Wright County Board Minutes
June 21, 2005
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
The following correction was made to the minutes of 6-14-05: Page 2, last paragraph, 3rd sentence will read, “The position will be offered to the second-ranked candidate that applied for the part-time position.”(Russek). Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Item For Consid. #5, “RC&D” (Russek). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Mattson made the following correction to the Consent Agenda: Item B1 should be changed from “2004 County Fair” to “2005 County Fair.” On a motion by Heeter, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda as corrected:
1. Performance Appraisals: B Petersen, Admin.; T. Rasmuson, Assr.; B. Stone, Ct. Admin.; C. Day, Recorder.
2. Schedule Labor/Management Health Insurance Committee Meeting For 7-13-05.
3. Schedule Labor/Management Loss Control Committee Meeting For 7-13-05.
4. O/T Report, Period Ending 6-03-05.
1. Approve Memo Of Understanding With Local No. 49 For Hwy. Dept. Volunteers At The 2005 County Fair.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented a plat for approval. On a motion by Russek, second by Heeter, all voted to approve a plat, “KADABRA,” as submitted by Kathleen A. Braun, a single person and fee owner, of the following property, described in part as: The W1/2 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 28, Twp. 121, Rge. 27 and also the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, of Sec. 33, Twp. 121, Rge. 27, with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any, having been paid; the park dedication fee has been paid (#1066674); Corinna Township has entered into a written agreement to accept the roads, and there is a performance bond on file; and the title opinion prepared by Timothy L. Young, attorney, has been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be ready for recording.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, provided an update on a tax forfeit parcel which the Board discussed in April. At that time, the Board took action to offer the sale of the parcel to Gordon Raisanen for $1,100 via a private sale. This would cover back taxes owed on the parcel. Raisanen has since responded that he is not interested in the private sale offer of $1,100 without a building entitlement. Since this is a parcel of record, there is the presumption that it includes a building entitlement. However, there may be questions raised on this issue due to the size of the parcel. Raisanen would be willing to purchase the property for $12,000 with a building entitlement. If the price exceeds this amount, he indicated he would have no choice but to seek judiciary intervention. Asleson did not feel the offer by Raisanen was unfair based upon the value of $12,000 set on this parcel two years ago when it went tax forfeit. Asleson suggested meeting with the Board in closed session to discuss the issue due to potential litigation. Heeter moved to refer this issue to a closed session on 6-28-05 at 10:30 A.M. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Laid over from the last Meeting, Hiivala brought forth additional information on a tax forfeiture easement requested by Chatham Township. Chatham Township has an agreement with Marysville Township for an easement to the south. They request a permanent easement through the tax forfeit property and 60’ of temporary easement. The purpose is to adjoin Coburn Avenue and Colbert Avenue. Sawatzke felt the concept was fine but asked for a legal description. Russek moved to approve the concept of the request with the easement contract to be brought forth for approval at a future meeting. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 5-0.
Hiivala referenced page 25 of the April/May Revenue Expenditure Guidelines. The report reflects Budget 820-6100, Personal Services at 0% of budget for the year. Allocations for step increases and COLA’s have not been made through May. Budget 820-5001, Property Taxes-Current, reflects 5% for the year as June taxes have not been settled. Budget 820-5771, Wetlands Conservation Act, shows 0% and 820-5774, Water Management Grant, shows -36%. These budgets involve grant funding which generally lags one year. Eichelberg moved to approve acceptance of the Guidelines, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Russek, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
At their 5-10-05 meeting, the County Board directed the Attorney’s Office to redraft the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Howard Lake relating to the water tower located on the County Fairgrounds. Changes proposed by the City of Howard Lake were to be incorporated into the agreement. At today’s meeting, Asleson brought forth the document for review. Asleson said the language remains the same as the 2001 agreement with the exception of what is underlined. Asleson has been unable to receive clarification on what rate the County will be charged for water (commercial vs. residential). With regard to third party placement of antennae on the tower, he did not understand that the City was receiving income from that. Heeter brought the agreement before the Fair Board at their last meeting and said they also inquired about the rate charged for water and the antennae. She said if the City is not receiving compensation for the antennae, they should be. Asleson recalled the compensation had something to do with wireless internet access. He will contact the City about this. Heeter said the Fair Board was willing to perform the maintenance as outlined in the Memorandum. Heeter moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County, seconded by Sawatzke. Asleson said the Memorandum needs to be approved by the City Council. With regard to the rate paid by the County for water, he will either bring this back before the Board as an informational item or provide them with a copy of the Memorandum. Sawatzke extended thanks to Asleson and the City for their work on this issue. The motion carried 5-0.
Greg Kramber, Assessor, said the State Board of Appeal and Equalization was held in St. Paul on 6-01-05. Wright County received no changes for the 2005 assessment. Kramber said he was very proud of staff, especially due to the growth and value changes which have occurred in Wright County. This is the third year in a row that this has occurred. Heeter moved to accept the report received from the Board of Equalization, seconded by Russek. Kramber said fewer changes are being realized due to the technology available. He thought that more than half of the 87 counties in the State receive some type of an increase due to inflationary factors. Some counties receive 20-30 changes, and it is very time consuming to administer the changes. The motion carried unanimously.
Judge Steve Halsey provided an update on the new Judgeships in Wright County. As a result of the 2005 Legislation, two new Judgeships have been authorized for the 10th Judicial District. There are 287 District Court Judges in Minnesota, and the Legislature granted two new Judgeships for the 10th District and two for the 7th District (four total for the State). The eight counties in the 10th Judicial District are Anoka , Chisago, Kanabec, Isanti, Pine, Wright, Washington and Sherburne. There are currently 41 Judges in those eight counties. Weighted case load studies determine where judges are needed the most, and are based on case numbers and the complexity of the case. As of 12-31-04, Wright County had a need for 5.8 Judges and the highest or second highest need in the State. Wright County has 4 Judges. The County most similar to Wright County in terms of population and case filings is Scott County. Last November, Judge Halsey gave a presentation during the interview process for the replacement of Judge Douglas. He reviewed statistics on population and voting. He said despite the similarities, Scott County had five Judges and Wright County had four. At the District Bench meeting held in April, the 10th District supported the two new Judges for Wright County. This has been certified to the State Supreme Court and to Governor Pawlenty. Halsey expects the Judicial Selection process to commence in Buffalo again in the near future. The two new Judgeships will be fully funded by the State (Judge, Court Reporter, Law Clerk). Total cost for salary and fringe benefits is expected to be about $300,000/Judge. Effective July 1st, the entire 10th District will go to State Funding. The Bench in Wright County would like to discuss the provision of the facilities for the new Judges. Halsey assured his colleagues in the 10th District that the County Board supports the Courts. He felt they could work together to provide facilities to accommodate the new Judges. He cited use of the Board Room in the past for hearings and felt this use would increase in the future as an interim accommodation. In response to Sawatzke, Halsey indicated that time spent in a Judge’s Chambers varies greatly dependent upon the type of case.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, presented the 6-10-05 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Committee Minutes (TCOTW) for review. The following are the minutes and discussion at today’s Board meeting (in italics):
Discuss Agreement with City of Monticello for I-94/CSAH 18 Project . Fingalson said that the City of Monticello had requested that Weiszhaar of WSB Consulting be given an opportunity to talk with the TCOTW about the pending agreement that the County Board needs to approve for work on CSAH 18 and the other roadways that will be affected by the big development project planned for the east end of Monticello. When CSAH 75 is disconnected from I-94 as planned, this will no longer meet the criteria of a CSAH and should be removed from the County’s state aid system and given back to the City. Weiszhaar said that there are two segments of roadway on this portion of CSAH 75*0.4 mile that was overlaid two years ago and .17 mile that has not recently received maintenance. The City is asking the County for permission to do core samples on CSAH 75 to help them make a determination of its structural strength so that an agreement can be reached about the County’s responsibility for maintenance when turning this road over. The original surface on CSAH 75 was completed in 1989, and though it has aged, the design life hasn’t yet been reached. As part of the turnback, Monticello would also like the County to provide payment for one year’s worth of maintenance at the usual rate to allow the City the opportunity to enter this new roadway into their budget process. Fingalson said that the County Board already offered the city $2 million toward this project, a generous amount in view of the County’s current financial situation. He feels that the turnback action comes as a result of the overall project and would not be happening if not for the project. The cost of maintaining CSAH 75 after the turnback should be part of the $2 million payment. Weiszhaar said that if the County were to participate in this project according to the current County policy, their portion would be closer to $2.8 million (the original estimate was $1.9 million), and that figure doesn’t even include any portion of the bridge expenses that is being replaced in this project. He also said that the turnback itself is not required as a result of this project, but that its best jurisdiction falls within the city after the project is completed. In fact, it really only comes into effect when the County wants to request additional mileage from the Screening Board and for best results needs to get rid of those portions of roadway (part of CSAH 75) that are part of the CSAH system but that don’t meet the CSAH criteria. Because action to turn back this portion of CSAH 75 is not required, the City feels that expenses for its upkeep should be outside the initial $2 million County participation. Fingalson said that the County will be soon requesting more mileage from the Screening Board and that it is the County’s practice to eliminate these routes from our CSAH system when they are developed. Hawkins commented that the City of Monticello could also benefit by having this portion of CSAH 75 on their system by becoming eligible for additional money through Municipal State Aid funds. There was some discussion about the timing of this turnback and when the State plans to turn back that portion of the entrance ramp to Monticello that currently connects to I-94. It would be possible for the County to meet the same timeline as the State and turn back that portion of CSAH 75 at the end of the project, the same as the State. Initially, the estimate for the County’s portion of this project was $1.9, and the County agreed to pay $2 million to the City. With rising costs, the estimate for the County (using the standard participation formula) could be as high as $2.8 million, but shortage of work projects for contractors could also mean lower bids when this project is let. Sawatzke expressed his concern that the developers, who are benefiting greatly from the improvements being proposed here, should be responsible for a greater share of the expenses that result from those improvements. Simola said that he would like to evaluate the roadway to see if it is satisfactory for turnback, and then have the turnback occur at the end of the project. Hawkins said that he was concerned about the purpose of taking core samples as suggested by the City, and that the recent overlay had been done to improve the ride, not to strengthen it. The tonnage on that road was already 9 ton and hasn’t been reevaluated since the overlay, but it should be adequate for use as a residential street, which it will become after the turnback. There was discussion about milling off the surface and then overlaying that portion of CSAH 75 that hadn’t been recently overlaid at the end of the project. The City would like to consider that expense to be the responsibility of the County, over and above the $2 million contribution, but the County staff would like to consider it to be covered by the $2 million contribution. It is still possible that the project could run under the estimate, and Sawatzke suggested that the County agree to pay $2 million, no matter the amount of the low bid. The bid letting date is expected to be set for late July or early August, unless budget problems for the State cause a delay. At this point, the Commissioners have already agreed to participate in this project, up to a cap of $2 million. Weiszhaar said that Monticello would also like the County to share expenses for the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 75 and Highland Way. He said that the City feels this intersection is unique in that Mn/DOT agreed to approve the new interchange for I-94 on the condition that the City develop an outlet to avoid backup of traffic on the interstate. This new intersection with traffic signals would provide for that. Sawatzke said that big box retail development is really what has prompted this need and he feels that most of the traffic will be generated by the retailers. He cited several instances where the retailer paid 100% of the cost of the traffic signal that became necessary because of their business, including the future Menards at TH 55 and CR 134, Wal-Mart on TH 55 in Buffalo, and the Outlets of Albertville at CSAH 19. Weiszhaar said that the developers will be participating in many of the improvement costs, and also said that he feels this would be required even if there were no development. Cordell disagreed and said that he felt the entire project is development driven, but Weiszhaar said that the interchange should be in place for safety reasons, with or without the development. Hawkins said that he is concerned about setting a precedent for paying for traffic signals that are necessary because of development, and Fingalson said that there are other cases that are similar to this where the developer has paid for the signals. Eichelberg said that in the past the County has required traffic expectations to be met before they participated in the expense, but this one doesn’t fit to our plan. There was some discussion about the traffic on the west end of Monticello and where another interchange with I-94 might be considered. Simola expressed his desire that the County take a pro-active approach to the traffic in Monticello to help prevent major problems in the future. Russek said that it is County policy to have developers pay for the traffic signals that become necessary because of their projects. Heeter said that she doesn’t want to set a precedent by paying for signals that developers should be paying for. Sawatzke said that if the County’s portion of the interchange expense comes to less than $2 million, it would be acceptable to him if the City used the remaining money to help pay for other expenses of this project. CSAH 75 won’t be turned back to Monticello until the State gives their portion back, and then, effective that day, the County will give the City of Monticello one year of maintenance, that cost to be included in the $2 million. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Wright County participate in the expenses of the proposed interchange and maintenance and improvements to CSAH 75 in the City of Monticello with a maximum contribution of $2 million. Any improvements to that turnbacked portion of CSAH 75 and maintenance for one year from the date of turn back may be covered with funds from the $2 million contribution from the County. Cost for the traffic signal at Highland Way and CSAH 75 should not be paid by Wright County.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the recommendation, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Discuss Speed Zoning Near Dassel/Cokato High School on TH 12. Hainlen said that the School District’s main concern is the speed zone change request for TH 12, but that they also wish to have the speed zone changed on CR 100, just north of TH 12. CR 100 is located to the west of the high school and there are numerous vehicles, including buses, that turn into the school parking lot from CR 100. The District would like to see the speed limit lowered on TH 12 for a short time in the morning (7:30-8:30 a.m.) and in the afternoon (2:45-3:30 p.m.) when the school traffic is at its heaviest volume. Though traffic counts are increasing at this intersection of TH 12 and CR 100, they still have not met the criteria for a stoplight, so the speed zone change seems to be the next best option for TH 12. The District would also like to have flashing warning lights installed, both on TH 12 and on CR 100, warning of the lower speed limit during these two times of the day. Hainlen said that Jon Henslin, Mn/DOT District 8 Traffic Engineer from Willmar, told him that warning lights could be put in on TH 12 at no cost to the School District or to the County, but that CR 100 would be the County’s responsibility. Fingalson explained that these lights would be similar to those that were installed near the Buffalo High School on CSAH 35 before they were replaced by traffic signals. The County did install, last fall, signs 1,000 feet in advance on CR 100 that announce the turning movements of the buses, but the District is still concerned about the student drivers and the crest of the hill at that location that interferes with good site distance. Hainlen said that Mn/DOT has already conducted a speed zone study and that Henslin concurs with the 35 mph during the heavy traffic times. Cordell had recently learned from the Central Office Traffic staff (who has the final say) that they would not approve a 35 mph speed limit here. There was some discussion about which Mn/DOT office should handle this, but Fingalson said that Hainlen should continue talking with Henslin for the appropriate action on TH 12. Ultimately though, the Mn/DOT Central Office in St. Paul has the final say. CR 100 is the responsibility of the County, and it can do a school speed study on that highway. Cordell said that the State has given the County the authority to set the speed limit on County highways in school zones, but that this can only be done next to school property, with a little flexibility to back off 750 feet or so. It may be sufficient to go with a lowered speed zone and not be necessary to install a flasher on CR 100. Henslin’s interpretation of the statutes is that the County (since the school is not in a city) would need to do the school speed study on TH 12 (similar to a situation in Pipestone). Cordell has learned from the Central Office Traffic staff that Mn/DOT should do it. Hainlen said that he is also concerned about pedestrians from the ALC school that cross CR 100 at random times throughout the day. Fingalson said that a speed study can be done, taking into account the school hours, but the counts may not reflect accurate counts during the summer months. Meyer reminded everyone that CR 100 is on the County’s plans for a milling, recycling, and overlay for 2006. If enhancements are needed in this area, that would be a good time to do them. Mattson indicated that he would like to have a meeting set up with District 3 and with the person that has the final say (from Mn/DOT) on what can be done for TH 12. Fingalson said that a conference call could be set up to get all the input that is necessary. Hainlen was encouraged to contact Henslin from Mn/DOT to discuss the traffic counts that have already been recorded in the most recent study by Mn/DOT and to find out what actions Mn/DOT will allow to be taken on this portion of TH 12 in front of the Dassel/Cokato High School. Cordell also agreed to check with Mn/DOT for these counts to see if those counts help to indicate the traffic numbers on CR 100 before any decisions are made or action is taken. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Bill Cordell check with Mn/DOT for recent counts on TH 12 and CR 100 near the Dassel/Cokato High School to see if they give a clear indication of what action should be taken for signing on CR 100 as part of the a County-sponsored speed study on CR 100. Fingalson will contact Jon Henslin to see if a conference call is necessary and to inform him of this meeting.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg moved to accept the recommendation, second by Russek, carried 5-0.
Crosswalk Policy. The Committee members were given a copy of a proposed “Marked Crosswalk Policy” that had been recently drafted by Fingalson, Cordell, and Hawkins. Fingalson explained that the current policy was approved in 1988, and since that time issues have come up involving crosswalks that warrant further examination. Cordell said that this review was largely prompted by the addition of crosswalks to county highways that were put in without the permission of the County. He said that any portion of the road that has a speed limit in excess of 30 mph should not have a crosswalk, because the crosswalk gives the pedestrian a false sense of security in a situation where the traffic may not be able to stop in time. When pedestrians do not have a marked crosswalk, they generally take more personal responsibility for their own safety when crossing the highway. When crosswalks are put in outside the general perimeters of the guidelines, drivers have a tendency to ignore them. There was some discussion about the crosswalk warning signs that are bolted on the street between driving lanes, and these can be effective at times. If a definite policy is in place for all townships and cities, it is then easier for the Sheriff’s Department to enforce that policy. In response to Commissioner Sawatzke’s inquiry, Cordell said that he would do a survey in the County’s cities and find out which of the crosswalks on county highways meet the current criteria and approve them. Crosswalks on county highways that do not meet the criteria can either be ground off or can be allowed to wear off. The County has jurisdiction only on the County highway surfaces. Fingalson said that a survey would be done of the crosswalks in the County (on the County highway system) and adoption of the proposed policy can be delayed until that survey is completed. Sawatzke suggested that the proposed policy be a guideline for new requests until it is officially adopted. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that a survey of existing crosswalks on County Highways be completed before the proposed policy on crosswalk guidelines is officially adopted. In the meantime, the proposed policy should be used as a guideline for new requests that come in before the new guidelines are adopted.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter moved to approve the recommendation, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Discuss Agreements with Annandale and Clearwater. Fingalson said that Wright County has an existing agreement with Clearwater to share expenses in a street improvement project that has used up over $400,000 in local money, $200,000 over the original estimate. This is a case where it might have been a good idea to be flexible with the County policy and put a cap on the County’s share of the expenses. The County’s portion for the CSAH 5 project in Annandale is estimated to be $318,000, but money is not available at this time because of the money owed to both Waverly and Montrose. Wright County is already $586,000 short in reimbursement funds available because of payments pledged to other projects. Wright County’s agreement with Clearwater is that as long as they notify the County with the requested amount needed before June, it has to be budgeted in the local levy. Waverly’s agreement states that Wright County will pay them when the money is available. Funds could be advanced encumbered from 2007 in order to pay them back in 2006, and funds could be advanced encumbered in 2007 from 2008 to have money for the 2007 projects. Wright County doesn’t have the funds to pay Monticello for the CSAH 75/CSAH 18 Development project as discussed in item 1) above, therefore bonding will have to be the funding mechanism. Annandale is asking for $800,000 to improve CSAH’s 50 and 38. CSAH 38 probably does not belong on the CSAH system, so bonding money could be used for that (since state aid money may need to be paid back). Both Mattson and Heeter agree that bonding may have to be considered. Hawkins said that Annandale wants to bid the project this year and we would like to have the agreement in place prior to that. He said that the agreement could be worded so that the County can pay Annandale when the money is available. Annandale needs to move ahead with plans because of the infrastructure that is in need of some emergency repairs. A reasonable deadline could be set for payment from the County. Fingalson said that he would like direction from the Board for help in setting a payment deadline and Sawatzke suggested that the City be contacted first to see what they might want. All agreed that it is important to put a cap on either the estimate or on the percent of the estimate (Sawatzke suggested 105%). Fingalson said that the Highway Department is also running into additional costs for the repairs on CSAH 8 near the Hasty truck stop, on CSAH 14, and for the timber bridge on CSAH 12. Fingalson said that he would check with Brian Asleson to see if the owners of the truck stop can be assessed for repairs as the truck traffic is 100% responsible for the damage to the road. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW to have staff discuss payment options with the City of Annandale for the agreement (which the Board and City Council will approve) and to discuss the Clearwater funding at upcoming budget meetings.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter moved to approve the recommendation, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Discuss Options for CSAH 14 Repair. Fingalson said that CSAH 14 is showing signs of failure in a couple of areas that will need repairs. The failure was analyzed, and it was found to have occurred, not because of contractor activity, but because of undetected deposits of non-fibrous peat that lie beneath the road surface. Borings were taken before the construction project began, but these deposits are scattered and were not detected by the usual sampling that precedes all road construction projects. The wider width and the heavier weight of the new road surpassed the capacity of this portion of road to withstand the extra pressure. There are several options for repair, which range in price from $200,000 to $800,000 that have varying degrees of success and longevity. Russek asked if borings can be done in areas that appear to be affected by organic deposits; but Hawkins said that the surface, in these cases at least, does not show any surface signs that the deposits would be discovered. The areas for failure are not near the culverts, which is where you would expect them to be. Fingalson said that he doubted this would be appropriate for any special disaster funding, so costs for repairs will have to come out of the regular budget. Fingalson said that he wanted the Committee to be aware that the extra improvement/repair projects that have been surfacing will require more funding than is available in the current Highway budget.
Discuss Request from Otsego Regarding NE Plan. Eichelberg, Sawatzke, Hawkins, and Fingalson all met with representatives from Otsego to discuss the City’s request for a change in the access guidelines that were part of the NE Plan. The developers are donating the right of way to the State (Mn/DOT), which will eliminate some of the cost for this TH 101 project improvement. The City of Otsego has agreed to allow the County to benefit from this donation but would like some changes in the original proposed access guidelines. Sawatzke said that it was his understanding that the original spacing guidelines were consistent with residential land use plans, but that this now will be zoned for commercial and industrial use, and the City would like to see closer access spacing, one-quarter mile rather than one-half mile, as is consistent for other commercial properties. Fingalson said that one-quarter mile spacing is not always the norm for commercial property and Hawkins agreed that there are variables. Sawatzke said that the City is asking to meet again so that they can review this request, and Fingalson said that he would like to know the Committee’s stance on this so that he can present that recommendation to the City. Fingalson said that he wants the Committee to be aware of the implications of a decision to allow closer accesses, as this may develop into a safety problem. He also said that the wide-open spaces in this area would allow nicely for a frontage road to avoid closer accesses. Sawatzke said that his main concern was that the accesses approved at one-half mile were for a residential area and asked if consideration could be given for closer accesses in a commercial area, and Fingalson said that there is some room for compromise, but that land use is not necessarily a factor that changes access spacing. He asked if the Committee would like to see a meeting of all the city councils, the county board, and the highway staff to review and discuss the access policy. Sawatzke said that thought a smaller group would be appropriate for now. Larry Kruse, Albertville City Administrator, had indicated to Fingalson that both Otsego and Albertville have done another study, which addresses access spacing, but Fingalson wasn’t sure what it indicated since the final report is not completed yet. Wright County, Albertville, Otsego, and St. Michael all signed off on the NE Transportation plan, which outlined guidelines for development and access spacing, but it might be reasonable to give the Cities a chance to review it and discuss it again with the County. Sawatzke said that if there is a change in land use, which is dictating the spacing of the accesses, then there might be a need to consider a change in the rule. Fingalson said that the key is that this 70th Street (future CSAH 37) is identified as an urban mobility corridor, and numerous accesses are not desirable. He believes that fewer accesses, along with a frontage road, can be a successful alternative to more numerous accesses. He said that he would contact Mike Robertson of Otsego and get some information about the new study that has been done. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Fingalson work with Robertson in setting up a meeting of the original Technical Committee for the NE Study to discuss these issues.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 5-0. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Transportation Committee Of The Whole Minutes as presented. (End of TCOTW Minutes)
At the request of Fingalson, Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #05-36 approving Detour Agreement No. 88122 with Mn/DOT. The Agreement provides payment by the State to the County for road life consumed on portions of CSAH 18, CSAH 19, and CSAH 37, which will be used as temporary detour routes during construction on TH 241. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
The meeting recessed at 10:10 A.M. and reconvened at 10:35 A.M.
Ken Johnson, Agricultural Inspector, presented the 2004 Activity Report. Mattson suggested that Johnson provide a report to the Township Officers at their Annual Meeting in July.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 5-25-05. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 4-0 (Mattson abstained):
Performance Appraisal - Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer. Based on the review of three scored performance appraisals submitted, the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Exceptional.” (End of Personnel Minutes)
The AMC Leadership Development Summit will be held on August 10-12, 2005 in Granite Falls. Russek moved to approve attendance, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Heeter, second by Russek, roll call vote carried 5-0 to adopt Resolution #05-37 approving a Charitable Gambling Application Form LG200R for VFW Post 7664, Rasset Bar & Grill (Chatham Twp.).
The Board discussed the impact of the State shutdown on the River Rider Transit System. Sawatzke and Mattson sit on the River Rider Joint Powers Board. A River Rider meeting will be held this afternoon and the State shutdown impacts will be discussed. Sawatzke and Mattson wanted to know the County Board position on how to proceed. Sawatzke read an email from the State which indicates that Federal and State payments will not be made during the shutdown and there is the risk of not funding retroactive payments. If Wright and Sherburne counties would elect to keep the River Rider Transit System running during the time of shutdown, they may not be reimbursed for costs incurred. Currently the State funds 80% of the cost. Eichelberg questioned whether any of the River Rider service provided is essential. Sawatzke said service is provided to the general public and Functional Industries. Sherburne County services a facility similar to Functional Industries. Also impacted would be employees of the River Rider Transit System. Sawatzke said the Volunteer Driver Program in Wright County may be utilized more if services are reduced or halted. Sawatzke and Mattson will provide an update next week on this issue.
Russek attended an RC&D Meeting last week. Sherburne County has decided not to withdraw from RC&D as previously reported. Information will be distributed to organizations in an effort to seek their support of the RC&D being sanctioned by the Department of Ag. This information could be sent to the Economic Development Partnership, city councils, township boards, Rotary clubs, and chambers of commerce. Mattson said RC&D was discussed at a recent transportation meeting he attended and he had concern with that connection. Russek said RC&D is not involved with transportation and is concerned with rivers and lakes. This was provided as an informational item.
Hiivala requested that the Budget Committee Of The Whole scheduled for today at 10:30 A.M. be postponed until 6-28-05 at 11:00 A.M. Sawatzke moved to approve this request, seconded by Russek, carried unanimously.
Mattson announced the Wright County Sesquicentennial Celebration being held on 6-25-05 at the Wright County Historical Society. He invited the public to attend.
American Business Forms. $236.43
Amerigas-Cokato, MN 464.17
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 202.33
Ancom Communications Inc. 15,815.25
Ancom Technical Center 163.81
Earl Andersen Inc. 31,805.69
Andys Towing Service Inc. 612.39
Daniel Anselment 341.00
Aramark Correctional Serv. 5,140.13
Auto Glass Center Inc. 253.03
B & B Prod.-Rigs and Sqau 9,934.10
Ralph Borell 224.54
Brock White Co. LLC 1,258.83
Brothers Fire Protection Co. 583.40
Buffalo Bituminous 1,112,630.44
Buffalo Hospital 8,800.00
Buffalo Hosp.-Otpt. Comm. 210.70
Buffalo Quality Feed Mill 882.46
Catco Parts Service 906.55
CDW Government Inc. 3,489.28
Cellular One 122.76
Center Point Energy 1,750.51
Climate Air 7,134.98
Cokato Equipment Inc. 598.56
Contech Const. Product 644.80
Deatons Mailing Sys. Inc. 279.99
Decorative Designs Inc. 184.31
Design Electric Inc. 198.90
Nicholas Eastman 125.00
ECM Publishers Inc. 194.25
First Empire CD Mngmnt 316.80
Franklin Township 138.00
Gard Specialists Co. Inc. 398.86
Gateway Companies Inc. 2,954.98
General Nano Systems 3,615.77
Denny Hecker’s Monti. Ford 431.63
Karla Heeter 806.31
Henn. Co. Treasurer 4,950.00
Hewlett Packard Co. 7,723.00
Robert Hiivala 534.62
HSBC Business Solutions 1,383.19
Indianhead Specialty Co. Inc. 189.63
Interstate Battery Sys./Mpls. 213.91
Lake Region Coop Oil 126.76
Lunda Constructon Inc. 247,289.43
Marco Business Products 1,624.26
Martin Marietta Aggregates 2,173.14
Denise McCalla 454.70
B. McNamara Inc. 30,020.00
The Metro Group Inc. 4,246.37
Mini Biff LLC 479.25
Miracle Recreation Equip. 1,006.88
MN Resort Association 734.00
MN Transportation Alliance 500.00
MTI Distributing Inc. 635.08
Nextel Communications 700.00
Office Depot 1,381.53
Omann Brothers Inc. 4,121.67
Photo I 709.23
Powerplan OIB 400.88
Prosource One 3,043.41
PSC Supply 226.21
Royal Tire Inc. 1,271.31
RS Eden 1,519.95
Jack Russek 202.41
Ryan Motors Inc. 791.04
Scenic Signs 132.50
Setina Mfg. Co. Inc. 591.54
Shell Fleet Plus 2,760.96
Sherwin Williams 211.72
Software House Int’l 316.31
Specialty Turf & Ag 1,276.45
Stamp Fulfillment Serv. 204.83
State of MN Intertech Grp. 300.00
State of MN-Administrative 468.00
State of MN-Info Tech Div 604.94
Total Printing 534.58
US Bank 275.00
West Payment Center 585.90
Wright Hennepin Electric 3,499.88
Wright Lumber & Millwork 110.82
26 Payments less than $100 1,267.06
Final total $1,553,152.07
The meeting adjourned at 11:12 A.M