Wright County Board Minutes
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Mattson, Eichelberg, Russek and Sawatzke present.
Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 9-07-04, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Mattson moved to approve the minutes of 9-08-04, seconded by Heeter. Russek said he would abstain from the vote as he was not present at the meeting. The motion carried 4-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Item A4, “Reclassify Lead Clerk To Secretary, Extension, Eff. 9-14-04” (Norman); Item For Consid. #3, “RC&D Organic Short Course Update” (Russek). Russek moved to approve the Agenda with the two additions, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Mattson, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda as amended:
1. Performance Appraisals: K. Brantner, A. Duis, D. Garrett, C. Hohl, Atty.; C. Davis, T. Janikula, P&Z; P. Burke, S. Doyle, P. Johnson, B. LeeMiller, Sher./Corr.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 8-27-04.
3. Cancel 9-14-04 Building Committee Meeting.
4. Reclassify Lead Clerk To Secretary, Extension, Eff. 9-14-04.
1. Authorize Signature On Grant Application For Emergency Funds From The Department Of Public Safety, $3,000, For Victim/Witness Program.
1. Refer Auditor/Treasurer/Motor Vehicle Flex Schedule To Personnel Committee.
1. Approve Memo Of Understanding With City Of Cokato RE: Storage and Purchase Of Sand/Salt.
E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer To 9-22-04 Building Committee: 1) Air Conditioning Unit-Main Computer Room; 2) Multimedia Recommendations (From 7-28-04 Building Committee); 3) Security Systems (From 1-28-04 Building Committee); and 4) Security Audit.
1. Approve Hire, Terri Yurczyk, Corrections Officer, Eff. 10-04-04 (Step 1).
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. On a motion by Russek, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Mary Anderson, U of M Extension Service, introduced Brenda Postels who was hired 9-06-04 as the Wright County U of M Ag Production Systems Technical Advisor. Postels will work in agriculture and horticulture. Postels worked in this capacity on a temporary basis this past summer for Wright County.
A Budget Committee meeting was held on 9-08-04. At today’s County Board Meeting, Norman noted that the revised Highway budget will not impact the total budget or levy figures. Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:
Road & Bridge Cash Reporting. At the 8-31-04 County Board Meeting the Wright County Highway Department Annual Report for 2003 was reviewed for approval. There was discussion at that meeting on a $210,000 discrepancy in the Annual Report versus the year-end cash figure provided in the 2005 budget. On 9-7-04 Hiivala, Norman, Fingalson and Ellis met to discuss the discrepancy in further detail. At today’s meeting, it was clarified that the cash balance in the annual report does not match the cash balance in the budget because the annual report includes deferred revenues and payables. The cash balance figured reconciled to the IFS system is $1,940,298.95, as shown in the 2003 Annual Report. Hiivala is recommending the Highway Department change from an accrual accounting system to a cash basis accounting system which will be consistent with Human Services and the General Fund budgets. The Highway Department will make the format change and prepare a revised budget with a new line item for encumbrances, which will result in the cash balance of the budget matching the annual report cash balance. Hiivala also mentioned a recommendation from the State Auditor’s Office for a larger cash reserve to be held in the Road & Bridge Fund. Cash reserves in the Road & Bridge, Human Services and General Fund will be discussed further in the exit interview with the State Auditor’s Office. Recommendation: The Highway Department will change to a cash accounting format and prepare a revised budget. (End of Budget Committee minutes)
A Building Committee meeting was held on 9-02-04. At today’s meeting, it was noted that the Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting scheduled for 9-14-04 had been cancelled. Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:
Master Plan Goals/Design Solutions. George Fantauzza initiated discussion on the goals and desired outcome from the study. Norman summarized the discussion in terms of a revolving five year capital improvement plan and a 20 year long-range strategic plan. There was general discussion on the number of future courtrooms which will be needed, how to best use vacated Jail/Sheriff/Dispatch space when a new Jail facility is built, and connectedness of various departments to each other. There was discussion on the daily interaction of staff from the Sheriff’s Department, Court Administration, Court Services and the Attorney’s Office, along with transporting costs of inmates.
Review & Comment On DLR Group’s Preliminary Options & Conceptual Design Of Solutions To Existing County Infrastructure. Sue Herrington distributed a number of drawings showing current use of space and department locations and reviewed expansion space available at the Human Services Building and Public Works Building. She is preparing staffing projections to 2010 with estimated square feet of expansion space in departments. It was noted at the Human Services Center there is currently expansion space for 26 staff members. There was discussion on future space needs at the Public Works Building and shop area, as there is essentially no expansion space available. The possibility of moving the Surveyor’s Office to the Government Center at a future date was suggested by DLR Group. It was the consensus of the Committee for DLR Group to not include building expansion at either the Human Services Center or Public Works Building in their study. Jon Crump presented a number of options for possible use of vacated Jail and Sheriff Department space. Most of the discussion focused on Court Administration security issues with transporting inmates to court, location of additional courtrooms, demolition costs and options in converting the Jail to an office tower, and options of expanding the Government Center either to the West or North. With the population growth of the County it was felt that plans would need to include space for 7 courtrooms. Norman questioned the proposed relocation of a number of departments where remodeling was just completed and initiated discussion on future use of the third floor. He suggested DLR Group look at relocation of the County Commissioners, Board Room, and County Coordinator’s Office to the third floor. There was brief discussion on moving Human Services staff from the third floor to HSC and relocating Public Health staff. Norman also suggested the first floor of the Annex be considered for common meeting rooms and a cafeteria in the future. It was the consensus of those in attendance that the brainstorming discussion brought forth many new ideas to be reviewed in terms of costs, keeping departments connected that work closely together, and allowing the maximum amount of expansion within the current footprint of the Government Center. There was agreement that trying to build a new Jail facility either West or North connecting to the Government Center does not appear feasible. The Committee requested figures for cost comparison for a Jail/Sheriff complex to be built on land owned by the County at the Public Works site, as well as a criminal justice complex which would also include the Courts, Attorney’s Office and Court Services. This would vacate enough space in the Government Center to move all of Human Services back to the Government Center and provide sufficient future expansion space for the other departments remaining at the Government Center. It was suggested that a law enforcement/judicial complex be built in two phases: 1) new Jail/Sheriff Department; and 2) five years later relocating the Courts, Court Services and Attorney’s Office. DLR Group will prepare price comparisons for an on-site versus off-site Jail for presentation at the next meeting which is scheduled for September 14, 2004 at 10:30 A.M. Staffing projections, amount of square footage expansion space, and suggestions from today’s discussion will be incorporated into drawings for presentation at that time. (End of Building Committee Minutes)
Barb Chafee, Executive Director of Central MN Jobs & Training Services (CMJTS), provided an overview of handouts reflecting various programs and statistics related to those programs. CMJTS serves eleven counties (including Wright County). Also distributed was the financial report. Twyla Wozniak explained she works with the South Region and with public assistance programs. The Diversionary Work Program, implemented in 2004, is a fast moving program to divert people into the program who have not been on public assistance during the previous year. The goal is to have them look for work immediately to attempt to keep them off from long term public assistance. The Universal Participation Program was also implemented in 2004 and works to help those with illness or injury to become more independent so they can either get off assistance or move into other forms of income. Chafee said demographics reflect Wright County has experienced rapid population growth in recent years. Nearly 12,000 have come to the County between July 2000 and July 2003. Wright County was the seventh-fastest growing county in the State from 1990 to 2000 (population gain of 31%). State Demographer population projections show continued explosive growth over the next three decades. Wright County is expected to see a 54.5% increase from 2000 to 2030. The median age in Wright County was 33.1 years in 2000 which was lower than the state median age of 35.4 years. Wright County had the second highest median household income in Central Minnesota at $53,945 and the second highest median family income at $60,940, which was higher than the State medians of $47,111 and $56,874 respectively. Wright County had the second highest median house value in the Central region at $135,300 or about $13,000 higher than the State’s median value. Wright County is the largest exporter of labor (having more employed residents than available jobs) in the Central Region sending 15,445 workers to other counties each day. Wright County had the lowest percentage of government workers (9.9%) and the fifth lowest percentage of self-employed workers (7.4%) in the region. Trish Taylor, CMJTS Board Chair thanked the County Board for their support. As of January, she will be the Chair of the State Association for Workforce Centers and is involved in the Governor’s Workforce Council. She also works with the Legislative Audit Committee. Taylor spoke highly of their relationship with the Department of Economic Development, who has been receptive to their comments and have acted upon them. CMJTS is working more with employers and have six regional managers to oversee this function. Barb Petersen and Lori Pawelk, Wright County Personnel Representatives, were present for today’s discussion. Petersen explained that Wright County is now able to post the County’s employment opportunities on the CMJTS website. The Personnel Department completed an analysis of three different positions they recruited for to determine how applicants had learned of the opening. With one of the positions, 18 out of 51 applicants learned of the opening through the CMJTS website. Petersen complimented the service provided by the CMJTS. Representatives of the CMJTS were thanked for their efforts.
At 9:39 A.M., the Public Hearing was held for a variance request from the Feedlot Ordinance by Rich Kuechenmeister. Tracy Janikula, Feedlot Administrator, said her 9-08-04 memorandum to the Board outlines information on the request. Kuechenmeister would like to build a horse barn on Parcel #220-000-364301 and the property is 200’ wide. The Feedlot Ordinance requires a 100’ setback and the property is zoned agricultural. Kuechenmeister is currently purchasing the property from Jeff & Deb Allison. The request was approved by Woodland Township at their 9-13-04 meeting. Kuechenmeister distributed a handout reflecting his application to the Board of Adjustment and a layout of the proposed 40’ x 60’ barn (combination horse and shop). On the west side of the property is a bean field and the east side is a tree line with a residence on the other side. There will be no setback issues with the north or south sides. The six-acre parcel is allowed a maximum of three animal units. Kuechenmeister plans to have two horses. There is currently an 8’ x 12’ shed (no foundation) on the property which will probably be relocated. He requested a 50’ setback from the east and west sides to accommodate options with regard to placement of a septic mound. Sawatzke suggested increasing the setback from 50’ to 60’ on one of the sides, allowing the other side to meet the required setback. Kuechenmeister’s concern was with the location of the mound system so that it did not interfere with the building. Kuechenmeister referenced the letter from the Allisons supporting the request for a variance due to problems selling the property because of setback requirements. Janikula said that the Feedlot Ordinance requires a 100’ setback. Prior to the adoption of the Feedlot Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance required a 50’ setback if the adjoining property was over four acres in size. The request would meet the 50’ setback from the west property line which is shared by a 34-acre tilled field. Sawatzke supported the variance request but felt it should be 60’ from the property line. He suggested that approval could reflect a 60’ requirement unless sewer placement would not allow for this. When questioned, Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, did not feel that 10’ would make a difference when there is 100’ to work with. Kuechenmeister responded that current plans provide for a diagonally placed mound system which takes up additional acreage. The existing tanks sit approximately 50’ behind the home and the well is in front of the home. Russek moved to allow a 50’ setback from either lot line to accommodate the shed as per the proposal distributed today for a 40’ x 60’ building, seconded by Mattson. Sawatzke said he would vote against the motion as he thought the motion gave up 10’ more than what was needed. The motion carried 4-1 with Sawatzke casting the nay vote.
Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, presented a recommendation to accept the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for denial of the following rezoning and to authorize signature on the Notice & Order of Denial: Robert & Barbara Esse (Silver Creek Township), Planning Commission unanimously recommend denial of the request to rezone from AG to A/R. Russek said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezoning request and the process failed to establish a hardship or reason to do this. The parcel is restricted with no building entitlements. Russek said it would be spot zoning if approved.
Robert Esse explained that they appeared at the Planning Commission with a request to rezone 15 acres. They wish to gain an entitlement to allow them to build a more efficient retirement home. Esse referenced the Zoning Ordinance in the following areas:
1) The Ordinance authorizes a seven member board to make a recommendation.; 2) The intent of the standards are to preserve an average density of one dwelling per 40 acres in the AG district, except where legal lots of record are involved. This intent shall be considered when questions regarding interpretation of these regulations may arise; 3) Entitlements may be transferred to contiguous property under common ownership (but not between owners, nor to separate parcels); 4) Entitlements may be transferred between separate owners to contiguous property provided some amount of land moves with the entitlement; 5) Section 603.1. This ag/residential district is created to serve as a buffer between agricultural areas and more intensely developed residential areas.
Esse questioned whether the Board agreed with the referenced areas of the Ordinance. Sawatzke responded that although he was familiar with a few of the references, he was not familiar with the intimate details of the Ordinance. Esse referred to the Planning Commission process and said that documents he prepared with his request were not presented until half way through the process. He also stated the vote of the Planning Commission was not unanimous. Salkowski and Russek recalled that this was correct, that Bakeberg had opposed the vote so it was a 6:1 recommendation. Russek said that Bakeberg thought a site inspection should be done and the remainder of the Planning Commission did not feel that would provide any additional information that would change the outcome of the vote. He said that was why Bakeberg voted against the recommendation.
Esse said his property lies between a 540 acre farm and seven properties, each with entitlements, mostly in the 2-11 acre range. He said his property would be a buffer zone. The seven property divisions occurred in 1978 just prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. Esse didn’t feel there was flexibility in the current Land Use Plan. He said the Plan doesn’t say it is a law and the decision is left to staff and the Board. Esse said there is a revised Land Use Plan emerging from Silver Creek Township which may include rezoning of the farm adjacent to his property to ag/residential. He questioned whether he would need to support that rezoning as a way to gain approval for his rezoning request. He felt that was prime ag land. Esse said his request was unique in that his property is between a major farm and small properties. He volunteered his services for future work on the Land Use Plan. He felt the Zoning Ordinance was reasonably good but the Land Use Plan needed modification. Esse requested overturning the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow rezoning of this property as a buffer between prime ag land and plotted land.
Russek said Silver Creek just reviewed the Land Use Plan a few years ago and their recommendation was to leave the Plan alone. The Land Use Plan indicates that land all around this area is zoned agricultural. Heeter was aware that Silver Creek Township has been working on the Plan and had three different variations. An agreement has not been reached by the Township Board or the committee that was formed to work on this. Esse indicated a public hearing may be held in October for the Silver Creek Land Use Plan. Barb Esse extended appreciation for the opportunity to address the Board today. She reiterated her concerns on flexibility in these types of cases and felt their property was a buffer zone from preventing growth into the farm. Sawatzke commended Esse for his research but said he would not support the request as the arguments on the other side outweigh what he had brought forth. He said that Esse’s parcel was not the only parcel in the County that was unique. If the request were approved, the County would open a flood gate of similar requests.
Salkowski was unaware of any Silver Creek Land Use Plan, as they do not do their own land use planning. He felt it was odd that the Wright County Land Use Plan may be amended and staff was unaware of it. He respected the rational approach to the request but thought it was presumptuous to assert there was no flexibility with the Land Use Plan or system. He said there is flexibility built in but this case did not rise to the level that would justify rezoning. Salkowski said nothing has changed in the neighborhood since 1992 when the Board of Adjustment was asked to create Esse’s 15 acre lot with no entitlement. At that time, Esse agreed there would be no building entitlement. Salkowski said rezoning is a major decision and entitlements cannot be sold without acreage. The County Board and Planning Commission deliberately did not set up a market in entitlements due to: 1) the potential of moving all entitlements from Woodland to Marysville Township; 2) people do not understand the value of the entitlements and may sell them to someone to use somewhere else; 3) the main concern was selling entitlements and using them 10 miles away. With this case, Salkowski said an option for Esse would be to contact the adjoining property owner to see whether they would be willing to sell acreage with an entitlement. The Board of Adjustment may consider that request. Salkowski said this case was unique in that the Board attached the land to the Esse home located across the street. Rezoning was not the appropriate method of dealing with the situation and the Planning Commission recognized that.
Esse said that he wished the variance committee had the same rules in place when he purchased the land 12-14 years ago. At that time, he did not plan on building on the land but felt the system was flexible enough that he would be able to do so in future years if desired. Otherwise he would have taken care of the issue at that time. Sawatzke said that the County would be interested in working with Silver Creek Township. He noted, however, that the County has not approved one plan presented in the past as it was felt it was too aggressive. Some residents apply pressure to allow development but there are others who are not in favor of it. The County needs to fulfill the interests of the majority. Salkowski noted for the record that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and findings were mailed to Esse. A signed copy reflecting the County Board’s action will be provided to Esse today or via mail. Russek said even if he were the only Planning Commission member that voted against the request, he would still have to vote in favor of denial at the County Board level as that was the recommendation of the Commission. Russek moved to approve the recommendation to accept the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for denial of the following rezoning and to authorize signature on the Notice & Order of Denial: Robert & Barbara Esse (Silver Creek Township), Planning Commission unanimously recommend denial of the request to rezone from AG to A/R. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 4-1 withHeeter casting the nay vote. Mattson said he supported the motion due to the explanation of Bakeberg’s motion.
A Building Committee meeting was held on 9-08-04. Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:
Court Administration Remodeling Request. Nordeen presented the following items that were deferred to committee from 2003 and 2004 budget requests, along with two new items, for discussion:
1. Analysis of workstation arrangements and efficiency of workflow within the department and related equipment and labor to carry out adopted recommendations.
2. Redesign of front counters to promote access to computer records, improve customerer service, security and ergonomics of counter workstations.
3. Space design, furniture and construction requirements for vacated law library space.
4. Records storage
5. Increase public seating and replace furnishings in the public lounge and conference rooms.
6. Construct bailiff station in main public corridor (new item)
7. Provide cushions for courtroom seating (new items)
8. Consider forum for future planning items: Accommodation for additional chambered judge, courtroom/jury expansion, support personnel; centralize collections function.
In response to a question from Heeter, Norman stated he did not see these items as a part of DLR Group’s current space study. Nordeen reviewed a drawing proposing the old Law Library space be converted into additional office and conference room space. There was discussion on a proposal for a consulting group from Colorado specializing in the Courts area to do an analysis of workstations and workflow at a cost of $1,000/day, plus travel expenses. Heeter favored a more comprehensive study encompassing all of these issues rather than a bandaide approach, however, she was unaware that travel expenses would be involved. Norman questioned whether there weren’t less costly ways of reviewing workflow space, etc. He also mentioned break room space in regard to the need for expansion of records storage. Nordeen proposed constructing a bailiff station in the main public corridor. Norman stated construction into the corridor may not meet fire code. Hayes suggested working with the systems furniture vendor regarding the possibility of reconfiguring the layout of workstations which would improve workflow. Norman recommended Hayes, Nordeen and Buskey obtain costs and options on redesign of the front counter, old Law Library area, and a bailiff station for discussion at a future meeting. (End ofBuilding Committee Minutes)
A Labor/Management Health Insurance Committee meeting was held on 9-08-04. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Eichelberg. Sawatzke questioned whether it would be beneficial to change the dates of the plan year from March to January. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said there are pros and cons to that switch. Doing so would move the bid process date to the same time when insurance carriers are bidding many other plans. He felt the advantage to a March effective date was that the carrier may take a truer look at Wright County’s situation. The March 1st plan year is reflected in all of the seven collective bargaining agreements and any change would have to be negotiated. Wright County is one of a very few counties not on a calendar year basis. The motion carried 5-0:
Members reviewed the Medica Experience Accounting Summary for the 12 month period of 6/1/2003 through 5/31/2004. It was noted that the County’s utilization rate is 97.78%, a more favorable rate than we have experienced the last couple of years. Premiums paid to Medica for that period were $3,827,702. Wright County’s pharmacy utilization rate of 16.7% is almost identical to that of all Medica members. The County will need to go out for health insurance bids for the plan year beginning 3/1/2006. (End of Labor/Management Health Insurance Committee Minutes)
A Personnel Committee meeting was held on 9-08-04. At today’s Board Meeting, the following change was made to the minutes: page 2, 1st paragraph, last sentence should read, “Currently, physicals are mandatory per State Law for Deputy and Environmental Health positions.” Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes with the change, seconded by Russek. Discussion followed on the Buffalo prosecution contract. Sawatzke explained that the amount being presented to the City for approval was based on a 3% per year increase (based on this year’s figure). It was noted that the City previously was paying $72,000/year for prosecution services elsewhere. The members of the Personnel Committee agreed that the contract figure should not be viewed as a revenue source but to cover the costs of the attorney (services, support staff, equipment, training, mileage, overhead, etc.). A contract is also held with the City of Annandale. Sawatzke said the County Attorney was supportive of the proposed figures for 2005-2007. The motion carried 5-0:
Buffalo Prosecution Contract. The Attorney’s Office provides prosecution services for the City of Buffalo at a cost of $62,599 for 2004. Kelly suggested the County lock into a contract with the City for another three-year period. He supported renewal of the contract provided the County continues to see a benefit. The benefit currently being realized is the assistance the position provides to prosecution of the misdemeanor caseload. Without this assistance, Kelly did not feel the one attorney could handle the County’s misdemeanor caseload. The City proposed a contract rate of $62,500 each year for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Kelly responded to the City that he would bring forth the following proposal to the Committee for review: $62,500 in 2005; $64,062 in 2006 (2.5% increase); and $65,664 in 2007 (2.5% increase). Recommendation: Kelly was directed to submit to the City the final offer of: $64,476 in 2005, $66,411 in 2006; and $68,403 in 2007. This equates to $199,290 for the three-year contract. Kelly will request a response from the City within 30 days.
Smoking/Tobacco Use Policy. The Wellness Committee has requested review of the County’s Smoking/Tobacco Use Policy as part of the update of the Personnel Policy Manual. The Wellness Committee has received feedback on the air quality around County building entrances and air intake units. The Personnel Policy reflects that “Smoking will be allowed on County property surrounding County buildings except near air intake units or other designated areas.” Recommendation: Administration will research past Board minutes for discussion on this issue and bring forth possible solutions for designated smoking areas. This issue will be discussed at the next Personnel Committee Meeting and will include an outside tour of the facility.
Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
A. Pre-Employment Physical Exams. Staff consulted departments to obtain an opinion on what positions should require physicals when staff is hired. As part of the pre-employment physical, staff recommendation is to add the occupational physical screen at a cost of approximately $100/hr. initial setup/position and a $70 screen/applicant. The occupational physical will also provide information on whether a person can perform with or without accommodations. Currently, physicals are mandatory per State Law for Deputy and Environmental Health positions. Recommendation: It was the Committee’s position that staff recommendation be followed. The language in the Personnel Policy & Procedure Manual will be revised and presented to the Board for approval. (End of Personnel Committee Minutes)
Richard Norman, County Coordinator, presented a draft resolution establishing the draft 2005 Budget and draft 2005 Certified Taxable Levy. The levy can no longer increase after adoption of the resolution today. The draft reflects an increase in levy of 11.1%. Mattson moved to adopt Resolution #04-57, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. The resolution follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Wright County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes draft 2005 budgets as follows:
GENERAL REVENUE $ 33,841,945
HUMAN SERVICES 20,400,800
ROAD & BRIDGE 19,359,886
DEBT SERVICE 3,696,383
LAKE PULASKI L.I.D. 38,500
TOTAL BUDGET $ 77,337,514
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Wright County Board of Commissioners hereby establishes a Draft 2005 Certified Taxable Levy of $31,080,694.
Russek provided an update on the RC&D Organic Short Course he attended last week. The course was provided for ag professionals at the Rockford Township Hall. Four tours were held (marketing, fruit & vegetable, beef, and crop farm). Russek visited a crop farm near Litchfield. He said it was a very interesting and informative presentation.
Accurate USA $138.50
American Health Care Supply 489.32
American Institutional Supply 1,630.14
Ameripride Linen/Apparel 180.10
Ancom Technical Center 993.59
Applied Communications of MN 575.00
Aramark Correctional Serv. 10,148.92
Kirk Asplin 119.85
Auto. Garage Door/ Fireplace 1,015.00
B & D Plumbing/Heating 306.00
Joe Backes 200.62
Bob Barker Co. 392.67
Barnes Distribution 480.73
Buff ‘N’ Glo 115.00
Buffalo Bituminous 5,037.93
City Buffalo 324.64
Building Fasteners 268.37
Canadian Pacific Railway 136,830.60
Center Point Energy 2,230.60
Centra Sota Lake Region 4,301.87
The Copy Shop 175.37
Corinna Township 2,661.19
Culligan of Buffalo 300.00
Dales 66 117.15
Days Inn Willmar 208.92
Deatons Mailing Systems Inc. 1,188.00
E-Z Flush 482.60
Ernst General Const. Inc. 760.00
Force America Inc. 1,803.71
Gene’s Service 121.50
Raymond Glunz 200.00
Go Corporation 191.91
Gordy’s Foods 100.05
Hennepin Co. Treasurer 2,777.50
Hickman Service Inc. 515.53
Holt Motors Inc. 114.50
Home Solutions 603.09
Interstate Battery Sys. of Mpls. 279.72
J Craft Div. of Crysteel Mfg. 2,566.65
Jerry’s Towing & Repair 133.13
Kandiyohi Co. Sheriff’s Dept. 12,540.00
KNR Communications Serv. 235.50
Kramers Hardware 227.56
Kris Engineering Inc. 951.65
Lab Safety Supply Inc. 175.07
Lakedale Telephone Co. 463.60
Maple Lake Lumber Co. 471.13
Marco Business Products 545.20
Martin Marietta Aggregates 2,181.53
Marks Standard Parts 2,121.16
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 1,750.00
MASYS Corporation 2,628.87
McMaster-Carr Supply Co. 153.28
The Medicine Shoppe 0906 308.05
Patrick Melvin 275.00
Todd Merwin 349.44
MN Assn. of Co. Feedlot Offcrs 125.00
MNCounties Comp. Co-op 9,689.20
MN Gis-Lis Conference 555.00
Nat’l Businesswomen’s Leader 597.00
David Nystuen 165.49
Office Depot 1,430.67
On Site Monitoring 12,077.00
Wallace Peterson 251.13
Tom Praska 307.87
Reds Cafe 319.50
City Rockford 675.00
Royal Tire Inc. 2,305.66
Jack Russek 220.50
Russell Security Resource 144.23
SBC Paging 799.14
Sherwin Williams 117.47
Silver Creek Township 101.50
Spray Control Systems, Inc. 198.66
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign 626.01
Star Tribune 614.65
State of MN-Info Tech Div 445.15
Rosanne Stoltz 170.00
Sweeney Brothers Tractor 826.91
Verizon Wireless 1,120.56
Waste Management TC W 2,194.23
Daniel Weber 183.38
James Weinberger 313.88
West Group Payment Center 2,913.84
Western Container Company 966.44
Wright Co. Journal Press 121.88
Wright Lumber & Millwork 176.85
54 Payments less than $100 2,725.28
Final total $262,220.15
The meeting adjourned at 10:41 A.M.