Wright County Board Minutes
April 19, 2005
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. withHeeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, and Eichelberg present. Commissioner Russek was absent as he was attending an aggregate conference in St. Cloud.
Heeter moved to approve the minutes of 4-12-05, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 4-0.
Sawatzke moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Heeter, carried 4-0.
On a motion by Heeter, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the
1. Performance Appraisals: S. Backes, Admin.; B. Lutes, Atty.; B. Helget, M. Kaczmarek, S. Kunkel, D. Lindell, Sheriff; M. True, Surveyor.
2. Claim, Frank Madden & Associates, $5,114.68.
1. Approve Abatement, PID#s 105-500-341413 and 205-000-181100, Thomas & Karen Aho. (Cokato City and Cokato Twp.).
2. Approve Abatement, PID#s 155-500-142312 and 155-500-142313, Robert and Sherie Danner. (Monticello City).
3. Approve Abatement, PID# 206-041-001060, Dennis Gordon. (Corinna Twp.).
4. Approve Abatement, PID#s 116-026-000010 and 116-026-000020, Kristall Development. (Waverly City).
5. Approve Abatement, PID#s 118-173-001010 and 118-173-001020, ABP LLC & Sheils Holdings LLC (Otsego City).
6. Approve Abatement, PID# 208-300-253403, Jerry and Stephanie Nieson. (Franklin Twp.).
7. Approve Abatement, PID# 107-067-002050, Diane J. Feyo Rev. Trust. (Delano City)
8. Approve Abatement, PID#s 112-037-001020 and 112-037-001030, Pilot Land Development Co. (Montrose City).
9. Approve Abatement, Plat 113-047, Dave Reimer Construction Inc. (Rockford City).
10. Approve Abatement, PID# 216-000-064300, Schut Family LLC. (Silver Creek Twp.).
11. Approve Abatement, PID# 220-000-323302, Mark and Susan Matuska. (Woodland Twp.).
1. Refer To 5-02-05 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting: “Discuss Request For Retail Sign In Albertville.”
2. Award Contracts For Seasonal Requirements.
1. Authorize Grant Application To MN Department Of Public Safety, Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement, To Fund Alcohol Compliance Checks.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested approval of the plat, “THE MEADOWS OF SOUTH HAVEN” (Southside Twp.). On a motion by Heeter, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve a plat, “THE MEADOWS OF SOUTH HAVEN,” as submitted by Investors Together, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, fee owner of the following property described in part as: That part of S1/2 of NW1/4, in Sec. 9, Twp. 121, Rge. 28, with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any, having been paid; the park dedication fee has been paid (# 106432); the new road has been accepted by Southside Township with a bank letter of credit on file with the Auditor/Treasurer; and the title opinion prepared by Jan Larson, attorney, has been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be in order and ready for recording.
On 4-14-05, Hiivala and Chuck Davis, P&Z, visited two tax forfeit parcels to investigate possible dumping. The first, on Henshaw Lake, was reviewed with representatives from the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the DNR. A significant amount of garbage was discovered and it was determined that clean up should be completed as soon as possible. Heavy machinery will be required. STS may be utilized for removal of smaller items. It was suggested that a tension line fence (cost of $2500) be installed around the property to prevent any further dumping. This property is not eligible for resale, and the DNR has first option at it. Wright County is the custodian of the tax forfeit property and is responsible for clean up. PCA will be consulted for possible grant funding to aid in clean up of the property. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, will research whether SCORE or 220 Surcharge funding could be utilized for all or partial cleanup. The second property, located on Ramsey Lake, was viewed by Davis and Hiivala. An abandoned pontoon boat and miscellaneous garbage was found. STS may also be used for this clean up. The updates were provided as informational items.
On 4-14-05, Hiivala, Mattson and Russek viewed Ditches 7, 11, 14, and 30. Today, Hiivala provided an update on these visits. County Ditch 30 involves a request from Scott Carlen to clean out portions of the ditch. Carlen was directed to work with Saxton on review and plans for the ditch. Carlen must stay within the boundaries of the ditch when performing clean out. County Ditch 7 was viewed to the south of Hwy. 12 to the railroad tracks. There was standing water near the gas station but water movement was seen through the culvert near the railroad tracks. Joint Ditch 14 involves a tile system under CR 21. Morris Excavating has been contacted to acquire notes they had on prior repair work performed on the ditch and to view the area to see what could be done to alleviate the problems. With regard to County Ditch 11, Dan Boeck had previously requested the County’s assistance with some beaver dams. After review of the area, it was determined that Boeck’s property ties into Twelve Mile Creek and not a County ditch. Boeck has been informed that the County cannot take action on his request.
The claims listing was reviewed. Eichelberg referenced a claim on page 16 under Budget 820, Site Improvements for Court Administration: Rosanne Stoltz ($680.00). Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said this is work being completed from the 2001 contract. On a motion by Heeter, seconded by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 4-13-05. Heeter moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke referenced the request to remodel the Surveyor’s Office and questioned whether the Committee was comfortable with the request. The response was that the remodel will allow the office to provide better employee interaction as well as public service. The motion carried 4-0:
Request To Remodel Surveyor Office. Jay Wittstock, County Surveyor, distributed handouts showing the current office layout in the Public Works Building and reviewed proposed changes. It is expected that within a year the Surveyor’s Office will be paperless and all maps, etc. will be produced electronically. Phase I has been completed and involved opening up two cubes and moving the copier, printer, scanner and a new plotter into this area. Phase II would remove end walls and lower cube sidewalls. This would open up the work area and allow for better communication between the Surveyor’s staff. Phase III includes moving the Surveyor’s files from the central file room to the mezzanine storage area, moving the service counter, moving the vending machines, reconfigures cubes so a staff person faces the counter area, some wall modifications, adding a public terminal, a layout table and redistributes remaining files. Fingalson stated he supports the requested changes. In response to a question from Heeter, Fingalson stated the Highway Department does not have any plans to change the Highway Department office layout. Hayes will provide Wittstock with contractor and furniture vendor information to obtain cost estimates. Recommendation: Wittstock obtain cost estimates to present at the April 27, 2005 Building Committee Meeting.
“Radio Room” UPS Upgrade. Swing stated the Uninterruptible Power System (UPS) that supports 911 dispatch, Jail booking, the Sheriff radio system, and two network telecommunication closets is at capacity and in need of an upgrade to support additional items. A purchase order was issued in the amount of $3,191 to H.M. Cragg Company for this upgrade. Swing stated it was necessary to move forward with this order to prevent a delay in the project of upgrading the phone switch. Recommendation: Approve with funding cost to be distributed proportionately to departments.
Additional Paging Speakers For Emergency Evacuation. Melvin stated additional speakers are being requested to adequately support emergency evacuation. Added speakers are requested for the mailroom, Annex basement, underground garage, Courthouse basement, juvenile holdover, and the Commissioner’s Conference Room. It was clarified the juvenile holdover area is included because it is used by the Court Administration Department as an evacuation area. There was brief discussion on security issues, use of the paging system, and who would activate an emergency announcement. A quote of $2,407 has been obtained from Excel Systems. Recommendation: Approve with funding from Site Improvement.
Cabling Project, Sheriff/Jail Areas. Swing stated that April 23, 2003 the Building Committee approved voice/data cabling soft costs as part of the remodeling project. The cabling project in the Sheriff/Jail areas is the final piece of the project to be completed. Swing reported the overall project was approved in 2003 at an estimated total cost of $136,000. The total cost at completion will be $125,243.27. This was provided as an informational item. (End of Building Committee Minutes)
Greg Kramber, Assessor, requested approval of the 2006-2007 Assessment Contracts for cities and townships. Kramber recommended no change in rates due to budget restraints of these entities. As there is no rate change, a public hearing is not required. The proposed contract has been reviewed by the Attorney’s Office. Sawatzke moved to approve the 2006-2007 Assessment Contracts as presented, seconded by Heeter, carried 4-0.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 4-13-05. Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 4-0:
Request To Move Up Hire Date For New Property Appraiser Position To May 31, 2005. Greg Kramber, Assessor, requested authorization to move the hire date for a new property appraiser position from July 1, 2005 to May 31, 2005. One employee is currently out on a medical leave and a vacant property appraiser position was recently filled with a new hire. Recommendation: Approve request.
Flexible Schedule Request - Sheri Jorgenson, HHA Coordinator. (Human Services Board item)
Flexible Schedule Request - Richelle Kramer, Social Worker. (Human Services Board item)
Flexible Schedule Request - Marsha Kutz, Fiscal Officer. (Human Services Board item)
Flexible Schedule Request - Shelley Lano, Social Worker. (Human Services Board item)
Flexible Schedule Request - Ann Rasset, Information Systems Specialist. (Human Services Board item)
Performance Appraisal - Don Mleziva, Human Services Director. (Human Services Board item)
Performance Appraisal - Kathy Gramsey, Administrative Clerk. Based on four appraisals submitted the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Exceptional”. (End of Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 4-13-05. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that approval of the bids were included on the Consent Agenda and Buffalo Bituminous was included on the listing. Asleson confirmed that he had given approval. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 4-0:
Bid Opening, Seasonal Requirements. At 9:00 A.M., the meeting began with introductions and the bids were officially closed. All bids were opened and recorded. One bid for Bituminous Plant Mix was delivered after 9:00 A.M., but before other bids for this were opened. It was marked and held until County Attorney Brian Asleson could be consulted. Meyer said the County typically accepts all bids for this item. The bids will be tabulated by the Highway Department for presentation to the Board at the next County Board Meeting. (End of Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
At the recommendation of the Highway Engineer, Sawatzke moved to award the contract to Mathiowetz Construction Co. for the 2005 culvert improvement project, Contract #0501. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 4-0.
Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #05-25 approving Agreement No. PW-38-73-04 with Hennepin County and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. This is for the bridge replacement project of the Berning’s Mill Bridge in St. Michael. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 4-0 on a roll call vote.
Heeter moved to adopt Resolution #05-26 approving a Charitable Gambling Application, Form LG230, for the Clear Lake Lions, Monte Club (Monticello Twp.). The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 4-0 on a roll call vote.
At 9:30 A.M., Mattson closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing for the variance request to the Feedlot Ordinance as requested by Carlton Willems and Paul Hansen. Tracy Janikula, Feedlot Administrator, said the application is for a variance from a feedlot for a new dwelling. The property, currently owned by Hansen, has a lot of wetlands and steep slopes. The applicant (Willems) would like to purchase the property and construct a home 75’ from an existing feedlot. Janikula suggested that the Board complete an on-site inspection as the aerial photos do not reflect the lay of the land. The application was signed on 3-04-05. The Public Hearing was rescheduled until today. Asleson thought the statutory requirement was for the Board to act within 60 days of the application or an extension would be required. Janikula’s recommendation was to try to compromise and move the home a little further away from the feedlot.
Robert Adams, Attorney, represented Hansen and Willems, and said the property is essentially undeveloped with an old cabin not being used. The cabin is located in the back of the property. Adams shared a survey of the property with the Board. The proposed site for the new home is not far from the existing building and within 75’ of the feedlot. The Ordinance states that a building cannot be placed within 500’ of a feedlot without a variance. The site proposed by the County would be near the road. Adams said the problem with this location is that the lot would not be a saleable building lot at the amount the property is assessed. The owner is unsure whether he could sell the property if the home were only allowed near the road. The location would be noisy and would deprive the owner of utilizing the best portion of the parcel. He said building the home where proposed would make the lot more useful and valuable. Their request is to build the home not far from the existing cabin. Adams asked that when the Board goes on the site inspection, to keep in mind where they request the home be built. It would take the five-acre parcel and make it a liveable, residential lot. He also asked that they consider what impact the home would have on the feedlot itself. Adams said there would not be any impact on the farming operation and the owner would be willing to provide any reasonable fencing for safety concerns the County may have. The owner is willing to work with the County on safety issues. Adams said the prospective owner does not have a problem with the smell or manure, nor would anyone else that purchases the property. He said the Town Board also approved the request by his client.
Mattson responded that he has a farm background. His home currently is 500 yards from the neighbors operation, which includes hogs and beef cattle. He spoke of the strong odor which occurs when manure is moved and voiced concern with having a home located that close to a feedlot. Adams said this was a legitimate concern but the home would be located much further away from the holding ponds or feedlot piles. There would be some manure on the ground but his client was comfortable with that. They were willing to take that risk. Adams said the variance request meets all of the requirements of the Board of Adjustment. He said the property would be unsaleable without the variance and no environmental harm would occur.
Sawatzke referenced Adams comment that it was acceptable to his client that the current operation was close to the proposed home. He asked what would happen if the current or future owner of the feedlot would substantially increase their operation, would that be acceptable to a new buyer. Sawatzke said the trend being seen is that smaller operations are going out of business and medium-sized operations are expanding. Adams said his understanding was that the current feedlot permit would allow anything under 500 cows. Over that amount would require a new permit. If no approval is required, they have no objection. Janikula stated that the current operation is less than 300 animal units and it could be expanded up to 500 without a hearing. Anything above that would require a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The conditional use permit would not address homes but the issue would be brought up at the hearing. The feedlot owner could expand to the east of the property line without a conditional use permit hearing. Sawatzke again posed the question on number of animal units, noting the previous comment that 300 animal units would be acceptable to the applicant, and asked whether 900 animal units would be acceptable.
Carlton Willems said he grew up on a farm of almost 1000 cattle and odor was not a big deal. On the proposed site, the home would be located on the west side of the property with a slope downhill. He said the wind does not blow from the east very often and he has yet to see cows in this area. Willems said there is a wood line which would prevent them from seeing the feedlot in the summer. When the request was discussed with the Township it was decided that if the property is sold again in the future, it should be noted in the record that the feedlot is in existence and there is a odor problem. Growing up on a farm, it was not his concern to worry about smell. Willems said he would be living in the proposed home. If he had to build down by the road, he would probably seek another piece of property to purchase as he wants to be within the woods. The home would be situated 75’ from the property line and it would be another 25’-50’ to the feedlot and feeders. With regard to odor, Willems said everyone has a business to run and that his was a trucking business. If the current feedlot owner wanted to put in another 500 cattle, that was his business. He was not there to tell the feedlot owner how to run his business. Willems only has smelled the feedlot twice and the wind was out of the east. Both he and his wife had grown up on farms and odor was not an issue. He said it is also unknown whether the feedlot would be there in 10 years. He felt the only location for the proposed home was on the hill as he did not want to listen to the traffic.
Eichelberg supported Sawatzke’s comments and thought 75’ was a large variance from the 500’ setback required by Ordinance. He understood why there was a law to grant variances. He questioned whether approval of the request would prevent the current feedlot owner from expanding. Janikula provided a history of the lot, indicating that it was created in 1995 prior to the Feedlot Ordinance being enacted. Hansen purchased the property in August 1997. The Ordinance went into effect in 1998. The five acres was split from the 15-20 acre lot. The five acres cannot be split again. Without the Ordinance outlining setbacks from feedlots at that time, there was no reason for the Planning Commission to deny the division of the property. The current restrictions would not have allowed for this separation. In review of Planning Commission minutes from 1995, the owner of the five acres had been living in the home next door and knew the farm was there.
Dennis Abel, MN Farm Bureau Area Program Director, works in the nine-county metro area. A letter had been sent from the Wright County Farm Bureau Board of Directors who voted unanimously to support the position of the feedlot owners to not allow the variance from the property line. This variance request did not involve family members nor the feedlot.
David Ransom, feedlot operator, said he was opposed to the variance request. With farming, there are many variables. The current buyer could sell in the future. If prospective buyers came in the winter, there may be no smell. Ransom said they may have a problem with the odor in the summer. He said smell is a problem and it is one of his big concerns. When he received his feedlot permit, the setback was 500’. He operated under the setback rules and assumed others would also. Ransom indicated that the feedlot does run to the property line (fence line), so dirt and manure are right up to the property line. He extended appreciation to the Board for completing an on-site inspection.
Jeremy Juske, MN Farm Bureau, works in a State Specialist position. Approval of the variance would have an impact on future plans for the feedlot if they decided to modernize or expand. He said this would have an impact on this family. If the situation were reversed where the application was for a variance to place a feedlot within 75’ of a current home, he did not feel it would be approved. He felt the same treatment should apply.
Sandy Ransom thanked the Board for their consideration. She was sorry the issue had come to this point. They do have a feedlot permit and are being challenged so they must defend their operation. The feedlot has been in operation for 50 years but the Ransom farm goes back to before the Civil War. She said David was a 5th generation farmer. She extended thanks to the Wright County Farm Bureau for coming to express their support. Ransom said when one feedlot is challenged, they all are. Wright County is turning more urban from rural. She felt there needed to be some protection. She thought that was what the feedlot rules were about, to give protection to new owners next to feedlots and to protect feedlots. She said that farming is of great economic importance to the County. When industrial areas are planned, careful consideration is given to what is next to them (housing). She said there are many instances of this in land use planning. She felt that a 75’ setback was ridiculous based upon the economic value of trees and the esthetic value. She did not feel the applicants would like the flies, manure and noise. Although she is a farmer, she has her home far from the feedlot. With regard to the previous division of the lot, she said the owners had lived next to them for quite some time. The cabin that was referred to was actually a shed and illegal water and sewer was brought to it. They were told not to live in it. When the permit was issued for division of the lot, the owners intent was to build next to the road so the father and son’s homes lined up. That location would not have as great of an impact on the feedlot. She asked that when the site visit occurs, that the Board come to their farm and view the area from their side of the fence. Ransom said she was speaking today on behalf of herself and her husband.
Sawatzke referenced past approvals for setback variances and inquired what the most substantial reduction from 500’ had been. Janikula said without consulting records, she felt that a 300’ setback was the closest. Out of five requests, she felt four involved family members of the feedlot. Sawatzke referenced setbacks that the Board of Adjustment reviews for other requests such as lakes. He felt consideration was given to neighboring properties and an average may be granted. However, the request for this feedlot variance was substantial with a reduction in setback of over 80%. He did not want to set a precedence. Heeter felt there were other options for this property. She could understand the applicant’s desire to live within the woods but it is a five-acre parcel. She did not feel compelled for the Commissioners to make a decision that maximizes the financial gain of the seller. Sawatzke referenced the Ordinance language associated with granting a variance, “The property will not yield a reasonable return if used in compliance with this Ordinance.” He questioned the term of “reasonable.”
Discussion led to whether the 60-day requirement for approval would need to be extended. Janikula said that 60 days would be on 5-03-05. Adams said Willems and Hansen would waive the 60-day requirement to any date that was felt to be appropriate. He asked to respond to comments made. He said the primary focus of the Ordinance seemed to be to protect others from the feedlot or vice versa. In looking at this proposal, he did not feel 75’ from the property line would affect the feedlot nor would his clients feel damage from it. In a situation where there are stray cattle, there are protections in place for that. He did not feel the issue of setbacks for other types of properties were the same. Finally, he pointed out that the use of the property or best value of the property would be to allow the home to be placed where the applicant requests rather than by the road. He did not consider this to be a financial enhancement but rather a use of real estate property.
Sandy Ransom felt the laws were in place to protect feedlots and much input was provided by the County and State to protect the rights of farmers. She said farmers produce millions of dollars in food in the United States and that their protection supersedes water quality. She said everything is done to protect water quality. She supported the site inspection by the County Board. Sawatzke said he was a member of the County Board when the Feedlot Ordinance was created. Its purpose is to protect existing farms and homes, whether residential or farm.
Richard Ransom lives next door and said there is a water table with springs on the hillside. He didn’t know how a new home would affect water quality and whether an environmental study was required.
Janikula noted that other counties that are not as close to the metro area have 1/4 to ∏ mile setbacks from feedlots. Wright County has the smallest setback in the State (of those that have ordinances).
The Public Hearing was closed at 10:15 A.M. and the regular meeting reconvened. Sandy Ransom said that when the request went before the Township Board, they did not receive notice that this issue was being discussed. The Township Board ruled without input from the Ransoms. She requested that the County Board take that into consideration. Janikula said the Township Board has the option on whether agenda items are announced. The notices may be posted but are not sent out. Also, many townships do not require that the applicant be on a set agenda, rather they can approach the township board the night of their meeting with a request. Heeter moved to schedule a site inspection for 4-25-05 at 9:00 A.M. and to lay this issue over to the 4-26-05 County Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Adams requested that the issue be laid over to the 5-17-05 County Board Meeting as he had prior commitments. Adams was directed to work with the Planning & Zoning and Attorney’s Offices to complete the appropriate paperwork for an extension of the 60-day requirement. The motion and second were amended to refer the issue to May 17th at 9:30 A.M. The motion carried 4-0.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, requested the Board authorize signatures on the Fishing Pier Agreement between the MN DNR and Wright County for Mud Lake County Park. The State will provide the fishing pier and the County will design the footings and accessible route (County’s cost). Sawatzke moved to authorize signatures of the Board Chair and County Coordinator on the Fishing Pier Agreement between the MN DNR and Wright County for Mud Lake County Park. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 4-0.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, announced a Closed Session which would immediately follow the Board Meeting. The purpose was to discuss the latest proposal from the Gruenhagens, property owners of the parcel for sale adjacent to the Fairgrounds. The parcel involved is #212-000-334300 and lies in Middleville Township.
Brian Abrahamson $124.80
ACS Government Info. Serv. 3,813.61
Ameripride Linen/Apparel 211.90
Anderson Prof. Training 130.00
Anoka Co. Juvenile Ctr. 248.00
Aramark Correctional Serv. 5,356.77
Kirk Asplin Oil Co. Inc. 246.54
Auto Garage Door & Firepl 127.20
B & B Prod.-Rigs & Squad 2,594.85
B & D Plumbing/Heating 203.00
Bachman Printing 351.36
Barco Municipal Products Inc. 251.94
Bear Graphics Inc. 227.23
Benton Co. Treasurer 5,115.00
BLM Technologies Inc. 3,429.00
Buffalo Clinic 728.00
Buffalo Hospital 8,800.00
Buffalo Quality Feed Mill 880.83
Buffalo Township 859.80
Burdas Towing 133.13
The Carey Group 320.00
CDW Government Inc. 3,211.92
Cellular One 125.48
Center Point Energy 1,229.99
Centra Sota Lake Region 3,827.10
Chamberlain Oil Co. 2,498.27
Change Masters 2,500.00
Computer Integration Tech 2,341.94
Cub Foods 106.47
Culligan of Buffalo 469.60
Decorative Designs Inc. 184.31
Dept. of Public Safety 8,430.00
Douglas Co. Hospital 591.36
E. Central Reg. Juvenile 5,848.00
Ernst Gen. Construction Inc. 9,740.00
Federated Propane 109.36
Wayne Fingalson 158.14
Frontier Precision Inc. 1,113.00
Janet Gholson 209.04
Glencoe Equipment Inc. 129.29
Going Under Dive Center 537.07
Gould Bros Chev.-Olds 133.13
W Grainger Inc. 330.49
Richard Halverson 360.87
Denny Hecker’s Monti Ford 856.98
Amy Hertzog 223.08
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 2,964.21
Int’l Public Managemen 1,405.00
JR’s Appl. Disposal Inc. 1,174.00
Paul Jude 146.64
Cheryl Klinger 100.00
Lexisnexis Matthew Bender 110.00
Patrick Melvin 126.32
Metro-Minn. Chapter of App 695.00
Midway Iron & Metal Co.Inc. 106.03
Minn. Chemical Co. 3,337.59
Minn. Elevator Inc. 1,730.36
MN Assn. of Assessing Offcrs. 810.00
MN Counties Computer Co-op 128.74
The Mobile Washer 305.10
N. Central Radar 2,030.00
Office Depot 1,974.31
Photo I 812.65
Henry Potter 1,000.00
Tom Praska 244.92
Reds Auto Electric 123.74
Royal Tire Inc. 1,165.86
Russell Security Resource 1,883.77
Ruttger’s Bay Lake Lodge 299.26
Ryan Motors Inc. 232.64
Sherburne Co. Sheriff 39,856.46
Southfork Rec. Parts 117.15
State of MN Intertech Grp. 3,020.36
State of MN-Info Tech Div. 589.43
Rosanne Stoltz 680.00
Stratus Technologies Ireland 7,574.00
Superior Ford 139,258.00
Sweeney Brothers 1,419.38
T & S Trucking 9,011.50
Tom’s Towing Service 133.12
Gary Torfin 205.00
Trimble Navigation Ltd 47,511.00
Uniforms Unlimited 1,273.14
United Rentals Hwy. Tech. 498.72
US Bank Home Mortgage 100.00
Verizon Wireless 1,026.88
Vibes Technologies Inc. 494.16
Voice Data Systems 67,319.72
West Payment Center 585.90
Wright Hennepin Electric 3,729.38
Zee Service Company 278.23
Zep Manufacturing Co. 235.47
38 Payments less than $100 1,562.01
Final total $444,325.58
The meeting adjourned at 10:28 A.M.