Wright County Board Minutes
December 14, 2004
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Mattson, Eichelberg, Russek and Sawatzke present.
Russek moved to approve the minutes of 11-30-04, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Aud./Treas. Item #4, “Ditch 33” (Hiivala). Heeter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Mattson, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: C. Barnaal, S. Kile, J. Moe, B. Peterson, Ct. Svcs.; J. Klein, Ext.; N. Carlson, Hwy.; D. Martin, IT; C. Burton, W. Holland, D. Scherber, R. Smith, P. Thinesen, P. Walker, Sheriff.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 11-19-04.
3. O/T Report, Period Ending 12-03-04.
4. Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Rainbow Sportsman Club, Cokato Lake (Cokato Twp.).
5. Approve/Authorize Signatures, 2005 Law Enforcement Contract, City of Delano.
1. Approve Abatement, PID #103-110-001060, Paul & Mamie Hettinger (City of Buffalo).
2. Approve Abatement, PID #208-200-292301, Ronald & Georgiana Motzko (Franklin Twp.).
3. Approve Abatement, PID #114-500-041302, Kenneth & Ruth Kremer (City of St. Michael).
1. Refer To Personnel Committee: Attorney & Sheriff Compensation For 2005.
1. Approve 2005 Tobacco License Renewals: Lantto’s Store (French Lake Twp.); Ken’s Service (Monticello City); Dave’s Town Club (Delano).
1. Approval Of Municipal Maintenance Payments For Nine Cities.
F. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Accept The Findings & Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezonings:
A. Approve Request To Rezone 10 Acres From AG To R-2a, Beth Dalbec-Weber (Buffalo Twp.).
B. Approve Request To Rezone 40 Acres From AG To A/R, Lyle & Susan Neutz (Clearwater Twp.).
1. Acknowledge Appointment, Christopher Grew, Deputy Sheriff, Eff. 12-15-04 (Grade 5).
2. Acknowledge Appointment, Chad Elness, Deputy Sheriff, Eff. 12-15-04 (Grade 3).
3. Acknowledge Hire, Kimberly Mass, Half-Time Juvenile Holdover Attendant, Eff. 12-15-04 (Step 4).
4. Acknowledge Hire, Joseph Winkelman, Civilian Corrections Officer, Eff. 12-15-04 (Step 1).
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said a request was received from the Economic Development Authority to write off the Mink Lake Economic Development loan balance of $12,698.37 out of the revolving loan fund. Sawatzke said the Partnership will look closer at these loans in an attempt to avoid these situations in the future. Eichelberg moved to approve the request to write off the Mink Lake Economic Development loan balance of $12,698.37, seconded by Russek. Mattson questioned whether there would be any chance of recovery of these funds. Hiivala explained that payments have been received but it has reached the point where there will be no additional payments. The motion carried 5-0.
On a motion by Russek, second by Heeter, all voted to pay the claim to MFRA, $112.00, October Services (Fund 61-Sewer).
Hiivala was contacted by Kerry Saxton, SWCD, who would like to replace the first 800’ of tile on Ditch 33, Branch 3. The cost will not exceed $5000. Russek moved to approve the request, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
The claims listing was reviewed. Mattson referenced page 9, Servicemaster of St. Cloud, ($5,112). The claim was corrected to read, “refinish jail floors.” Mattson referenced claims on page 22, Joyce Farrell ($1,807.20) and Alan Hoekstra ($1,812.96) and questioned the number of claims which will be associated with the Beise condemnation. Sawatzke said that it is required to have two or three people involved in the condemnation. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said the condemnation process has not changed significantly but the cost has changed ($300/day per person plus mileage). Mattson referenced a claim on page 27, Tom’s Snowmobile & Small Engine, ($1,172.96) and questioned the coding for safety equipment. Hiivala said the claim was for miscellaneous parts. The reason these items may be coded as safety equipment is that grant funding may be available for equipment that is used in patrolling. Hiivala will verify the funding source. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. Mary Anderson, U of M Extension Service, and Sara Salmons, Director from the St. Cloud Regional Office, were present to discuss a Memorandum of Intent Agreement between Wright County and the U of M. The Agreement supports the Nutrition Education Program which funds the position held by Pat Larson. Larson fills a Nutrition Education Assistant position in the Wright County Extension Office which is funded through a USDA grant. The grant is secured by matching in-kind contributions of state, county and local public funds. The Agreement covers the period of October, 2004 through December 2005. The recommendation from the Extension Committee is to proceed. Russek moved to approve signatures on the Memorandum of Intent Agreement, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, referenced the former Holker property which the County acquired this past Summer. The property was eventually conveyed to the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The property cannot be classified exempt for taxes payable 2005 since the property was conveyed to an exempt entity after July 1st. The property is currently listed with taxes payable in 2005. The U.S. Government does not pay taxes but does make payments in lieu of taxes. Options for the County would include an abatement of the taxes or using funds acquired from the various wildlife groups to pay the taxes. However, the US Fish & Wildlife Service prefers that funding acquired from the various wildlife groups go towards development or acquisition of the property. The taxes were approximately $1,900 for 2004 taxes. Statute 375.192 addresses property tax abatements. Asleson said it is a broad statute and this is the first time he could recall applying it toward a public purpose property. Asleson recommended having the Assessor process an abatement for taxes payable 2005. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will then make payments in lieu of taxes for taxes payable 2005 and each year after. Heeter moved to approve the recommendation to abate the taxes payable 2005, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Asleson requested the Board schedule a meeting with the Executive Committee of the Fair Board to discuss land which has become available next to the Fairgrounds. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes but is located within an area covered by an annexation agreement between the City of Howard Lake and Middleville Township. Legislation passed in 2004 allows a closed session to discuss purchase prices. Eichelberg moved to refer this to the Ways & Means Committee for the purpose of discussing the issue with the Fair Board, seconded by Russek. Mattson felt the City of Howard Lake and Middleville Township should have input due to the agreement between the two entities. There is also an easement issue that needs to be clarified. Asleson said the property that is for sale has an easement through part of the Fairgrounds to gain access. One of the barns in the Fairgrounds is also built upon the easement. If the property is developed for residential purposes, the easement issue needs to be addressed as the road would be used on a regular basis. A friendly amendment was accepted by Eichelberg and Russek to withdraw sending the issue to the Ways & Means Committee. Instead, a meeting will be held and the County represented by Commissioners Heeter and Mattson. Asleson will coordinate scheduling of the meeting. The motion carried 5-0.
At the request of Asleson , Russek moved to schedule a Closed Session at the end of today’s Board Meeting for the purpose of providing an update on the CSAH 22 bridge project ROW acquisition. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 5-0.
Referred from the last meeting, the Board discussed potential appointments to the Sesquicentennial Committee (150th Anniversary of Wright County). The following names were read as Committee appointments: Betty Dircks, Mo Galvin, Merle Lane, Claudia Menzel, Dave Newkirk, Judie Rose, Ken Rudolph, Leander Wetter, Mike Worcester, Lois Ward, Dan Kiernan, Arlyn Nelson, Marian Jameson, Orpha Illstrup, and Ruben Bonk. Sawatzke and Mattson will serve on the Committee as well. Heeter moved to acknowledge those listed as volunteer members of the Sesquicentennial Committee. A meeting will be held on 1-05-05 at 1:00 P.M., at the Wright County Historical Society. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0. Other members of the public are encouraged to express an interest if they wish to serve on the Committee.
At 9:38 A.M., the Public Hearing was held for requested changes to the Fees for Service Schedule for Parks and Sheriff. No public comment was received. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:42 A.M. Russek moved to adopt the changes in the Parks Department Fees For Service Schedule as presented, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0:
Current Fee; Proposed Fee
Camping: Electric Site $15.00; $16.00
Non-electric Site $13.00; $14.00
Group Camp $25.00; $30.00
Picnic Shelter Rentals (Weekend & Holidays):
Otsego, Schroeder, Collinwood, Beebe Lake $30.00; $35.00
Clearwater/Pleasant $50.00; $60.00
Eichelberg moved to adopt the Sheriff Department Fees For Service Schedule as presented, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:
Current Fee; Proposed Fee
Service of Summons, $25.00; $30.00
Foreclosure Sales, $40.00; $50.00
Legal Not Found, $25.00 ;$30.00
Unserved Process, $25.00; $30.00
Redemption of Foreclosure,
$200 or 1%; $250.00
Notice of Intent to Redeem,
Filing Fee, $10.00; $20.00
All other sales, $40.00; $50.00
Executions, 4% of total; 4% of total
Postings, $25.00; $30.00
Deputy Time on Seizure,
Mileage computed round trip,
$ .40 per mile ; $ .40 per mile
Mike MacMillan, Court Services Director, presented a request to purchase a van from the 2004 Court Services budget. The current van needs to be replaced due to age and safety considerations and is used to transport juveniles for the community service work crew five days per week. The request is to purchase a van at a cost of $18,880.30 (excluding sales tax) under the State contract. The Court Services budget currently reflects revenues in excess of $15,000 and expenditures $250,000 under budget. Heeter moved to approve the purchase of the van as requested with funding from the Vehicles Purchased line item. The line item will reflect $.00 budgeted and the expenditure. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Mattson requested that they look outside of the State contract prior to purchasing the van. MacMillan responded that staff has done this and also consulted with the Highway Department and Purchasing prior to making this recommendation. The motion carried unanimously.
At 9:49 A.M., a Public Hearing was held for the establishment of the Solid Waste Debt Service Charge for 2005. Hiivala performed an analysis of the Solid Waste Fund for 2005 reflecting a debt service requirement of $1,146,281.10. This figure divided by the projected number of parcels equates to $26.36. Hiivala recommended a $28.00 Solid Waste Debt Service Charge for 2005. No public comment was received. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:54 A.M. Russek moved to adopt Resolution #04-73, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote:
WHEREAS, Wright County has solid waste management authority under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 400; and
WHEREAS, The Wright County Board of Commissioners has adopted a Solid Waste Management Service Charge Ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 400.08; and
WHEREAS, This Solid Waste Management Service Charge will be imposed against all parcels of real property as well as against certain personal property located within Wright County, unless said property is otherwise exempted by action of the County Board; and
WHEREAS, The Wright County Solid Waste Management Service Charge Ordinance specifies that the County Board shall establish the amount of the service charge by Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Wright County Board of Commissioners hereby imposes a Solid Waste Management Service Charge for 2005 upon real and personal property located in Wright County as follows:
(A) All real property parcels containing structures, except those containing apartment buildings with four or more units: $28.00;
(B) Real property parcels containing apartment buildings with four or more units: $28.00 (per unit);
(C) Manufactured homes and other structures taxed as personal property parcels: $28.00; and
(D) Bare land and any other type of property not listed above: $ 0.00.
2. That, insofar as the Solid Waste Management Service Charge produces revenue used to pay off the cost of the bonds for the Wright County Compost Facility, this service charge shall be designated on the tax statements as the “Solid Waste Debt Service Charge”.
3. That the Wright County Board of Commissioners intends this Resolution to be effective immediately with the “Solid Waste Debt Service Charge” to be collected through the 2005 property tax statements issued by the County.
George Fantauzza, John Crump, and Sally Isaac of DLR Group were present to discuss the County Master Plan and Needs Analysis. Since the last County Board Meeting, an Executive Summary was distributed outlining the work completed in recent months and the recommendation based on the Study. Sawatzke suggested the County move forward with a public input process. This will alleviate any perception that the County has made its decision on how to proceed on the jail. At a public forum, the option that the County perceives as the best would be displayed along with other options and the advantages/disadvantages of each. Fantauzza said Isaac has been instrumental in assisting Carver County in this process and could provide these services to Wright County. Fantauzza said it would also be good to educate the public on the tax impacts of a referendum. A referendum would provide unequal distribution of taxes as lakeshore properties and all but one acre of farmland would be considered exempt. School referendums are done on a market value basis and there is no differentiation between properties. Educating the public on this would be an important component of the public campaign. Heeter suggested the issue of the public input process be referred to the Detention Committee Of The Whole. The Sheriff’s Department would also be involved. Hiivala should contact Bruce Kimmel, Springsted Financial Advisors, to obtain suggestions on financing and bonding options. Crump said DLR would assist the County through the public education process as part of the County-wide study and could provide graphics from the Study. The assistance provided by DLR would be provided at no additional cost to the County and would be considered a part of the Study. Heeter requested that Isaac be present when the Detention Committee meets. Examples of some of the Jail Study graphics will be provided at that meeting. Heeter moved to schedule a Detention Committee Of The Whole meeting for 1-04-05 at 1:00 P.M., seconded by Russek. Pat Melvin, Special Projects Administrator, inquired what time period was involved with the Scott County public input and marketing process. Fantauzza said the process took about three months. The project has been ongoing for three years.
Mattson questioned how he should respond to the person he has been in contact with on the potential retrofit of the Honeywell building as a jail site. Sawatzke responded that based upon DLR’s review, it does not appear there is adequate space at that site. Russek said if the site cannot provide for 250 beds plus expansion space, the County will be in the same position in ten years (not adequate space for expansion). In response to Mattson, Fantauzza indicated that DLR has retrofitted in excess of 20 buildings for jails. Fantauzza said that the Honeywell site could be used as a potential jail site but it would not be cost effective to do so. In future years, the County would then have the problem of trying to purchase property around that site for expansion. Crump said there were issues with the Honeywell’s existing warehouse space. The space is limited in the type of cell boxes which can be installed. The cost of steel cells would be more expensive than using precast in a new jail. With the Honeywell building, there would be also be security issues with the storm sewer running underneath the building. Lift stations would also be required. The Honeywell site would provide adequate space for the current jail needs plus some room for office space. With any expansion, parking issues would arise. The County would be limited at that site for growth at a cost approximately the same as building new. Russek said one of the biggest issues is what will be done with the existing jail once vacated. The current jail was not put in a good location due to being unable to expand upon it. He did not want to make that same mistake. Crump said the current jail could be remodeled for office space but it would be very expensive to do so.
Paula Beecher, resident, inquired what the capacity of the current jail was. The response was approximately 105 beds. Beecher initially thought the Board had already made their decision on the jail. She thanked the Board for being receptive to her questions. She asked whether the issue involved the current jail’s functionality or adequate capacity. Russek stated the County expended $5,280 last week to house prisoners elsewhere. In 1994, the County collected $400,000 from Hennepin County for inmate bed space. The County has budgeted $450,000 in 2005 to board prisoners elsewhere. Heeter added that the staff to inmate ratio currently is 1:25 and a jail can be built to a ratio of 1:60. Beecher inquired about work release programs and associated security issues. Mike MacMillan, Court Services Director, said the security needs for work release are greater than those in higher security cells. As a possible short term solution, Beecher suggested housing work release people elsewhere and to use the existing jail for those inmates with longer sentences. Beecher suggested utilizing the Honeywell building for all of Human Services and most of the Sheriff Department. She offered this as an option but did not know if it were feasible. Russek said it is very expensive to operate a jail. Many options have been discussed. Currently there are 50-70 people on home monitoring systems. One option discussed at the AMC Conference was the potential of a separate facility to house female inmates for a four-county area. It was explained that bed space is lost due to having to segregate men from women. The Sheriff had reviewed the potential of a Huber facility but it would be very costly to operate two facilities from a security standpoint. The goal is to have higher efficiency through one set of cameras and staff. The public informational meetings should outline why use of the Honeywell building was not a feasible option. The motion carried 5-0 to schedule the Detention Committee Of The Whole Meeting.
On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to schedule a Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 1-05-05 at 10:30 A.M. The agenda will include, “Review and Prioritization of Federally Funding Candidate Projects for FY 2008.”
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, roll call vote carried 4-0 (Mattson absent) to adopt Resolution #04-74 authorizing the County Surveyor to prepare and assist with CSAH 2 Bridge Right-of-Way Plat review and approval.
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, roll call vote carried 4-0 (Mattson absent) to adopt Resolution #04-75 authorizing the County Surveyor to prepare and assist with CSAH 18 Right-of-Way Plat review and approval.
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting (COTW) was held on 11-16-04. The following are the COTW minutes. A summary of discussion at today’s County Board Meeting is shown in italics.
Discuss Trail Between Buffalo and Montrose.
Dick Mattson presented a video that he had taken while driving north on CSAH 12 between CR 107 and CSAH 9, concentrating on showing where the right-of-way stakes have been placed in preparation for reconstruction of CSAH 12. Some of the stakes are close to the front of several homes, but these stakes do not indicate where the trail will go, but rather where the right of way will end. Currently, there are three or four different plans that are being considered for the placement of the proposed trail that will run from the City of Montrose to the City of Buffalo. When asked about placement of power poles, Wayne Fingalson said that they are generally put within two feet of the right of way, which would move some of them closer to houses. However, there are instances where they can go to the other side of the road or go underground. That has not yet been determined with the power company. Sixty-five feet from the centerline is the typical right of way measurement for this project, including the trail. The trail would be located within the right of way and would be located right on the shoulder, for the two bridges on this route (where it is not feasible to provide a 6-foot separation). Sawatzke said that the reason for calling this meeting is because Mattson had been contacted by residents in the area with concerns over the placement of the trail. Kelly Erickson said that she and her husband own a 24-acre parcel located on a curve. Currently, the front of their home is 125 feet from the center of the road. Construction of the bike path will bring users 60 feet closer. She also expressed concern about the front row of trees and the stakes that have been placed in that row. Richard Marquette explained that the stakes indicate the right of way limits, not the bike path, and the trees should be all right.
Fingalson said that the CSAH 12 project is a bit more complicated because of the federal money involved for the construction of this trail. Marc Mattice explained that a grant was obtained from the Federal Highway Administration in the form of a Federal Recreation Trail Grant. The process was begun in 2001, and throughout 2002 the Parks Department, along with municipalities in Wright County, worked together to design a regional trail plan. Input from citizens and municipalities was sought during public forums and through other methods. The map that was created was presented to an advisory committee, at meetings open to the public, and input from many user groups, citizens, cities, and municipalities was considered. The trail plan that was adopted by the County included the connection from Montrose to Buffalo. Mattice worked with others to obtain a grant for this connection, in conjunction with reconstruction of CSAH 12, and the County Board adopted the final plan in October 2002. It was Mattice’s job to get the funds and Fingalson’s job to complete the project memorandum and the design showing the impact phases, which was approved last year. The trail identified here on the displayed plans is consistent with the action by the County Board that this trail will be part of the CSAH 12 reconstruction project. Fingalson said that because the pathway was adopted in the project, all earthwork for the trail has been taken into account. He expressed his hope that there wouldn’t be consideration for removing the trail altogether. Plans are to open bids in March or April of 2005. Removal of the trail would require a new project memorandum and a new design, hereby causing up to a year’s delay for the entire project. Marquette has been meeting with individual property owners and has some flexibility in moving some of the right-of-way boundaries. It is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusions, but Wright County has a good record of working with the property owners. For safety reasons, it is good to have separation between the road and the trail wherever possible. Separation is not feasible over the two bridges. Bob DeWolfe expressed his desire that the trail be closer to the edge of the road as long as this is allowed on the bridges. Fingalson said that standards and safety reasons compel them to have a minimum separation of 6 feet from the edge of the road to the edge of the trail. Marlene Erickson expressed her wish that the highway be made wider in places to accommodate the trail on the shoulder instead of taking property away from people. She also asked how much swampland would have to be filled in to prevent flooding of the trail. Mattice said that the preliminary estimate of the trail portion of the project is $214,060, which includes the surfacing and the signing. Wetland credits from our own wetland bank were used for exchange of the swamp areas. An additional acquisition of 3.5 acres was needed to add the trail to the CSAH 12 reconstruction project. Mattice added that part of the regional plan is to do the trails when the roads are being improved. The Parks and Highway Departments can work together on the design and solicit funding at the same time. Mattice was asked why there was no trail put in when CSAH 14 was reconstructed. He responded that the plans for CSAH 14 were begun long before the regional park trail system was adopted, and Russek added that CSAH 14 doesn’t connect to any other trails. Charlie Nelson said that he would like to make it clear that the City of Montrose, with the blessing of the Wright County Board, has already spent money constructing a trail to 45th Street with the intention of connecting it to the trail from the City of Buffalo. If there had been no plans for a trail, the City might not have constructed theirs. Mattson said that he doesn’t have a problem with the trail, as long as it is on the road. He would like consistency. If the trail is to be on the road over the bridges, then he would like to see wider shoulders for the trail on the roadway. Mattson commented that the City of Buffalo has constructed unsafe trails right next to the road on what is known as the Lake Pulaski Road. Fingalson explained that with a new roadway there is the opportunity to plan better. Buffalo had no option to move the pathway away from the road in some locations. Fingalson said that Buffalo should be commended for the good job they did. On CSAH 12, there are open spaces and it is safer when the pathway is separated from the pavement rather than by just a white line. Mattson said that in addition to the two bridges, there are also five homes affected by the trail. If the trail is to come up to the road in all these places, it might as well be on the road for the entire trail. Mattice said that when this plan was first presented to the Board, it was explained that there would be limited areas where the trail would have to come up to the road. Ronning asked what the right of way was and was told that it will be 55 feet from the centerline on the east side and 65 feet on the other side (to accommodate the trail). Marquette explained that the property owner will receive restitution for the right of way that is acquired by the County. M. Erickson asked how the flooding will be eliminated in the low areas. Fingalson explained that there will be some increases in elevation, but that won’t eliminate the problem if there are unusual rains like there were in 2002. Russek commented that CSAH 14 is still subject to flooding, even with the reconstruction. You can’t get permits to raise everything and it is not feasible to pay to have the road grade raised to prevent any flooding (risk assessment).
DeWolfe expressed his concern about the users of this trail. He said that this aggregate trail will be likely used by dirt bikes, motor-cross bikes, and road bikes. The marathon bikers that are out will probably not ride on the aggregate trail but choose to use the highway. With the trail, Mattice said that horses will be allowed but that ATV’s will not be allowed on the trail. Currently, ATV’s have a legal right, as outlined in the Minnesota State Statutes, to use the right of way from August 1 to April 1. Once the trail is established, no ATV’s or motorized dirt bikes will be allowed on the trail. Snowmobiles will still have legal access. Mattice encouraged the property owners to call him with specifics if use of the trail by ATV’s is a problem after the trail is constructed. He would be happy to work with them and law enforcement to help keep the ATV’s off the trail; but right now, they have every right to be there. Gary Solberg said that he doesn’t think that the trail will get much use. The bikers will use the shoulderbecause they won’t want to stop for the roads that cross the trail. Visibility for both the rider of the bike and the driver of a vehicle on the road will be better if the biker is on the shoulder. He doesn’t think kids will stop when they come to the township road and will be more likely to be hit by a vehicle. Gary Theis said that he has been driving CSAH 12 for 34 years and understands that issues will have to be worked out with the property owners. He also stated that progress requires change, and he would like to be sure that the safety of the kids is addressed. At some point in the future, District 877 will be building a school at the intersection of CR 107 and CSAH 12. CSAH 12, in its current state, is unsafe, and he feels that if a trail it built it should be built away from the road for safety’s sake. Speaking for the School District, he would like to see a trail and would like to have it separated from the road. The trail along the Lake Pulaski Road is an example of what happens when you wait too long, there are more exceptions to the rule. Now you may lose a few trees, but it is still the best time to take advantage of the open spaces, as it will be harder in the future as growth and home construction continues. DeWolfe expressed his desire that trails be built off the roads and back in the main neighborhoods, but he understands that this is hard to do without adequate funding. Barb Swanson suggested that it might be possible to obtain additional grant money and pave the trail in the future. Charles Nelson said that the City of Montrose now requires every developer to provide a sidewalk on one side of every new street and feels that they have a tremendous policy in place now. Sawatzke said that it appears that there is a 20-ft space between the road and the trail in some areas, and Marquette said that it might be possible to move the trail closer to the road and make the right of way narrower. Ronning asked if barriers could be put up between the residences and the trail to help protect the residents from the bike riders, but Sawatzke said that he didn’t think that there was really much to fear from most bike riders. M. Erickson said that she fears her loss of privacy. There are only a few problem spots where the trail is close to a house window and maybe the path could be brought closer to the road at those points. Sawatzke asked if there were any issues from the larger property owners, but only 3.5 acres were added to the right-of-way needs because of the trail. M. Erickson said that she is concerned that a lot they have will not be buildable once the right-of-way limits are increased. Marquette said that the trail won’t affect the limits of the right of way, as the right of way is still needed for the highway project in that area. There are 18 property owners on this trail with four or five close homes. Russek encouraged the property owners to talk to Marquette first to see if the Highway Department is able to work with them to find a suitable solution for both the County and the resident. Sawatzke echoed that sentiment and said that he agrees their concerns are legitimate, but that they should meet with the Highway Department to see if a compromise is possible. Kelly Erickson expressed her concern that one of the two outlets on her driveway may be eliminated, and her in-laws [Floyd Ericksons] have the same concern for their driveway. Fingalson explained that this would have nothing to do with the trail issue, but rather has to do with the road improvement and access management. Fingalson said that ‘horseshoe’ driveways are not allowed on new projects, even if they are in place on the old roadway. Sawatzke said that the County generally tries to have people go from two accesses to one, but that it is possible to petition the County Board for an exception. He said that most people usually accept the request of the County when they are asked to eliminate one access. When agreements cannot be reached, a condemnation proceeding is begun, but that is always the least desirable choice. Wright County prefers to avoid that and has very few instances where they have actually entered condemnation proceedings. Hopefully an agreement can be reached between the County and the residents. Both Solberg and Floyd Erickson said that they didn’t feel a trail would be used in this area because the users would want to stay on the shoulders.
DeWolfe asked if Mattice had had the opportunity to find out any information about property owner liability in instances of mishaps on the trails. Mattice said that in his review of a 77-page transcript dealing with land owners’ liability for trail neighbors, he concluded that a landowner would be held liable if he willfully set out to harm a trail userwillful intent must be present. The County is covered by MCIT (Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust) and is also protected by state statutes.
Russek encouraged the landowners to meet with Marquette and see what the County can do for them. He thought that they would be pleased with the effort that the County Highway Department will put out for them. Sawatzke said that both the Highway and Parks Departments recognize that these concerns are legitimate and will make the effort to alleviate their concerns as much as possible. Elmer Eichelberg said that a trail would be a positive thing, because of the school, the two communities that it would connect, and for all users in general; and he agreed that the County will work with the landowners to bring about a solution. Marquette said that he is willing to meet with the residents and make adjustments toward an equitable solution. Mattson commented that the people in favor of this trail are the ones that do not live there. He expressed hope that a solution can be found.
Recommendation: It was the consensus of the COTW that the Highway Department staff work with the residents/landowners to explain the project specifics and attempt to alleviate their concerns about the encroachment of the trail and the right of way limits and that they work together toward an equitable solution.
Dick Mattson exited at this time.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson said he had been in contact with Steve Foss who indicated that rumble strips running parallel to the roadway work well. Mattson provided a copy of information from Tim Mitchell, DNR, on recreational trail projects. Mattson said the information reflects that in order for a trail to be a federally funded project, it cannot connect to a sidewalk. The surface material must be uniform and the proposed trail had areas that addressed safety and areas that did not (bridge areas). Fingalson said the plan was approved for State aid funding and felt they were aware of the requirements. The reason an exemption was allowed for the bridge areas was because the bridges were considered exempt from the project. The only alternative would be to construct a pedestrian bridge and the State agrees this would not be an option. With regard to use of rumble strips separating the path from the road, Fingalson said he opinion reached was that the pathway is safer the more it is detached from roadways. A separation of 6’ between path and roadway would be much safer than rumble strips. Mattson said the path would be located in the vehicle recovery area. Fingalson said a compromise was reached in those areas where the path is in the recovery area. This was done so that the path was not located as close to resident’s homes. The State also agreed to this as they understood that the path cannot be outside of the recovery area in all situations. Fingalson said the Board needs to decide whether to continue with the path being a part of the CSAH 12 project. If approved, the Highway Department would continue to meet with property owners. Sawatzke supported the recommendation of the Committee to work with residents but felt some of the resident’s concerns needed to be alleviated. Fingalson said Dick Marquette will work with residents. They will attempt to work out concerns but may not be able to satisfy all property owners. A minimum separation of 6’ from the edge of the road to the edge of the trail is required. Mattson was not against the trail but had concerns with the placement. He said the completed drawings sent to the Solbergs were not reviewed at the previous meeting (complete diagram of each building site). Fingalson said what was sent out was consistent of that reviewed at meetings.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, said the sidewalk in Montrose is not part of the project and is not part of the funding. The funding applies to the trail project only. Tim Mitchell from the DNR reviewed the trail connections to the Cities of Montrose and Buffalo. It was understood that the trail came up to the roadway shoulders and would involve wetland mitigation. The areas of non-funded projects were addressed in the grant application.
Carol Carlson owns property on CSAH 12 and has expressed concerns on her property to Marquette. Her property includes a sand pit with turn lanes. She has not received feedback from Fingalson and inquired what process would be followed to resolve issues. Fingalson said he was unaware that Carlson was awaiting contact from him but that he was willing to meet with her. With regard to the process, the County Board will review the appraisal fees for CSAH 12 residents at their next meeting. Once approved, those fees will be sent out in the form of a written offer. After a period of time, the appraiser and Marquette would meet with the property owners to answer questions. Another meeting would be scheduled to sign easements. He would meet with Carlson anytime during the process if desired. Carlson was not against the project and would set up a meeting with Fingalson to address her specific concerns. Eichelberg inquired whether Carlson felt it was important to have the trail as long as her concerns were worked out. Carlson said she is just one landowner in the area. Her land is not on the same side as the trail so it is easier for her to support the trail. With the population, Carlson felt the County needed to meet the needs of the people by providing recreation, parks and pathways. Many residents are accustomed to rural life and it may be hard to convince people that progress is needed. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak.
Mattson said he would still vote in favor of a shoulder trail separated from the roadway by rumble strips. He referenced the material he received on recreational trail programs and said land cannot be condemned for this trail as part of law. Sawatzke reiterated that he supported the recommendation reflected in the COTW minutes which would include working with residents to alleviate concerns. Fingalson requested that the Board trust their department to carry this out and that it is their job to try to find consensus within the limitations of the law. Heeter moved to approve the recommendation reflected in the COTW minutes, seconded by Russek. Discussion led to trees which may be lost during the highway/trail project. Carlson said many trees will be lost as part of the project. She anticipated many people will not support the project. Russek said that a project on CR #20 went through a similar process. After the road was constructed, people were happy and questioned why they fought the project. Carlson said CSAH #12 is a road which needs improvement and that the County was performing a service by fixing it. The motion carried 4-1 with Mattson casting the nay vote. Mattson supported the use of rumble strips between the trail and the roadway.
TH 25/CSAH 12 Traffic Signal Modeling, City of Buffalo.
Tom Dumont presented a computerized modeling of traffic at the TH 25/CSAH 12 intersection in the City of Buffalo. He showed four different scenarios: 1) existing three-way stop condition; 2) intersection with added left turn lane and added right turn lane; 3) intersection with signal system; and 4) intersection with signal system and added left turn lane and added right turn lane. He used typical traffic counts at the time of day with the worst conditions, which is between 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. The volume is approximately 300-350 northbound on CSAH 12, 550 westbound on TH 25, and 750 southeast bound on TH 25. This simulation, or modeling, showed how the different changes affected the back up of traffic. Under current conditions, the traffic back up affects primarily the southbound traffic, up to as much as a 2 1⁄2 minute delay from the back of the queue. Though the addition of turn lanes would help with the flow of traffic, Del Haag said that he would like to be more pro-active and have signals installed now to prepare for the additional traffic that will result from the development happening to the southeast of this intersection. Dumont added 100 cars from the east on TH 25 to the formula to show the effect that can be expected when the residential development is complete. This resulted in a backup on TH 25 from the east, similar to the backup that already exists from the west under current conditions. The waits at this intersection, currently, are graded in level of service as “E,” on an ‘A-F’ scale, “A” being best. With the addition of 100 cars at that time of day, the grade drops to an “F.” The addition of turn lanes only probably won’t help the westbound traffic much on TH 25. Brad DeWolf said that anytime there are more than 650 vehicles/hour that pass through an intersection, the delays are not acceptable. Fingalson asked if the signal could be programmed so that traffic on CSAH 12 does not back up too far when TH 25 is busy, and Dumont said that there are only two phases in a “T” intersection and it should be relatively uncomplicated to program for this. Haag said that the City is eager to get going on this project and is asking for the County’s cooperation. A better regulated intersection will benefit everyone coming through Buffalo, not just the residents. Because this intersection has such a poor level-of-service rating now, it only makes sense to upgrade with lights and turning lanes. He said that a survey was returned to the City by 1,500 residents, and the No. 1 issue was the traffic backup at this intersection. Sawatzke asked if Mn/DOT has any way of predicting the increase in crashes after a signal is installed, and Dumont said that the rate can be expected to increase from 0.4/million at an all-way stop intersection to 0.6/million at a signalized intersection. However, those crashes are usually minor fender benders, with little likelihood of fatalities. Generally, if an intersection has a history of crashes, signals usually show a benefit. If an intersection has no crash problem, signals may cause the crash rate to go up.
Elmer Eichelberg exited at this time.
Heeter said that she can see by the level-of-service analysis that this intersection is over capacity. By the time the signal is installed, the development will already be up and running. She would not like to see the County stand in the way of the City’s wish to signalize this intersection. The City and Mn/DOT will bear the cost and she urges the others to approve their request.
Sawatzke said that he would like to see the results of this modeling on paper and have the entire Board review it, as two of the members are gone at this time. Russek agreed that he would like to see the analysis of all the scenarios, using the same traffic volume on all of them. Heeter said that another consideration was the survey that was returned. Sawatzke said that the people indicated that they want a shorter wait, not necessarily signals. The development happening in Montrose will also affect this intersection as people come to Buffalo from the south on CSAH 12. That additional traffic had not been figured in the modeling. Dumont said that it is important to make this decision soon, as the money is available up to July but not after. Sawatzke said that the Board will make a decision within two weeks, but will make no recommendation for action today.
Recommendation: Tom Dumont will prepare hand-outs for the Board members from the Synchro modeling simulations showing the effects of increased traffic (15-20% increase) on the delays at the intersection of CSAH 12 and TH 25, using four different scenarios: current intersection, intersection with turn lanes, intersection with signals, and intersection with signals and turn lanes. The Board will make a decision on this matter after reviewing this information.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Fingalson referenced the Summary of Modeling Simulations prepared for the Intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 12 reflecting supporting data for the traffic signal. The improvements proposed would be at no cost to the County (funded by the City and Mn/DOT). As a County highway is involved, Wright County is the road authority and must approve application by the City. Fingalson said this signal would not have an impact on Mn/DOT funding for the temporary signal at TH 25 and CSAH 37. Brad DeWolf (City of Buffalo Engineer) and Fred Naaktgeboren (City of Buffalo Mayor) were present for discussion.
Russek suggested creating no parking areas along TH 25 near the intersection. Many times there are trucks with large trailers parked there, creating a safety problem. DeWolf responded that as part of the project, the City will pursue turn lanes in that area and this will include no parking zones. Sawatzke questioned the impact on adjacent properties and elevations in the area. DeWolf said that in the area where the trucks/trailers are parking, an area was developed for parking behind the home. The elevation difference is not great in the intersection area. Any differences would be handled through retaining walls. Field surveys have not yet been completed as they are awaiting County Board approval. Once completed and the project is defined, the City will meet with property owners. The project may not have to substantially expand in width. The project is proposed with a signal and turn lanes.
Mattson said those that have contacted him on the intersection feel the traffic moves well. He referenced accidents associated with installation of signals. In Maple Lake, a traffic signal was not supported as more crashes would be experienced than a three-way stop. Fingalson said the issue becomes a balance between safety and capacity. The capacity at this intersection is a problem but there is not a safety problem. A slight increase in crashes may result from the signal. A positive aspect is the speed is lower in this area. Russek drives the intersection at all different times of the day. The wait time at the end of the day may take 1.5 minutes. Normally, he supports the City of Buffalo on requests but questioned supporting a situation that would cause more accidents. He felt the 3-way stop was working well. Heeter said they had an opportunity at the COTW meeting to see the modeling and how this affects volume and flow. The intersection had been over capacity for quite some time. She supported the signal due to the level of traffic at this time and the growth anticipated. Mattson drives the intersection 7 days/week and the longest wait he has experienced is 1 minute 50 seconds. He thought Montrose Boulevard traffic would suffer with a timing mechanism. Eichelberg said a signal will be needed at this intersection eventually and the City will pick up the cost at this time. With the improvements slated for CSAH 12 and the development in the area, he supported the signal with the turn lane. The County would have some liability due to CSAH 12. In response to Sawatzke, DeWolf said he did not feel there would be much impact on adjacent properties from turn lanes, especially due to the removal of parking in the area. Sawatzke said the information provided indicates capacity problems but he has not experienced this. He was interested in the impact on adjacent property owners. Russek supported removal of parking areas and keeping the 3-way stop at this intersection. Mayor Naaktgeboren said the City completed a transportation survey and a transportation committee was formed. They received 1500 responses and this was the number one area identified as a problem. With the increased traffic, he asked that the County Board let the City fix the problem for today and for the future. He relied on transportation experts who informed him that this intersection was not working well and could be improved dramatically. Heeter moved to approve the stoplight at the intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 12 with funding by the City of Buffalo and Mn/DOT (no cost to the County). The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. The motion carried 3-2 with Russek and Mattson casting the nay votes. (End of Committee Of The Whole Minutes & County Board discussion on those minutes).
The meeting recessed at 11:30 A.M. to go into closed session. The meeting reconvened at 1:12 P.M.
A Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 11-23-04. Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:
Master Plan And Needs Analysis. At the 12-9-04 County Board meeting DLR Group gave a formal presentation to the Board on the County-wide Master Plan and Needs Analysis. Five options (Options A - E) were developed throughout the process as a result of discussions at Committee meetings and with individual departments. At the Board Meeting DLR Group was requested to determine the feasibility of whether the vacant Honeywell building could be converted to house the Jail and Sheriff Department, and to make some revisions to Option E. At today’s meeting DLR Group reviewed the revisions to Option E and gave a detailed slide presentation of Option F (adaptive re-use of the Honeywell building). According to DLR’s analysis it is structurally possible to convert the building for use as a Jail and to relocate the Sheriff’s Department. The following disadvantages were listed: 1) the Jail and Sheriff Department would fill the building, essentially eliminating the option of a phased Law Enforcement Complex which would eventually house other departments associated with the justice functions (Courts, Attorney, Court Services); 2) limited future on-site expansion options for the Jail/Sheriff Department; 3) precast cell boxes cannot be used - steel cell boxes are more expensive; and 4) a 30” storm sewer under the building poses a security risk. Fantauzza stated DLR views this option as a wash financially and continues to recommend Option E as the best County-wide approach to facility planning. The City of Buffalo has notified the County of their opposition to the County purchasing the Honeywell building in order to keep the property on the tax rolls, and has requested this option not be pursued. Discussion included: number of beds with single cell versus double bunking and potential DOC requirement changes, current Jail and Sheriff Administration square footage versus proposed footage, the impact of the type of Jail programming on actual Jail design and staffing requirements, and inmate transport costs. Heeter shared observations from a recent visit to a jail facility in Lexington, Kentucky. Kevin Tierney, from the Public Defender’s Office, spoke in opposition to consideration of video court arraignments with a Jail facility separate from Courts. At an earlier meeting there was consensus for Kelly, MacMillan, Heeter, Norman and Nordeen to meet with the Judges to discuss the issue of video conferencing. Paula Beecher raised questions regarding costs associated with plans to vacate the Jail. It was noted that a recent newspaper article was inaccurate as Option E does not include demolition of the current Jail but retains use of the lower level for inmate transport and holding for Court, and allows for ongoing consideration of other uses on the other floors of the Jail. There was discussion on how to best communicate the various options to the public. Concern was expressed by the Board that a new Jail be located on a site where future expansion is possible and would be usable for 30-40 years and not be a repeat of the current Jail situation. The current Jail was designed and built to last 20 years but exceeded capacity a number of years ago resulting in the additional cost of boarding and transporting inmates. It was noted that population growth for the area has greatly surpassed the State demographer’s projections for the lifespan of the current Jail and that rules and regulations governing the housing of inmates has also changed over time. It was the general consensus of the Committee that the Honeywell building limits future expansion options and financially would not produce the savings that were hoped for. Fantauzza summarized that of the various options presented only Options A, D and E were viable. Option A retained the Jail at the Government Center location, was the most expensive of the options, involved extensive remodeling, expands onto adjacent properties, and does not address long term expansion issues. Option D constructs a Judicial Law Enforcement Complex north of town, demolishes the current Jail and moves the Human Services Agency back into the Government Center. Option E is a scaled back version of Option D with a phased plan allowing for future expansion as growth occurs in the County. Recommendation: Refer the issue to the 12-14-04 County Board Meeting for the Board to take action on the next step. (End of Building Of The Whole Minutes)
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 12-13-04. Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:
Review Bids, Telephone System Upgrade. Swing provided an overview of the attached outlining the recommendation to award the contract to Voice Data Systems. Recommendation: The following recommendations were made following review of summary information on bids received from Hickory Tech Enterprise Solutions and Voice Data Systems for the Nortel PBX System Upgrade RFP: 1) Award the contract to Voice Data Systems based upon their bid responses; 2) Contract for base system and feature specifications for the proposed figure of $185,367; 3) Contract for IP trunking to the Public Works Building per Option A, Attachment B of the RFP for the proposed figure of $16,592. Recommendations are based on the successful negotiations of the contract involving N’compass (consultant), IT Director, and Chief Deputy Attorney. Summary of proposed costs: Voice Data Systems $201,959.00; and Hickory Technology Enterprises $222,548.57. It was recommended that project costs totaling $201,959.00 be funded from Equipment Note proceeds.
System Maintenance: The PBX System will be under warranty for one year from the time of implementation. Voice Data Systems will provide 7x24 maintenance coverage during this warranty period. Thereafter, 8x5 coverage will commence at the annual rate of $13,852 as proposed by Voice Data Systems. This rate will remain unchanged through years 3, 4 and 5 as detailed by Voice Data Systems in their response. Hickory Tech’s proposed system maintenance at $18,137 annually, which was a significant factor in the award decision.
Update On MCCC Vote. Swing provided an update on the MCCC Tax User Group voting held on 12-09-04 (see attached). Previously, Wright County voted against the last phase of the RFP process for a new property tax system. Wright County has been through two property tax conversions, causing disruption in operations and additional cost. The position Wright County is that the existing vendor would be the best course of action. MCCC Group voted in favor of continuing with the RFP process. Wright County voted in favor of a three-year ACS contract to commence 1-01-06 at an estimated cost increase per month of $699 (Wright County’s portion). Wright County also voted in favor of hiring a MCCC Tax Manager at a estimated cost of $2,200 annually (Wright County’s portion). No action was taken as this was provided as an informational item. (End of Technology Minutes)
Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #04-76 setting the 2005 Budget and Certified Levy, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote:
The terms of Bernard Burke and Richard Nolan on the GRRL Board will expire on 12-31-04. Burke has served one full term and is eligible for reappointment. Nolan has served two full terms and is not eligible for reappointment. On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Heeter, all voted to reappoint Bernard Burke to the GRRL Board.
Hiivala provided an overview of an analysis performed on the impact of a mileage reimbursement increase for 2005. The current rate of reimbursement is $.375/mile. The following reflects the increase and what impact it would have on the budget: $.385 equates to $5,995.23 in additional expense; $.395 equates to $11,990.46 in additional expense; $.42 equates to $26,978.53 in additional expense. The Federal rate has been set at $.42/mile for 2005. In the past, the Federal rate was set and lowered at a later time. Russek suggested setting the rate at $.39/mile. Eichelberg said the Board could always increase the rate at a later date if gas prices increased. Russek moved to set the 2005 mileage reimbursement rate at $.39/mile, seconded by Eichelberg. Mattson felt the current reimbursement of $.375 was adequate. Russek said he was proposing an increase to help those that are volunteer drivers as that is the only compensation they receive. Hiivala said the analysis provided did not include volunteer drivers. The motion carried 4-1 with Mattson casting the nay vote.
A Truth In Local Taxation Public Hearing was held on 12-02-04. The purpose of the Hearing was to discuss the proposed budget and taxable certified levy for 2005 and to take public comment. Russek moved toapprove the minutes, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Advanced Filing Concepts $418.58
Albertville Body Shop Inc. 5,822.32
City Albertville 3,343.90
American Health Care Supply 365.11
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 341.92
Ancom Technical Center 1,632.11
Krista Anderson 117.75
Pennie Anderson 125.00
Annandale Advocate 147.15
City Annandale 1,367.83
Anoka Technical College 150.00
Aramark Correctional Serv. 9,921.19
Kirk Asplin Oil Company Inc. 135.83
Atrix International Inc. 293.75
B & B Prod.-Rigs and Sqau 6,406.30
Joe Backes 265.50
Barnes Distribution 160.51
Beaudry Propane Inc. 2,922.66
Best Western Kelly Inn 233.91
Blaine Lock & Safe Inc. 155.00
BLM Technologies Inc. 614.49
Bogart Pederson & Assoc. . 2,615.00
Boise Cascade Office Prod. 654.98
Boyer Truck Parts 305.07
BP Amoco 522.30
Buff ‘N’ Glo Inc. 185.00
Buffalo Quality Feed Mill 865.40
City Buffalo 27,780.51
Case Credit 148.77
Cassidy Realty & Appraisal 3,800.00
CATCO Parts Service 468.88
CDW Computer Centers 639.49
CDW Government Inc. 359.68
Cellular 2000 of St. Cloud 134.16
Center Point Energy 8,822.75
Centra Sota Lake Region 28,896.62
Climate Air 9,446.81
City Cokato 1,636.34
Computer Integration Tech 12,100.00
Construction Bulletin 209.00
Contech Const. Product 622.20
Dales 66 133.13
City Delano 4,757.29
Carter Diers 606.00
Stacy Doyle 103.50
Susanna Eaton 217.26
ECM Publishers Inc. 471.90
Enterprise Dispatch 187.50
EPA Audio Visual Inc. 142.50
Josh Erickson 229.50
Debbie Ernst 227.63
Farm & Home Publishers 441.98
Joyce Farrell 1,807.20
Tom Feddema 134.63
Frontier Precision Inc. 298.20
Todd Gau 177.75
Janet Gholson 181.30
Raymond Glunz 1,200.00
Grafix Shoppe 1,028.00
W Grainger Inc. 205.98
H & H Sport Shop Inc. 105.00
Hancock Concrete Products 756.68
Henn. Co. Sheriff 124.80
Robert Hiivala 109.13
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 1,635.75
Alan Hoekstra 1,812.96
City Howard Lake 1,468.67
Neal Huemoeller 102.76
Int’l Assn. of Assessing Ofcrs. 344.00
Interstate All Battery Center 574.10
Interstate Automotive 258.12
Interstate Companies Inc. 2,748.93
Chris Jahnke 124.75
JR’s Appliance Disposal Inc. 1,015.00
Junction Towing & Auto Repair 125.32
Kandiyohi Co. Sheriff’s Dept. 5,280.00
Karels Towing 221.85
Greg Kramber 234.90
Kustom Signals Inc. 130.80
Lakedale Telephone Co. 422.45
LaPlant Demo Inc. 514.34
Lawson Products Inc. 681.15
Brian Lutes 126.75
Magnum Company LLC 4,704.25
Maple Lake Messenger 180.50
City Maple Lake 1,171.87
Marco Business Products 2,001.63
Marks Standard Parts 2,550.34
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 2,100.00
McCombs Frank Roos Assoc. 112.00
Mid-America Business Sys. 12,083.84
Minnesota Elevator Inc. 151.53
MN Assn. of CVSO 120.00
MN Counties Computer Coop 1,764.00
MN Sheriffs Association 275.00
MN Society of Prof. Surveyors 125.00
MN Supreme Court 751.00
Monticello Auto Body Inc. 101.28
Monticello Ford Mercury Inc. 2,316.07
City Monticello 12,212.42
City Montrose 95,158.61
Morell Towing Inc. 193.45
Morrie’s Buffalo Chrysler 1,068.63
Munson Lakes Nutrition 177.39
National Dist. Atty’s Assn. 210.00
Nextel Communications 2,519.57
Office Depot 6,600.62
On Site Monitoring 1,137.00
Barbara Petersen 164.75
Phoenix Process Cons. 525.00
Photo I 886.92
PMI Computer Supplies 232.85
R J Sayers Distribution 319.42
The Raptor Center 250.00
Genell Reese 359.63
Rockford Township 1,081.00
Royal Tire Inc. 4,612.40
RS Eden 6,720.00
Russell Security Resource 658.89
Ryan Motors Inc. 742.36
Pat Sawatzke 336.37
SBC Paging 1,684.03
Scharber & Sons Inc. 1,674.10
Sharon Schubert 172.50
Servicemaster of St. Cloud 5,112.00
Software House International 145.91
Southfork Recreational Parts 961.43
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign 509.00
St. Cloud State University 900.00
Star Tribune 111.80
State of MN Intertech Grp. 1,145.23
Super Express 105.44
Tab Products Co. 1,143.57
Tires Plus 349.00
Tom’s Snowmobile/Sm. Eng 1,201.11
Total Printing 820.05
Unlimited Electric Inc. 864.72
John Vanderlinde 1,860.48
Verizon Wireless 1,311.60
Voss Lighting 1,078.00
The VWE Group Inc. 287.39
Walmart Store 01-1577 578.18
City Waverly 1,153.22
West Group Payment Ctr. 159.76
Westside Wholesale Tire 287.29
Wright Co. Journal Press 142.56
Xcel Energy 160.03
Zack’s Inc. 1,702.13
Ziegler Inc. 3,862.30
60 Payments less than $100 2,899.68
Final total $374,370.03
The meeting adjourned at 1:27 P.M.