Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vouchers And Service Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff reports emergency water response; committee probes voucher charges including life insurance and guardian ad litem invoices
Summary
Dunn County staff described distributing bottled water to the jail and affected residents after low water was reported, and the committee queried voucher entries including a roughly $15,000 life insurance charge, a $56,000 liability installment, higher RingCentral phone charges in some departments and a large guardian ad litem invoice.
County staff told the Committee on Administration on July 16 that facilities and emergency management coordinated a rapid response after low water was reported at the county jail.
"When this order came in place yesterday, we were able to get together with the emergency management and facilities group to work on dispersing water bottles throughout the county for both our employees and for the residents of the neighbors and the jail," County Manager Dan said, noting staff also posted signage on water fountains and sinks. Staff also said an air‑quality notice had been sent to employees who work outdoors.
Committee members then reviewed the June vouchers packet and raised multiple questions. One member pointed to an approximately $15,000 line for "Minnesota Life" life insurance and asked whether that covered all employees and whether it was a semi‑annual or annual charge; payroll staff said premiums are deducted per pay period and an annual update in July adjusts premiums based on age bands.
Members also asked about RingCentral telephone charges that varied among departments; staff explained the new phone system charges by user (not extension) and that departments with more users — for example the sheriff's office and jail divisions — can show higher monthly costs. A committee member queried a $56,000 second installment for liability insurance in the HR/risk management lines; staff said liability costs are allocated across departments and they would research why that was an installment this year.
The committee also reviewed several guardian ad litem invoices. Clerk staff said guardian ad litem fees are reflected because of court orders and cited one case showing about 44 hours billed at $100 per hour; a staff member said the average invoice is typically 5–10 hours and that the large case appeared anomalous. Committee members were told there is a pending budget request to revisit guardian ad litem reimbursement rates.
A member moved and the committee seconded a motion to note review of the vouchers for June; the committee voted to note the review and no further action was taken at the meeting other than staff follow‑up on the flagged items.
The meeting adjourned later in the evening after the committee advanced the budgets and approved operational planning summaries.
