Sherburne County commissioners split on $70,000 COVID-recovery subcontract; motion fails

At its organizational meeting, the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners discussed and voted on whether to accept a $70,000 subcontract from the Minnesota Department of Health for COVID recovery activities aimed at underserved communities in the county. The board debated the subcontract's scope, which staff said includes vaccination outreach, case management referrals and other post-COVID recovery services for populations identified by social vulnerability metrics.

The proposal was presented by Amanda (identified in the meeting transcript only by her first name), a Sherburne County public health staff member, who said the award is a subcontract through the Minnesota Department of Health and that vaccination outreach is only a small part of a broader recovery and prevention work plan that includes mental-health referrals, housing and translation services. Amanda told the board that if Sherburne declines the award, “these people who are living in our community will be unserved,” and the funds would be reallocated to other counties.

Several commissioners questioned specific line items in the contractor’s work plan. Commissioner Felber and Commissioner Schumacher raised objections to perceived continued emphasis on COVID-specific vaccination messaging and to marketing/“influencer” costs in the proposal. Commissioners noted a $30-per-marketing-pack line item that some described as high; Amanda said that figure primarily covers translation and related services and that the contracted firm is named Influencer Hotspot (as written in the packet).

Board members discussed options: approve the award as written, approve with conditions and a revised scope emphasizing broader respiratory and general vaccination outreach, or decline and return the funds to the state. One motion to approve the subcontract with conditions (to rewrite the scope before the state contract is finalized) was moved and seconded, and later the same motion was brought to a vote. The final recorded tally on the motion was two in favor and two opposed; the motion failed, leaving the county without approval to accept the $70,000 subcontract. As Amanda explained earlier, if Sherburne County declines the award it will be reallocated by the state to other counties that accept it.

The board also discussed administrative options such as directing staff to rework the scope and seek state approval for a broader public-health framing (for example, covering influenza, RSV and other vaccine-preventable respiratory illnesses) and returning with a revised contract. Commissioners said that staff could attempt to rewrite the scope and resubmit to MDH if the board preferred that approach.

No additional funding decision was taken at the meeting; the motion to accept the current subcontract failed, meaning the county will not execute the MDH subcontract as presented and the state would reallocate the funds if the county does not later accept a revised award.