var sid = 454; var aid = 3;

Wright County Board Minutes

OCTOBER 28, 2003

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Mattson, Eichelberg, Russek and Sawatzke present.

The minutes of 10-21-03 were corrected as follows: Page 2, last paragraph, 2nd sentence should read, "As part of that meeting, the Fair Board discussed the $25,000-$30,000 profit realized from the County Fair compared to the approximate $3,000 loss last year" (Heeter). Heeter moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Item For Consid. #3, "Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force" (Eichelberg). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Heeter, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: A. Duerr, Aud./Treas.; D. Chapman, C. Huston, J. Wells, Bldg. Maint.; S. Block, Ct. Admin.; J. Klein, Ext.; D. Martin, IT; T. Hoffman, B. Johnson, D. Miller, D. Nystuen, G. Torfin, Sher./Corr.

2. O/T Report, Period Ending 10-10-03.

3. Refer To Building Committee Designation Of A Nursing Mothers Room.

4. Refer To Personnel Committee Discussion RE: Light Duty Assignments Due To Workers Compensation Claims.

5. Transfer $30,060 From Budget 820, Personal Services To The Sheriff & Corrections Budgets.

6. Promote Dorene Chapman To Custodian II, Eff. 10-10-03.

7. Promote Jerry Wells To Custodian II, Eff. 10-13-03.

8. Approve Revised Employee Recognition Policy.

B. ATTORNEY

1. Set Drainage Authority Workshop (Committee Of The Whole) For 12-2-03 @ 1:30 P.M.

C. AUDITOR/TREASURER

1. Claim, McCombs Frank Roos $784.80, September Services (Fund 61-Sewer).

D. PLANNING & ZONING

1. Accept The Findings & Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezonings:

A. Approve Request To Rezone Appx. 120 Acres From AG & S-2 To A/R & S-2, Carl Greku/Joyce Johnson (Cokato Twp.).

Bob Hiivala, Chief Deputy Auditor, brought forth discussion on County Ditch 33. Quotes were solicited for repair of a large washout. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said one quote was received from Fyle's Excavating at a cost of $19,250.00 (800' of 24" dual wall piping, trash guards flared end sections, removal of cement culvert, fill sand, compaction, fill from on site, all labor). An additional quote was submitted for removal of trees and pile brush from the end of the culvert repair to 90th Street at a cost of $3,275.00. Asleson said Kerry Saxton felt the quote for $19,250.00 was fair. Asleson requested that if the work is approved, it would be on the condition that Saxton meet with Fyle's Excavating to assure all is included in the quote. It was unclear where additional cost may be associated with fill purchased from the landowner at $1.00/yard on site but it appeared it was included within the quote. Repair was not petitioned but is required. Some digging was completed last year and the remainder of the work was to have been completed this year. Substantial rain delayed this repair. With regard to the brush, Sawatzke was informed by the landowner that it could be burned on his property. Asleson said the quotes solicited called for wood to be removed up to a 4" diameter and the remainder piled for burning. Russek moved to approve Saxton working with Fyle's Excavating to assure that the work for the 800' of tile replacement is understood, at a cost of $19,250.00. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson questioned whether additional work anticipated on this ditch will place the cost over the $50,000 limit/year for a ditch. Sawatzke responded that the letter received from Monticello Township relates to repair work which is anticipated to cost less than the quotes received today. The motion carried 5-0.

Correspondence was sent from Monticello Township to Kerry Saxton, SWCD, relating to Ditch 33 repair. The letter cited many tile breaks in the Farm Estates segment. In addition, one branch south of 84th Street appears not to be working. Sawatzke will contact Saxton to request him to review this area. Asleson is attempting to contact the correct railroad crew to request clean out of a culvert under the railroad. Saxton suggested running a new tile due to the number of problems with the current tile. The tile would be very shallow and the cost per foot is not expected to be high. Russek moved to authorize Sawatzke and Saxton to work with Hiivala on what is required for repair. A recommendation for repair should be brought back to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mattson. A petition for repair has not been made but is not required as it is the County's overriding obligation to keep the ditch in repair. The motion carried 5-0.

The claims listing was reviewed. Heeter referenced a claim on page 3, IT Department, for Neil's Floor Covering ($500.00) and questioned whether this should be paid from bond proceeds. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said the work was for flooring completed in the switch room and is not part of the overall project. This department has funded switch room flooring on other floors in the past. On a motion by Heeter, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

A Building Committee meeting was held on 10-22-03. Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:

Request For Additional Parking Slot, Court Services. Mike MacMillan requested an additional parking slot in the east lot next to the funeral home to accommodate a third Court Services vehicle. It was the consensus of the Committee to designate the remaining slots in the first row to County owned vehicles only, along with the two handicapped slots. Hayes will order the appropriate signage. Recommendation: Approve a third parking slot for Court Services with the remaining slots to be designated for County owned vehicles.

Remodeling Project Update. Engel reported the project is on schedule and provided the following update:

Countertop in P&Z - the manufacturer's rep. agrees there is a color variation and will repair it if it is possible to match the color or will replace the whole countertop at no cost to the County.

Countertop in License Bureau - the opinion of the manufacturer's rep. is that it needs additional sanding. This will be done in the next 1-3 weeks.

PR23 - to add sliding glass in the corridor window of the IT Department. The original price was rejected by Engel. A revised price of $458 has been received and reviewed by Engel. Engel feels the price is reasonable and requested approval.

PR15 - an approximate cost of $29,000 was received for the fire alarm additions. Engel reported some pull stations are no longer required by new code and that he has met with the subcontractor to review the costs. He anticipates the revised cost will be approximately $25,000.

Punch Lists - final inspections of Phases 1 & 2 will be done next week. A walk through of Phase 3 will be done the same day.

Quarry Tile on 1st Floor Annex - Kjellberg's Carpet was unwilling to accept their original quote of $9,054. Neil's Floorcovering, Inc. bid was accepted as the next lowest bid. Hayes will be meeting with Neil regarding the possibility of a second color to outline the corridor window areas at no additional cost. There was consensus that a dark grout be used.

Ceiling Tile & Tile in 1st Floor Custodial Closet - Buskey has requested this be done as the closet was previously carpeted and it has been removed. New ceiling grids are needed, but ceiling tiles would be reused from another area.

Carpeting in the Coordinator's Office - Norman requested approval to use the public lounge as a temporary office location and furniture storage area while the office is recarpeted. Three days is anticipated for furniture teardown, carpeting to be replaced, and for the furniture to be reinstalled.

Concrete Repair - Hayes and Scott provided an update on the repair work on the south entrance. The membrane has been installed and is currently being water tested.

Recommendations: Approve PR23 for a glass slider in the IT Department window; tile and ceiling be installed in the custodial closet; and use of the public lounge by the Coordinator's Office during recarpeting.

Tom Zins, Assistant County Attorney, presented a draft resolution which would extend the Adult Uses Interim Ordinance adopted on 10-29-02. At that time, the moratorium was passed to provide the County an opportunity to look at the possibility of constructing an ordinance to control adult uses within the County. The Planning Commission has reviewed a number of studies and alternatives but the work is not yet complete. Statute allows extension of the moratorium. Russek moved to adopt Resolution #03-68 extending the Adult Uses Interim Ordinance, seconded by Heeter. Mattson questioned the involvement of law enforcement. Zins said law enforcement would become involved at the point where a licensing provision was constructed. Currently land use is being reviewed. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

A Deferred Compensation Committee Meeting was held on 10-22-03. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter. Norman requested that with the approval of the minutes, approval be granted to include offering both the ING and MetLife Plans. The motion and second accepted a friendly amendment to also approve acknowledging MetLife to offer their plan if they get the minimum requirements by 2-29-04. The motion carried 5-0. The minutes follow:

Review Plan Offering From ING. A request has been received by ING to be approved as a new plan option to be offered to employees. Dan Eastman, Regional Manager, presented an overview of the ING Plan and provided copies of the Plan for further review. The criteria of enrolling a minimum of 20 employees new to Deferred Compensation by February 29, 2004 in order to be approved as a provider was explained. There was discussion regarding the number of different plans offered in comparison to other counties, and if the new Plans fail to meet the minimum number of enrollees the problem of having to inform employees that they will need to select a different plan. The number of employees enrolled in each of the current plans was reviewed. The Personnel Office is scheduling a Deferred Compensation Fair to be held in December. It was noted that contacting employees is not to be done during work hours. It was the consensus of the Committee that upon an acceptable review of the ING Plan by the Auditor/Treasurer and County Attorney's Office that ING be made available to employees. There was also consensus to not allow any additional new plan offerings for 2004. Recommendation: Upon an acceptable review, authorize ING to be offered to employees. Approval of the ING Plan is contingent upon meeting the minimum requirement of 20 new enrollees by February 29, 2004 in order for the Plan to be added effective March 1, 2004. Not allow any additional new plans for 2004 due to the number of plans which are available to employees.

At 9:34 A.M., the meeting was closed and the Public Hearing opened for the purpose of considering a request for a setback variance under Section 6.006 of the Wright County Feedlot Ordinance. The request for variance was made by Craig Lindberg (Parcel ID #205-000-003301, Cokato Township). Tracy Janikula, Feedlot Administrator, was unable to attend but provided a staff report, topography map, letter from Cokato Township, and a letter from Scott, Sheri & Tyler Carlen. The request is to build a residence approximately 370 feet from the nearest feedlot. The ordinance requires a 500' setback from a feedlot with less than 500 animal units.

With the 100' setback requirement from the property line for the feedlot, the proposed home is 270' from the property line within a grove of trees.

Craig Lindberg owns 34.5 acres and has lived on a farm for all of his life. He purchased the land earlier this year but previously rented it from his father. The proposed site is the only section on the acreage with trees. The hardship would be associated with drainage. Moving northerly is low area. From the proposed site, it would be another 600' before high ground is reached and that would place the home in the middle of a field. He cited the Comprehensive Plan which identifies this as ag area and said that was specifically why he chose this site. The driveway has been constructed. Lindberg did not know of the feedlot until he applied for the permit and received the letter on 9-18-03. The thick trees to the east of the proposed dwelling will provide a 250' of buffer between the site and the feedlot. There is also elevation difference. If they were to locate the house elsewhere, this would take away from crop land. Lindberg felt the proposed location was ideal as it is hidden from the neighbors and it would provide a buffer strip. He said he has lived on a farm his entire life and did not have a problem with the feedlot.

Mattson questioned the definition of feedlot. Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, explained that a feedlot is a confinement area. It would be either the building or fenced-in area where the cattle are fed and where waste will accumulate. Asleson said in terms of registration, the requirement is 10 or more animal units.

Scott Carlen and his family own 120 acres on the east and north side of Lindberg's 40 acres. He objected to the request but said it was hard to speak against neighbors. He referenced a letter he sent to the Board on 10-23-03 outlining his objections to Lindberg's request. A SWCD representative was out and reviewed the area yesterday with Carlen. Carlen said this past Spring, Lindberg tiled through a wetland to drain a wet area on this building site. This tile was attached to Carlen's tile line that drains through his property and into his swamp. If Carlen were to clean the outlet, he said he would be in violation of the FSA program, lose all benefits, and would be assessed for penalties. This would prevent him from farming. The contact with the SWCD was something he had to do as the actions of the Lindberg's put his farm in jeopardy. Carlen previously worked two jobs to be able to farm and now it is his full-time occupation. He and his wife and son plan to expand the farm to include a heifer operation, and more cattle and land. Carlen has been working with Janikula on permitting for feedlots. He currently has two sheds and a proposed third one. He will obtain the permits first and get established before expanding. Carlen was concerned with the safety of children who may live at this residence in the future. The wall of the home would be approximately 270' from the feedlot fence. His insurance company indicated that if the proper setbacks were not followed, there would be a liability risk (within the 400'). The insurance agent said they look at the County ordinances when determining increased risks. Carlen's feedlot and farm are in an area zoned ag. He felt a precedence may be set for future requests and felt an evaluation of the area should be completed before a decision is made. If the variance is allowed, this would cause him a hardship. Carlen said that Lindberg previously had a lot in one of the nicest locations in the County (Section 6) but gave it back to his father and purchased this property. He did not feel Lindberg experienced a hardship and that the location in the trees had not been the only location available to him.

Warren Lindberg (Craig's father) stated the Carlens are using the feedlot law for their own personal gain. Regarding installation of tile, he said 150' was installed next to the old tile. He said the proposed site is located on high ground. He had just received copies of the letter from Carlen to the Board this morning. He did not agree with some of the accusations including the property line dispute. They do hold a certificate of survey.

Mattson questioned whether there had been a former building site. Lindberg said neighbors had indicated there was a house at the proposed site at one time. Carlen has resided on his property all of his life and said there had never been a building site in the woods. There was a cabin in the woods which was removed possibly 20 years ago.

Mattson has lived on a farm all of his life and they had 150 head of beef. He had never heard of an insurance liability associated with that. Carlen provided examples of some of the things insurance companies look for when determining liability. When he asked his agent why his insurance had doubled in the past three years, the agent explained that it was due to the liability costs paid out for accidents. Farms are ranked in the top two for accidents. Carlen offered to obtain additional information for the Board if so desired.

Dan Bravinder, Cokato Township Supervisor, said it was unfortunate that Carlen had not provided the same testimony at the Township level. When Lindberg applied for the variance, Carlen was not present. At today's meeting, Bravinder said he was present to speak on protecting individual private property rights, which is the reason he serves on the Township Board. Bravinder read from the Township maintenance operator's records what had transpired with regard to the driveway on the Lindberg property. The following is a summary of those records:

5-9-03 Warren Lindberg contacted the Township to discuss a driveway off Reardon Ave. SW to lead to a proposed building site. The Township indicated they would look at the site during the next week.

5-12-03 The Township looked at the driveway placement and decided on a 15" x 30" culvert. This was agreed upon with Warren Lindberg.

5-13-03 The Township picked up the culvert from the Highway Department and delivered it to the driveway site.

5-14-03 or 5-15-03 The Township spoke with Scott Carlen about a project he had. Other discussion included the work being done at the Reardon's and the proposed building site. Carlen told the Township he was going to get a feedlot permit so they couldn't get too close to his place. At today's meeting, Bravinder said that they did not have record of it but the Carlen feedlot permit was applied for after May 14th or 15th. He felt it was important that each person have the right to do what they want on their property. He felt it would be wrong for a property owner to take existing legislation and use it for their own benefit against another. Bravinder said the reason he was present today was because he took an oath to uphold the constitution of the State of Minnesota.

Russek had concern with creating a feedlot ordinance and then granting variances. If the variance request were presented to the Board of Adjustment, they would ask whether the applicant had other places to build on the land. Although Lindberg stated he would experience a hardship, Russek did not feel it would be viewed as one before the Board of Adjustment. He referenced the staff recommendation and said he would lean toward not granting the variance.

Sawatzke said he could not vote today to grant the variance but would support going to the site for review. With 35 acres, he felt there was more than enough area to build a home. He referenced and supported a comment made by Carlen stating that in the SW part of the County, if setbacks can meet 500' they should. He was surprised the County had not run into requests from the eastern portion of the County. He would vote no as to hardship.

Heeter felt the County should preserve ag land and that building within the wooded area made sense. She referenced the suggestion by the Township Officer that the feedlot permit was applied for after the driveway permit was obtained and could be an effort to use that law. She was not ready to make a decision at this point and supported a site visit.

Mattson referenced other areas of the County and voiced concern with running a road through the middle of a field in order to build a home. He felt many fields were being destroyed in this fashion. He referenced the Ordinance and the potential of denying the variance based upon it. However, the proposed site was more desirable than to take away ag land. Eichelberg also supported taking the time to review the area and to delay the vote to another meeting. Asleson suggested involving Janikula in a site inspection. A decision would be required by the end of December if the Board followed the 90-day guideline outlined in the ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 10:22 A.M. and the regular Board meeting was reconvened. Mattson moved to tour the site at 11:00 A.M. on 11-4-03, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Russek, all voted to continue this discussion to the 11-25-03 County Board meeting at 10:00 A.M. Sawatzke referenced the staff report from Janikula. With regard to adverse environmental effects, he thought she may be interpreting the Ordinance in a way that does not apply to this variance request. Asleson said he also interpreted the language as Sawatzke did.

Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, recommended accepting the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for denial of the following rezoning and authorizing signature on the Notice and Order of Denial: A. Maynard & Geraldine Olson (Rockford Twp.). Planning Commission unanimously recommend denial of the request to rezone from AG & S-2 to R-2 & S-2. Maynard Olson and his attorney, David Lenhart, were present for today's discussion.

Lenhart said Olson is attempting to create a small group of lots on the first tier of Moore Lake. The process was started in October, 2002 when Olson was instructed by Planning & Zoning to approach the Township for approval of the road. The Township approved the concept of the road with certain criteria. From that point, the request went to Planning & Zoning for review on whether to rezone the property. It was suggested that Olson proceed with a PUD. The Rockford Township Land Use Plan allows 1st tier development along lakes. The proposal by Olson would not run the lots directly to the lake but instead to an open space preceding the lake. All properties would have ownership to this area. Lenhart compared it to a private park. Lenhart referenced the findings and discussion about whether this is riparian or a 1st tier cluster next to a lake. He said Olson figured the proposal would be better environmentally as drainage would flow through a wetland rather than directly to a lake. The Township recommended to the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning. The Township's reasoning was that this was for 32 acres and larger than anticipated. Lenhart said the Land Use Plan does not address limitations on acreage but does address allowing 1st tier development. Lenhart said that at their September meeting the Planning Commission, upon receiving the Township's recommendation, did not discuss anything and moved to deny the findings. The findings were drafted and adopted at their first meeting in October. He said the Planning Commission did not address drainage or whether the lots had to run to the Lake instead of the park area. His client had never been asked to submit engineering data and he did not believe the County or Township brought in any data for discussion. If the rezoning is denied, his client did not have the opportunity to have issues looked at. If the rezoning is not denied, he requested these issues be addressed. Lenhart asked that the rezoning not be denied at this point but have the issue referred back to the Planning Commission. This would provide his client the opportunity to speak to drainage and environmental concerns. Although the road is long, this is not unusual in the Township. When the Township reviewed the road request in October, 2002, the vote was 4-1. In review of the minutes, Lenhart did not find discussion on these types of items and asked that his client be given opportunity to address them.

Russek serves on the Planning Commission. Rockford Township's Land Use Plan allows development of lake shore lots. However, with this request there is quite a bit of land that is unbuildable. In addition, the Rockford Township Land Use Map has this zoned ag and that was another reason why the vote was to deny the rezoning. The Rockford Township Board also recommended denial. The findings reflect the reasons why the Planning Commission voted the way they did.

Russek moved to accept the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for denial of the following rezoning and to authorize signature on the Notice and Order of Denial: Maynard & Geraldine Olson (Rockford Twp.), Planning Commission unanimously recommend denial of the request to rezone from AG & S-2 to R-2 & S-2. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Further discussion followed.

Olson said in the process, he and Salkowski met and viewed the property. He was told to gain approval of the road from the Township. Upon approval, he would come back to the Planning Commission for approval or denial of the rezoning or variances. Olson was part of the committee that set up the Land Use Plan in Rockford Township, which allows 1st tier development around lakes. He said he never put the word "riparian" in the Plan. By law, these lots would be riparian as these landowners would own land in a park to the lake. Riparian means legal owners. He said the Plan does not identify size of lots or acreage. The plan does allow 1 tier of lot development. Olson met with a member of the Township Board and Salkowski and they inadvertently approved the zoning. They did not act within the 60 days but rather it took one year to render a decision. Olson said this is against State law, which by law he has adverse approval. At the meeting with the Township Officer and Salkowski, Olson said the Township Officer felt the road was too long. Olson said there are many developments in Rockford Township which have dead end roads or multiples within the same development. As far as this being an environmental lake, he cited ten acres on Green Mountain Lake which were approved and that is an environmental lake. By environmental lake law, a home cannot be built. He said approval was gained to build a home on Green Mountain Lake where drainage runs into the lake. The entry driveway does not meet the Township or County laws.

Olson said Salkowski previously indicated that the plan was a viable one and that they could work within the laws. He asked Salkowski to address this. Russek responded that everyone has a right to a hearing. Salkowski does not vote at that hearing. The Planning Commission voted to deny and recommend the findings. At today's meeting, Salkowski indicated that he supported the recommendation to deny the request. Discussion followed on the Township's recommendation. Salkowski said that the record indicated that the Township looked at the road one year ago and gave the indication that they would approve it. The Township does not have the final say in the approval. They changed their mind when they got into the details. Salkowski said the partnership formed with the Township is strong and important, but neither the Planning Commission nor the County Board rubber stamps their recommendations. The Planning Commission had several meetings as well as a site visit. Salkowski said that if the denial is approved, Olson will not be able to reapply for one year. He was unsure how many building entitlements he had left on his farm.

Lenhart said Rockford Township did vote on 10-22-02 to accept the road with certain conditions. The Township did recommend denial for rezoning. The reason reflected in the minutes is not because of the road but on the basis that 32 acres is an excessive amount of acreage for a single tier development. Nothing in the Land Use Plan talks about acreage. The findings do not go into why the request is not good environmentally. One comment he has heard is that Olson is attempting to include more lots. From Lenhart's perspective, Olson could have requested narrow pie pieces to the lake if he wanted to include more lots. Their position is that this is a single tier development. The open space next to the lake allows for drainage before it runs into the lake. He requested that if there are environmental or drainage concerns that appear in the findings, and that Olson be allowed to submit something as this was not brought up. The vote on the motion to deny the rezoning carried 5-0. A copy of the Notice and Order of Denial will be provided to Olson upon signature by the Coordinator.

A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 10-22-03. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:

Performance Review - Tom Salkowski, P&Z Administrators. Based on the review of three performance reviews submitted, the Committee recommends an overall rating of "Exceptional."

Correspondence was received from MCIT requesting designation of voting delegates and alternates for the election of two seats on the MCIT Board of Directors. The Annual Meeting will be held on 12-8-03 at 1:00 P.M., Minneapolis. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Heeter, all voted to designate Richard Norman as the Voting Delegate and Doug Gruber as the Alternate.

Correspondence was received from the Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force (MCETF) inviting Wright County to join their Task Force. There is no cost to be a member. Sawatzke previously served on the Coalition of Utility Counties and the AMC Public Utilities Task Force. Both groups have been less active in the past couple of years. Sawatzke moved to direct Norman to request more information and to express an interest in some type of meeting. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0. It was suggested that a meeting could be held at the AMC Conference, Board Meeting or through a Committee Of The Whole.

Mattson extended sympathy to the family of Curt Eastlund who died as a result of an auto accident. Eastlund was a Design Engineer for Mn/DOT and worked with many cities on road design projects.

Bills Approved

Advanced Filing Concepts, Inc. 544.32

American Institutional Supply 1649.45

Aramark Correctional Services 5043.87

AT&T - Universal Biller 4254.03

B&D Plumbing & Heating 197.00

BLM Technologies, Inc. 2184.32

Buffalo Hospital-OTPT Commerci 2484.90

CDW Government, Inc. 701.46

Cellular 2000 of St. Cloud 115.58

Decorative Designs, Inc. 175.53

Emergency Physicians Professio 1337.00

Ernst, Debbie 263.82

Exxon Mobil 594.56

Facility Systems, Inc. 271.58

Frontier Precision, Inc. 1118.05

Fyles Excavating & Honey Wagon 110.00

Gall's, Inc. 265.53

Gateway Companies, Inc. 4223.81

Gordys Foods 143.80

Hay Group 896.00

Hickory Tech Enterprise Soluti 13,587.23

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 2419.68

Huemoeller, Neal 149.80

Interstate Automotive 150.00

Kandiyohi Cty Sheriffs Departm 13,355.00

Kelly, Thomas 105.12

Klein, Mike 103.52

Lantto, Lilia 247.50

LaPlant Demo, Inc. 561.00

Marlin Leasing Corporation 1069.86

McCombs Frank Roos Associates 784.80

Midland Corporate Benefits Svc 1511.25

Minn Blue Digital Imaging 132.06

MN Counties Computer Co-op 119.17

Morrison Cty Sheriff 7871.58

NADA Appraisal Guides 150.00

Neil's Floor Covering 500.00

Office Depot 1279.29

Praska, Tom 195.00

Precision Prints of Wright Co. 135.57

Qwest 455.51

Rasmuson, Anthony 753.92

Record Preservation, Inc. 570.60

Red's Cafe 515.19

RS Eden 852.15

Russek, Jack 239.76

Ruttger's Bay Lake Lodge 826.44

Schedule Soft 375.00

Software House International In 868.00

Sprint-Local Telecom Division 186.89

State of MN Intertech Group 315.15

Swanson Brothers Trapline Servc 190.56

West Central Environmental Con 8700.00

West Group Payment Center 493.50

Wittstock, Jerome 266.22

Wright County Highway Dept. 27,306.54

Wright Hennepin Electric 532.79

Xcel Energy 393.72

24 payments less than $100 1249.28

Final Total $116,693.76

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M.


Return to Wright County Menu | Return to Government Table of Contents

Herald Journal
Stories | Columns | Obituaries | Classifieds
Guides | Sitemap | Search | Home Page