Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Warrants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County approves multiple warrants and payroll items; one warrant amount unclear in transcript
Summary
The Lincoln County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve minutes from two prior meetings and to adopt accounts payable and payroll warrants presented by county finance staff. The transcript contains an inconsistent dollar figure for AP warrant number 78; the boards recorded vote on that warrant was 3-0 in favor.
The Lincoln County Commissioners voted to approve minutes and to adopt several accounts payable and payroll warrants during their meeting.
Finance staff presented two accounts payable warrants and two payroll warrants. The board moved to approve AP warrant number 79 (reported as $617,547.83) and the motion passed 3-0. They also approved payroll warrant number 19 (reported as $266,935.25) and payroll warrant number 20 (reported as $298,397.37); both votes were recorded 3-0.
Commissioners also moved to approve AP warrant number 78. Finance staff initially described AP warrant 78 as totaling $212,901.09 but, during the motion, the transcript records the amount as $112,901.09. The transcript later records the motion as adopted 3-0. Because the meeting transcript contains those conflicting dollar figures, the exact approved amount for AP warrant 78 is not specified in the recorded excerpt.
Michelle, a finance department staff member, summarized major payees in the warrants, including payments to CLC YMCA (county navigator), Burgess Technology, Merry Meeting Adult Education and a final payment for a 2019 Freightliner packer truck, and said the jail monthly assessment and the countys health insurance were large items in warrant 79. When commissioners asked about overtime and FICA, Michelle said the overtime line is agency-wide and that the FICA entry was the bottom-line figure, explaining the agency remained "still doing okay."
The board also approved minutes from the Sept. 16 and Sept. 25 meetings; both procedural motions carried 3-0.
The decisions are administrative approvals of the finance warrants; no further policy direction was recorded on these items in the provided transcript.
