Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services Invoice Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners question $48,000 invoice from solar consultant, direct staff to demand itemized billing
Summary
Commissioners said they had not been given a clear scope or rates before a consultant billed the county for work on solar project review and asked county staff to send a formal letter requesting detailed billing and logs before the county will pay.
Commissioners said on Dec. 18 they were surprised by a roughly $48,000 invoice from a solar consultant retained earlier in the project's review process and expressed concern about the lack of a clearly documented hourly rate or an explicit written engagement setting an agreed fee.
Multiple commissioners said the firm had been hired as a consultant but the contract or engagement letter on file did not show a specific hourly rate; a redacted engagement document provided with the packet listed the firm’s standard terms and a broad range of hourly rates but did not identify which lawyer or rate applied to this engagement. Several commissioners said the county had not received promised deliverables that were referenced in billing entries (for example, a sample conditional use permit) and asked for a detailed breakdown of hours, task-by-task entries and which county staff or commissioners the consultant contacted.
Commissioners discussed whether the county should refuse payment pending receipt of an itemized invoice. County staff said late fees had begun to accrue and that the firm has other outstanding work for the county, where the firm might require a retainer if the invoice remained unpaid. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a formal letter stating the county’s concerns and requesting a detailed bill and supporting logs. David (county staff) asked the board to provide a list of the specific details the county wanted included in the letter; commissioners agreed on requesting: (1) a task-by-task log showing dates and times and the county staff or other parties consulted; (2) identification of the lawyer(s) performing the work and their hourly rates; and (3) copies of deliverables the consultant said they produced.
The board also discussed whether previously paid line items connected to this consultant or related projects could be reimbursed by ARPA funds if allowable; staff said they would research reimbursement rules and return with guidance. Commissioners instructed staff to draft the letter for review and to continue communications with the firm so pending work could be completed under clarified terms.
Ending — County staff were directed to request an itemized invoice and to prepare a formal letter of objection if the consultant did not provide the requested detail. Commissioners withheld further payment until the requested documentation was provided and reviewed.
