1J3qkFIRUzU3ayYzC0olqvwS11kLDooIud1eawASFvwN3Z52yqmu0GvfNw-57eYGUwC32kvR4zuvAtJIgb7eEEF6sC2FZCzh5LU-Q4ltAHucQQhuS7IsBILVyKB3JGV~ArbFymGVa7idad~4geLpYkB4Wf7mgJB3ZHtyn3GCpTaECuIabJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clay County, SD","date","2025-02-07T21:04:52Z","article","The Clay County Board of Commissioners approved several revisions to the employee handbook affecting pay periods, timekeeping and vacation accrual and carryover.

County payroll and human‑resources staff proposed aligning all county pay periods to a consistent 1–20 monthly pay cycle to simplify payroll processing and match direct deposit timing. Commissioners voted to adopt the change; the implementation date for payroll cutoff was set to align with the February pay period cycle (pay period end on the 20th) so payroll processing and direct deposit deadlines align with vendor timing.

Staff also recommended countywide adoption of the Paylocity time‑clock feature for departments that are not already using it. The board discussed practical options for departments without onsite computers (kiosk setups, single shared terminal in a shop, or phone/mobile clock‑in). Supervisors will have the ability to correct entries, and highway and public‑works staff indicated they would test a kiosk or mobile clocking option. Commissioners directed staff to proceed with implementation and pilot arrangements for departments with special needs (for example, remote shops or plow crews).

The board changed vacation rules: employees will begin accruing vacation immediately (instead of waiting six months), and employees may use accrued vacation as earned. However, the board placed a condition on payout: employees who leave county employment will be eligible for a vacation payout only after at least one year of continuous service (the commission specified the payout restriction to discourage brief tenures before separation). The board also adopted a carryover cap of 160 hours (80 for part‑time) with the new forfeiture rules to take effect April 1 to give staff time to schedule use of existing balances.

Commissioners discussed, but did not adopt immediately, a move to biweekly pay; staff and commissioners agreed to revisit the idea after Paylocity implementation and once clocking and pay cadence changes run for several months. The board voted by voice to adopt the pay‑period and timekeeping revisions and separately approved the carryover and accrual amendments with implementation dates as noted.

Staff will notify departments and employees about the new pay‑period schedule, time‑clock procedures, and the April 1 effective date for the carryover cap and related payout eligibility rules.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 28, 2025 County Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The county approved a package of payroll and personnel changes: all departments will switch to a common pay‑period ending on the 20th of each month, countywide adoption of Paylocity time‑clock is planned, and vacation accrual and carryover rules were revised including immediate accrual and a one‑year payout eligibility requirement.","taxTitle","Clay County, South Dakota","taxId",55676,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":46,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345538,"Legislative auditors report two internal‑control deficiencies, late annual report filing noted",2950,2950000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34&start=2950&end=0","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34/thumbnail_2950000.jpg","/articles/6345538/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Legislative-auditors-report-two-internalcontrol-deficiencies-late-annual-report-filing-noted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345538-a663be63d6ffbba034c5536b6099f152/orig.mp4?Expires=1777337009&Signature=VaL9tj8WbW~QWFwdbggkBbLirD0bA9D66vcZl-tFjgfZZlSdSmr5Ovcb-vFCGnfvKqTkx-XS6gtSj5feXvBhxkkktv~f2Tw7MGe-UmUh2AMXv2pfTKfzY8aMw5Lhmpl9FLVTv-DI8irPdp8ZjfA82x6HQUgnl9pQgZFdv~y8GlCFf1g-8CPtya3WJ2eS0Wf3wDTQGU7Gp0BMthYikWThZkCrTUYJY7EwqI6ya55DymzvEkjHdY3IgSvsjyM7p~NLZ3naKG3kG6QQxS4phPjwldCQc3Bol8xLIUAFlFpEsyF4NAvdN967v8Mi~JoldSFroe24I8Ju~ot7ucqHUsKrSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","David Weidler, representing the Department of Legislative Audit, presented the audit closing conference and management letter for the county and identified two significant internal‑control deficiencies and several reporting items the audit team considered important for the board to know.

Weidler told commissioners the auditor’s work found cash reconciliation practices that did not reconcile county cash balances reliably to the general ledger and noted a bond account (Series 2023 bonds) had not been included in the treasurer’s reconciliation records; auditors recommended that the county ensure the bond account is properly reflected in treasurer and auditor records. He said the reconciled cash in the county records was within $26 of the auditor’s reconciled amount as of 12/31/2023 after adjustments, but the audit team remains concerned about the reconciliation process and recommended addressing the underlying reconciliation method.

The second notable finding concerned financial reporting: auditors required 25 adjustments to the county’s 2023 financial statements for proper presentation under generally accepted accounting principles. Weidler characterized these adjustments as part of reporting and presentation issues rather than daily operational errors and recommended focusing on improved processes for financial statement preparation.

Weidler also reported a material violation of state law (identified verbally during the meeting as statute “7‑10‑4”) because the county’s 2022 annual financial report was not filed with the Department of Legislative Audit by the statutory March filing deadline; at the time of the conference the 2022 report had been filed late (the presenter said it was filed in September) and, as far as he knew, had not been published. County staff acknowledged the late filing and said they would investigate publication and follow up on how to proceed.

The auditors’ management letter also called out four county commission minutes that had not been published in the legal newspapers as required and other lesser departmental items that auditors communicated directly to department heads. Weidler offered to remain available to answer questions and said some counties choose to remediate old period reconciliations while others prefer to begin clean close‑forward reconciliations when new financial software is implemented; county staff stated a new software implementation was imminent and preferred to begin with reconciliations in the new system.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the findings and the auditor said that similar issues appear in other counties and that the items flagged—while important—were not uncommon. The board accepted the audit communications and voted to authorize the chair to sign the representation letters the auditors requested. Auditors said they would secure a signed management representation before leaving that day.","Legislative auditors told the Clay County Board of Commissioners they found two significant internal‑control deficiencies—cash reconciliation and financial reporting adjustments—and notified the board that the 2022 annual financial report was filed late, in apparent noncompliance with state filing requirements.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345543,"Commissioners approve courthouse masonry treatment after vendor demonstrations",461,1556065,2017687,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34&start=1556&end=2017","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34/thumbnail_1556065.jpg","/articles/6345543/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Commissioners-approve-courthouse-masonry-treatment-after-vendor-demonstrations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345543-fb3954e9ef611b3d47d1e6bf2f45883f/orig.mp4?Expires=1777337009&Signature=CZfmsIUQbBmRO4J6dwmGHR1GHqM8X2YvxKi4auii4K-jPf3zm~BkJQ-T6A9sXLHQMbRf0oK81oQdfFZeC7A5M52VATVHgUxt15ecjBAoXOKxauNh3QxyjczBd7g7pXPziwP9C48G4FwkRqHGWwpYN31-lc-QEm8QHvScQt~PS4YXBNzPr5rgdtTwLnrMzRCXYy6Rbku8XExdCdFXSLIJeUu2iqwQmQD7xmEnoy12SOLqgXZCv3KwEv2CGXmyS5oUWtY4XdKZf-kPK837kyQuIW6gb1Wi1l~xkQ1SpzUz90~UX-4syCAhOV3vF3gz7w~D4hGJaSIEymH34XCxoDWp9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners voted to proceed with a contractor’s masonry moisture control system—described in the meeting as a product that stops efflorescence and interior dampness—after facilities staff reported visible salt leaching through courthouse masonry and several commissioners said peer facilities reported successful installations.

The county facilities supervisor described ongoing efflorescence and damp odor in basement and other masonry areas and said the vendor had demonstrated the product in other courthouses and campus buildings; notes in the discussion indicated facility managers in nearby jurisdictions had reported positive results. The vendor’s quoted range discussed during the meeting was $20,000–$40,000 and an urgency was reported: the vendor said the quoted price would be held only until early March.

Several commissioners expressed initial skepticism about the technology but said peer confirmation and the visible condition in the courthouse made the investment reasonable to consider. The facilities supervisor said funds were available in the building maintenance budget and asked whether to proceed now or delay until next year; the consensus among commissioners present was to move forward this year because the vendor indicated a pending price increase.

A commissioner moved and another seconded a motion to authorize the facilities supervisor to proceed with purchasing and installing the product; the board approved the motion by voice vote. The facilities supervisor said he would make additional calls to other sites with the system installed and then proceed with the procurement and contracting steps.

The board did not provide a contractor name in the motion; the facilities supervisor said the vendor had installations across the Midwest and that the system originator was reportedly based in Denmark. Staff will return procurement documents and final contract terms to the commission for record keeping.","The board approved proceeding with a treatment (referred to as a ‘rental dry’ system) to stop efflorescence and moisture wicking in courthouse masonry after facility staff reported visible salt leaching; the administrator said funds are available and a price window was offered by the vendor.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345547,"Clay County accepts 2025 medical renewal, considers long‑term disability options",1280,240975,1521528,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34&start=240&end=1521","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34/thumbnail_240975.jpg","/articles/6345547/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Clay-County-accepts-2025-medical-renewal-considers-longterm-disability-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345547-dc21bdfd7a0ae8b8f67da271e1822fbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1777337009&Signature=OUSBcDJqLqqkdpKXmQEH1ZtOtwwW72lB8F~dINe41V4A4VnHqq94lA~Alg0s1j53t~3~x01-Mky1dNjagNZzo~1K9gl-u0IvbT99JJOXq6dC6K32g4~SkYg~QlrRXgprlghMUhyjhkR0HPEWCsj9J0cHsb9FcycKrU~wZC4-qym3h6KLvUCtopwG0dKWJrfdF5sCn15ZXTvMeLkfsjgSzo-nf6L4nDqKJJxgQ9h8Blzd8MT9Yaetsx7HOo3m9LUc8JwMoIb1xplUSsL9we5971Z3we800dTudy95OZ2Nl3MYaKOksEGBvQcIjThwhxGundLjBmzHnhhyUeuJKaI1Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clay County commissioners voted to accept the county’s 2025 medical insurance renewal, a presentation and subsequent discussion showed, and heard separate proposals to add employer‑paid or voluntary long‑term disability coverage.

Rachel, a benefits consultant who presented the renewal, told commissioners the medical plan renewal from Wellmark represents a 4.23% blended increase for Clay County groups of 51–100 employees, and that the county’s prior-year claims rose from about $1.3 million to roughly $1.6–$1.7 million. “Medical is the the main talking point here,” Rachel said while reviewing benchmarking and renewal scenarios.

The consultant said Clay County’s current plan design and employer premium contributions keep employee monthly costs below local averages; for example, Rachel reported the county’s employee‑only monthly premium contribution is effectively $0 while the benchmark average is higher. She also presented two alternate plan designs—a deductible increase that would reduce the renewal by about 3.36% and a true high‑deductible health plan option that would increase out‑of‑pocket risk for employees while making them eligible for health savings accounts.

In discussion, commissioners asked about the renewal detail pages and claims drivers; Rachel agreed to circulate the underwriting workbook pages she had added to the presentation. Commissioners also reviewed a county cost/contribution analysis Rachel prepared showing the county’s share of the 4.23% increase would be about $24,917 annually if contribution levels remain unchanged.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to accept the medical renewal under the current contribution structure; another commissioner seconded the motion and the board approved it by voice vote. Commissioners clarified the county’s deductible reimbursement policy: if an employee meets $1,200 in deductible expenses they could receive a partial reimbursement and if they meet the full $1,500 deductible the county will reimburse up to $500 one time per plan year (the reimbursement applies once per employee/family plan per year, not per covered family member).

Separately, Rachel presented quotes for long‑term disability coverage. The employer‑paid quote would provide 60% of monthly earnings up to $5,000 per month, include an employee assistance program (three face‑to‑face sessions per issue) and carry an employer monthly premium of about $1,092. She also offered a voluntary (employee‑paid) option with age‑banded rates and participation conditions (the greater of 25% or 10 lives required to bind a voluntary policy).

Commissioners asked whether employee education would accompany any voluntary offering; Rachel said the vendor can provide Zoom sessions, recorded “BrainShark” videos and tailored communications to explain plan details and enrollment. Commissioners did not adopt a separate motion to purchase employer‑paid long‑term disability during the meeting; the discussion ended with additional questions and an assurance that follow‑up materials would be provided.

The presentation also confirmed that other ancillary plans (dental, vision, core life, short‑term disability and voluntary life) are presently under multi‑year rate guarantees and have no changes at this renewal.

The board’s approval applied to the medical renewal as presented; follow‑up actions include receiving the underwriting workbook pages Rachel referenced and further consideration of the long‑term disability options.","The Clay County Board of Commissioners approved the county’s 2025 medical insurance renewal that carries a 4.23% premium increase from Wellmark and voted to maintain the county contribution structure; commissioners also heard quotes for employer‑paid and voluntary long‑term disability plans and asked for follow‑up information.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":114,"_47":115,"_49":116,"_51":117,"_53":118,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":119,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":120,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345530,"Treasurer proposes fee for bulk tax‑record CSVs; commissioners table decision for revisions",0,3026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34&start=3026&end=3026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249044-b48385d7f8fcc2a3ab92a49de7b0ce34/thumbnail_3026000.jpg","/articles/6345530/Clay-County/South-Dakota/Treasurer-proposes-fee-for-bulk-taxrecord-CSVs-commissioners-table-decision-for-revisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345530-5bfc7914a2120ce8786b0fb1d7067ab7/orig.mp4?Expires=1777337009&Signature=Na3ClLYpmeiG-MgXWB4x2zhOg9D6H2eCMQJHVfW~33zURLrMWfL6HTY62~36EioQ5PjotGTOFtbPpYIW3oWjwXRx7UwU5~BJ-40NtKLi3DkaVM2NFQto1JwGGyG6KiJeFzQo6Ipcn9~1SPlwtcI0VLYbc1gzOMJyZMaBQLafg1rQP4vp6pTCw3ygFrfWBveMiPoQ5nM5VO2y3OApaglXB3pKLD4q5ki~ANrjqdO92LgBk9bKqVg7sHqQ8o0bO8M~dnIks8wDKcRNfzVCWGq~rU6thWfeIX8T1skS5YzTamPN2vXTMJ~9f-kTllPFJJZbDm2xh3Z2vBQJGS7ke-VfzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Treasurer presented a proposal to charge $500 for full CSV exports of property tax records when asked by third parties (excluding established escrow/title companies). The treasurer said she has faced repeated commercial requests—some from out‑of‑state firms—and that the fee would compensate the office for staff time and reduce frivolous or potentially predatory bulk data requests.

Board members discussed that property tax records are public information and that the county already provides online access via Beacon and other public portals. Commissioners and staff raised two practical points: (1) CSV/Excel formats make bulk reuse easier for commercial purchasers and (2) other county offices (register of deeds, assessor) use different fee approaches (for example, a per‑page fee for scanned images). Commissioners suggested harmonizing fees across county record offices to avoid confusion and considered whether the treasurer should retain discretion to waive or deny requests.

A commissioner asked whether the county is legally compelled to provide data in a machine‑readable format; staff noted a recent hearing examiner case discussed at the state level over format requests and suggested a policy that charges for pre‑packaged CSVs while still allowing public access via the county’s web portals. Staff and commissioners suggested amending the draft to explicitly allow the treasurer to waive the fee for escrow or other existing partners and to retain authority to deny requests where appropriate.

After extended discussion the commission voted to table the proposed resolution and asked the treasurer to return with revised language that: (a) harmonizes with other record‑custodian fees, (b) clarifies that the fee is for prepared CSV/Excel exports rather than basic public lookup access, and (c) explicitly grants the treasurer discretionary authority to waive the fee for escrow/title companies or other approved users. The treasurer said she would bring a revised draft to the next meeting.","Clay County Treasurer proposed charging $500 for bulk CSV exports of county tax records to third parties (excluding existing escrow/titling partners); commissioners discussed legal/public‑record implications, consistency with other offices and formats (CSV vs PDF) and voted to table the proposal for wording revisions and interoffice alignment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners approve payroll cadence, timekeeping changes and revise vacation carryover rules

Legislative auditors report two internal‑control deficiencies, late annual report filing noted

Commissioners approve courthouse masonry treatment after vendor demonstrations

Clay County accepts 2025 medical renewal, considers long‑term disability options

Treasurer proposes fee for bulk tax‑record CSVs; commissioners table decision for revisions