Wright County Board Minutes

April 18, 2006

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

Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 4-11-06, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the Agenda as presented.

Eichelberg moved to approve the Consent agenda as presented, seconded by Russek. Sawatzke questioned the custodial issue that was being referred to the Personnel Committee. Melvin indicated the issue dealt with current understaffing due to employee work restrictions for medical reasons. Motion carried 5-0.

1. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: K. Green, T. Vaith, Aud./Treas.; T. Andersen, D. Goggins, J. Thinesen, Sheriff.

2. Claim, Nelson Building & Development, $4,905.54 (Pay Application #5, Courts Remodeling).

3. Claim, Frank Madden & Associates, $3,045.22 (March Service).

4. Authorize Voluntary Leave Without Pay Program; May 8, 2006 Through September 8, 2006.

5. Charitable Gambling Application, Form LG220, Clearwater Fire Department Relief Assn., Silver Bullet Saddle Club Arena, 17363 Cty. Rd. 7, Clearwater MN 55320 (Clearwater Twp.).

6. Refer Custodian Staffing To Personnel Committee.

B. ASSESSOR

1. Approve Abatement, PID #118-802-024302 & 118-802-024303, State of MN (City of Otsego).

2. Approve Abatement, PID #205-000-024201, James & Beverly Stellman (Cokato Twp.).

3. Approve Abatement, PID #202-028-003070, Michael & Rebekah Murphy (Buffalo Twp.).

4. Approve Abatement, PID #202-000-251101, David & Dawn Schmidt (Buffalo Twp.).

5. Approve Abatement, PID #155-171-000030, Otter Creek LLC (City of Monticello).

6. Approve Abatements, PID #212-000-112400 & 212-000-112404, Kevin Miller/Corey & Cassandra Lafave (Middleville Twp.).

C. HIGHWAY

1. Award Contracts For Seasonal Requirements.

D. SHERIFF/CORRECTIONS

1. Authorize Signatures On Jail Medical Contract Addendum RE: Safeguarding Of Patient Healthcare Information.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer requested signature on the contract with the State Auditor for the 2005 Audit. The County will be soliciting bids for the 2006 audit. Russek moved to authorize signature, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

Hiivala requested authorization for payment to Fyle’s Excavating for County Ditch 7 repairs in the amount of $1,270. Information has been received from the City of Cokato and the golf course that the repair was well done and has improved water flow off the golf course. Mattson presented three photos showing the repairs. Mattson moved to authorize payment, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

Hiivala requested authorization for payment to Fyle’s Excavating for Joint Ditch 15 beaver dam removal in the amount of $295. Mattson moved to authorize payment, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

The claims listing was discussed. Hiivala referenced a claim on page 6 in the amount of $48.24 to Buffalo Computer Company for the aerial photography dvd. This was coded to the revenue account for the fee for sale of the photos, but should be coded as an expenditure. Mattson questioned why it was not done by the County’s IT Department. Hiivala stated the $48.24 is payment for delivery of the photos on dvd. Russek moved to approve the claims, subject to audit. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0.

Lt. Joe Hagerty, Sheriff Department, stated Wright County has been the recipient of federal funding for the past four years under the Safe and Sober contract. The current contract is for $22,000 with 10% used for equipment and 90% of it used for overtime enforcement with the goal to enforce seatbelt use and reduce serious injury. Haggerty presented statistics on the number of DWI arrests last year in Wright County, age categories, fatalities involving alcohol, arrests for minor consumption, etc. Haggerty introduced Bob O’Brien from the State Department of Public Safety. O’Brien presented Wright County with a $3,000 squad car camera for participation in the Thanksgiving seat belt enforcement effort. He presented statistics on seat belt use and cost in terms of lives and dollars. O’Brien stated Wright County was one of nine camera recipients in the State. Heeter thanked O’Brien on behalf of the County.

Heeter closed bids for the 2006 Culvert Replacement Contract at 9:23 A.M. The bids are for culvert improvements for five locations on CSAH 7, CSAH 11, and CSAH 37. The Highway Engineer’s estimate was $75,000. Four bids were opened at today’s meeting. A bid bond was included with each of the bids.

Eagle Construction Co., Inc. (Little Falls, MN) – $88,882.00

Keith Wurm (Annandale, MN) – $85,227.20

Sunblad Construction, Inc. (Cokato, MN) – $72,469.00

Mathiowetz Construction Co., (Sleepy Eye, MN) – $75,615.00

Russek moved to lay the award over until the 4-25-06 County Board Meeting for Highway staff review, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

Heeter closed bids for the 2006 Overlay Contract (0604) at 9:30 A.M. Overlays for Contract 0604 include CP86-7-062, CP86-100-062, CP86-107-062, CP86-141-062 and CP86-142-062. The Highway Engineer’s estimate was $2,260,000. There were two alternates in addition to the base bid. Alternate #1 is for overlay at Crawford Park and Alternate #2 for Otsego Park. The following two bids were opened at today’s meeting:

Bauerly Companies (Sauk Rapids, MN): Base Bid - $2,928,841.76; Alt. #1 - $19,806.57; Alt #2 - $74,684.37; Total Alternate Bid - $94,490.94

Duininck Bros., Inc. (Prinsburg, MN): Base Bid - $2,994,534.52; Alt. #1 - $22,718.00; Alt #2 - $68,036.00; Total Alternate Bid - $90,754.00

Eichelberg moved to lay the award over until the 4-25-06 County Board Meeting for Highway staff review, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

A Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held 3-31-06. On page 3, paragraph 1, Mattson requested the sixth sentence be deleted from the minutes as he did not feel he made that statement. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes with recommendations and deletion of the sentence referenced by Mattson, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

Request from City of Monticello for Roundabout on CSAH 18

Representatives from the City of Monticello were present to plead their case for the installation of a roundabout on CSAH 18, just south of I-94 at Meadow Oak Avenue and the school access. Bret Weis distributed an agenda for his presentation and gave a little history about the transportation improvements that the City of Monticello has promoted throughout the years and talked about the interchange project that Monticello is currently working on. They have been working on the local transportation system so as to benefit both the trunk highway and the county system, and have been trying to find solutions that will keep traffic moving. He said that they are committed partners to Wright County, and the improvement project that involves CSAH 18 would have cost the County $2.9 million under the regular funding formula, but the City agreed to charge only $2 million. Though it wasn’t shown on the original plans, the City would now like to have a full access at Meadow Oak Avenue. Originally, the County agreed to allow a right-in, right-out, and then three-quarters intersection (allowing southbound CSAH 18 traffic to take left turns into Meadow Oak Avenue). They appreciated the County’s willingness to work with them since the access spacing is much closer than the county policy allows. However, at this point, the City feels that this would be a good place for a roundabout. If there were going to be a roundabout, then the school would also like access to it. The School is in favor of this, as it would tie into the parking lot. A pedestrian access would also be considered there because it is expected that this is where the students will cross. The Council is asking for the roundabout in order to get traffic out of the neighborhood, because there is no left turn allowed for westbound Meadow Oak. If people can’t take a left hand turn, they will be encouraged to go through the church parking lot. Fingalson said that they could take a right turn and then do a U-turn at the next intersection, as this is an appropriate traffic action. Johnson commented that the front (east) area of the school is a drop-off point for students riding with parents, and the back of the school is for buses. It makes more sense to him that parents take a left out of the parking lot. Weis said that though there is some concern about access spacing at Mn/DOT, they would be coming up with new access guidelines for roundabouts. Weis said that Meadow Oak meets the warrants for a traffic signal, but the County does not want one there. Fingalson questioned the traffic warrants being met for a signal. Weis said that a roundabout would not hamper the flow of traffic, and you have to yield coming in, and once in, you have the right of way. He said that the average delay at a traffic signal is 27 seconds, but only 6 seconds at a roundabout. He did not do an analysis with stop signs. The City is trying to take traffic off CSAH 18 and county roads wherever they can. They have been spending a lot of money on improving Chelsea, and they feel that this will improve the safety for the city streets and for the school because two other accesses will be removed and there will only be one access coming in. Both the City Council and the School are in favor of a roundabout. The speed limit in that area is 45 mph, and the speed in a roundabout is typically 15 mph. Once the interchange is completed at CSAH 18 and I-94, it would probably be appropriate to do another speed study. Weis said that the lower speed limit of 15 mph in a roundabout is part of the delay, however, the speed limit is not posted. The roundabout needs to be wide enough to accommodate trucks, but not so wide that they encourage a driver to race through them. Some lane changes will be required, but once you’re in the roundabout, you have the right of way. Fingalson said that he and Hawkins are not opposed to roundabouts, but they don’t think that this is the proper location for one, especially a multi-lane one. He said that he had talked with Denny Ehler from SRF, an expert on roundabouts and someone that Mn/DOT uses as a resource, and provided him with a copy of the layout of the proposed roundabout plans. Fingalson passed out a copy of the analysis submitted by Denny Ehler of SRF. Ehler said that he feels this roundabout is inappropriate based on transportation system planning, safety, highway impact, and because of its precedent setting nature. Posusta said that the City wouldn’t even be talking about this if left turns could be taken off Meadow Oak. He doesn’t feel that it is that big of an issue with left turning traffic, and it is not nearly as intense as the traffic on TH 25 through Monticello, where there are left turn opportunities at every intersection. He feels that a roundabout would offer even more safety. Fingalson said that the safety record for a two-lane roundabout is less clear. Because of the proximity to the elementary school, Ehler recommended that the roundabout not be put in here. Fingalson said that the County prefers to work with the Cities, but the County’s focus needs to be on CSAH 18 and he wants to minimize the impact on delays. Cordell said that the County’s crosswalk policy for elementary school requires adult crossing guards. Weis said that he appreciated the study done by SRF and that they can make some good arguments. He said that the delays caused by traffic signals malfunctioning causes much more delay that a roundabout would. Operationally, the roundabout does work. As for pedestrians, kids will cross where they want to cross, not necessarily where they are told to cross. Even though this report does not support a roundabout, he said that a report supporting one could just as easily be written. Sometimes you have to trust people’s experience instead of just an engineering analysis. Fingalson said that the SRF report is based on lots of good experience. Posusta said that the delay is extended when the church is meeting. Only some of the people will make it through the light before it changes. Weis said that the County Board will have to decide what action to take. The roundabout will be a benefit to the City because this will give traffic from Meadow Oak easy access to CSAH 18. He said that the interchange, developed by Monticello, will save people lots of money, and that the delays would have been very serious if nothing had been done to the interchange. Fingalson agreed that the roundabout at this location would be a benefit to Meadow Oak, but not to CSAH 18. County staff is administering the County policy, which provides for proper spacing of public roads. This is the basis for the denial of a full access. Mattson interjected that the County Board decided to go along with St. Michael’s request to improve the intersection at CSAH 22 and 42nd Street north of the new bridge, because they felt that if the City Council could live with the decision, so could the County Board. Sawatzke asked Fingalson why a roundabout at School Boulevard and CSAH 18 would be safer than one by Meadow Oak, and he answered that it is not just the pedestrian factor, but also the spacing issue. The School Boulevard roundabout would be a one-lane roundabout. Fingalson said that this would be the main point for students to cross. Fingalson said that a traffic signal at School Boulevard has been considered, but it was too costly and was deferred to a later time. He said that it is just a matter of time that either a roundabout or signal would need to be put in at School Boulevard and CSAH 18, and that it already meets the spacing guidelines. He felt that a pedestrian crossing would be safer at a School Boulevard traffic signal than at a multi-lane roundabout at Meadow Oak. Weis said that he thinks spacing access guidelines will change with a roundabout. Once people start using them, they are a fantastic improvement. Meyer expressed his concern about the complications for snow/ice control. They need to be big enough to get his trucks through them. Weis said that this would be taken into consideration, but snow/ice control is not the only factor to consider. Eichelberg asked when this decision should be made, and Weis said that the City would like to know as soon as possible. Plans still have to be drawn up and it has to move through for official County and State support. Sawatzke asked Fingalson what would be more objectionable, a roundabout or a full traffic movement intersection. The type of property that gets developed will have an impact on how well the accesses work. Westby said that the City doesn’t have complete control over zoning. Fingalson expressed his desire to have a center median and have people go to the next break in the median and make a U-turn rather than allow them to turn left out of an access. Posusta said that the City would like to see an improvement at this point, not a center median. He said that he felt the roundabout would be able to handle the traffic from the parking lot. Since the County did not want them to have a left turn option here, the City thought that the roundabout would be a good alternative. Hawkins said that the County had finally agreed to a left turn for southbound CSAH 18, but Weis said that the Council had never agreed to just that, even though they had agreed that it was the best that they could get at the time. Eichelberg said that he thought the Board should take time to think and talk about this, and if he had to vote on this now, he would vote NO. He would like more time to check it out. Fingalson said that he would like to have another TCOTW meeting in a couple of weeks to talk about some Otsego issues, and this issue could be discussed again at this time. Sawatzke asked if a full access were granted but not a roundabout, would the school access line up with Meadow Oak, and Johnson said that the School would want to move the access to be sure that it lines up with the intersection. If no changes are made, then the access will stay where it is. Weis said that part of the cost of a roundabout is the raising of grade that would be required. Sawatzke said that he is concerned about the roundabout, and that a traditional intersection with favorable access points seems simpler. He doesn’t like the idea of spending a lot of money and then being wrong. He wondered if there were a way for the City and the County to have a mediation about this. Heeter said that she thinks the roundabout is a great idea and would like to try it, except that she is not comfortable with kids crossing in the middle. The City could help with the snow/ice control. Posusta said that he doesn’t think safety is a problem, because vehicles slow down for roundabouts. He said that he has traveled through roundabouts and they became easier each time he used one. He sees it as a positive for the community. He realizes that Fingalson doesn’t agree with them, but he is here to plea that this is what the City wants and that this is the right thing to do, now and here. Heeter asked how the other members of the City Council feel about it, and she was told that at least four of five agree with it, and they are unsure of how the fifth person feels. They are not aware of any opposition. Mattson asked if SRF has worked on roundabouts and Fingalson said that they have. Russek said that his biggest concern is the snowplow, but otherwise he is in favor of letting the City have the roundabout. Heeter asked why the County won’t give Monticello a full intersection at this point, and Fingalson said that safety is the main reason; it is too close to the next access point and Wright County needs to represent what is best for CSAH 18. He understands that the City’s focus is on Meadow Oak Drive and this provides an opportunity for CSAH 18 to yield to Meadow Oak, but he sees significant delays if that is allowed. He pointed out that the software used by WSB does not provide the true delay values, according to SRF. He also said that modeling had not been used in the analysis to visually show the impact of a roundabout. Westby said that he had personally worked with Ehler at SRF and has also driven through a number of roundabouts when he was in Europe with City Council representatives. It had snowed a couple of times when he was using them, but he saw no problems with them, and they were the same size that they would be here. There is heavy bike and pedestrian use in Denmark, and that has not presented a problem there. He said that he is not an expert, but he has been involved with roundabouts and has never seen problems with them. Mattson commented that the snow/ice control seems to be taken care of with all the cul-de-sacs that are being put in these days. Sawatzke suggested that if the City wants a roundabout, they can take care of the snow/ice control and Wright County can reimburse them at the regular rate. Heeter said that she would prefer not to lay this issue over to another meeting but would like to make a decision today. Sawatzke suggested that Fingalson work with the City to figure out a southbound access, and Fingalson said that he felt a full interchange is the lesser of two evils. However, if a hotel goes in across the street, then it might be necessary to close the median. Posusta suggested that a roundabout be allowed right now. Weis said that this is about maintaining a southbound access, not just about the cost (about $400,000). He wants a permanent solution. Mattson said that the City’s request can be granted, but if it doesn’t work, it will have to be torn out at the City’s expense. Russek said that if the City wants a roundabout and is willing to maintain it, then he is in favor of letting them have it. Johnson said that the School is in favor of it also. Heeter said that since she knows the Superintendent is comfortable with the roundabout, she would like to approve it and move the pedestrian access.

RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that the County Board grant approval to the City of Monticello to construct a “round-about” at CSAH 18 and Chelsea, at the City’s cost, with the understanding that the City be responsible for the snow/ice maintenance on that portion of CSAH 18, an activity that will be reimbursed by the County at the usual rates for that service.

At today’s meeting Fingalson stated the Highway Department will be meeting with the City Council on 4-24-06 for a final decision. The City engineer agreed a justification report would be done for this location which will determine the decision.

Discuss Agreement with Hennepin County for County Line Routes Fingalson said that it has taken about 25 years to convince Hennepin County that they should be paying for their part of maintenance for the Hennepin County side of CR 139, which is a County Line Road. Fingalson said that he would like to make a couple of changes to the proposed agreement (which also addresses the 0.5 mile segment of CSAH 17, also on the county line) and tie it into the bridge agreement in order to credit Wright County for the past five years of routine maintenance. He would like to fine tune this agreement and make it a permanent agreement, after the five years is up. He would like to work it out administratively with the Hennepin County staff for non-routine items such as patching and seal coating. Fingalson said that he would work with Hennepin County to modify the agreement and address this further at a future meeting.

Update on Otsego Truck Station

Fingalson said that he has met with the architect that Wright County hired and has also talked with Otsego about utilities to the site. It will cost about $36,000/lot to bring utilities to each lot, which is good news since that means a septic system and well will not have to be constructed or drilled. There will also be the need for a salt shed, costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $136,000. The shop itself, bare bones, may cost approximately $720,000. Heeter expressed her concern that the numbers keep changing and asked if the Commissioners would consider setting the limit at $750,000. Meyer said that a shop similar to the one at Cokato is desired. It’s useable, fits the area, and is something that the City will allow in that area. The size of the building is what’s needed to meet the needs in that area. Four truck slots seem to be appropriate. The costs have gone up since the Cokato building was built. Heeter asked if there were some other type of building that could be built. Meyer said that the cost has gone from $45/sq ft to over $85/sq ft since the Cokato shop was built, and there have also been some code changes. He doesn’t know how the size can be cut down. Eichelberg said that 10 to 20 years from now the County Road will be continuing on CSAH 37 and there will possibly be one from St. Michael at Naber. The space for vehicles can’t be cut down, even if the price is more than was anticipated. Russek said that the sale of the Delano shop wasn’t figured into the budget, so the proceeds will help cover the cost of this building. Fingalson said that this is the first time that researched information had been given out about the shop, and he realizes that it is higher than what all of us want, but there does not seem to be another option. Sawatzke asked if a pole shed would cost less than a tent structure for the salt storage, but Steve said that part of the cost is a concrete floor, which both would need. Fingalson said that the architect is putting together a design-build package and the salt shed is separate. They had considered a block building, but it would be hard to find a block layer in the summer and it would also be more expensive with the energy codes that would have to be followed. It is also necessary to have it warm enough in the building in the winter to melt the snow and ice that accumulates on the trucks. Radiant heat and an air exchange are planned. Fingalson will be meeting with the architect next week to fine tune some of the plans. Russek said that this would be basically like Cokato, only with new codes to meet. There will also be one less office at the Otsego site. Meyer said that the air compressor from the current Albertville site will be moved to the Otsego site as a cost-savings measure.

Discuss Selling of Albertville, Delano, and Chouinard Properties

Fingalson said that signs had been put up at the Delano and Albertville shops and showed the Board a summary of the inquiries received so far. Lots of interest has been expressed. Fingalson said that the City of Delano has expressed interest, but the administrator has not been available to discuss it. He said that he would like to have bid dates set for both sites, a minimum bid set for the Delano site, and a date for a pre-bid meeting set to give people an opportunity to review the sites and buildings. There is a fuel tank at the Delano site that will be moved to the Otsego facility. A sign was put up on the Chouinard property and information has been posted on Wright County’s website. Fingalson said that this will be discussed at a future meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that the County Highway Shop in Delano be advertised for sale, that a bid date be set, and that a minimum price of $200,000 be stipulated in the proposal for bids.

RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that the County Board set a date to accept bids on the removal of the Albertville Shop.

At today’s meeting Fingalson stated an open house is scheduled for 4-20-06, 10:00 for the Delano property, and 1:00 P.M. for the Albertville property.

Preview DVD Entitled “Roads and Loads – Finding a Balance”

The TCOTW reviewed the newly released “Roads and Loads – Finding a Balance,” which is a product of the Minnesota Local Road Research Board with a Wright County flavor.

The business portion of the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. before the DVD was shown.

Russek moved to adopt Resolution #0631 Approving Agency Agreement #89512 with Mn/DOT for reconstruction of CSAH 17 between Delano and South County Line, seconded by Eichelberg., carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

A Building Committee Meeting was on 4-12-07. Russek moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0:

Building Repairs

Hayes presented the following repair items for discussion:

Roof Repairs

The roofs at the Government Center and Human Services Center are at the end of their normal life span and need either replacement or repair. A quote has been received from McDowall for $31,431 for repairs with about half that figure for the Human Services Center roof. Hayes estimated replacement of the Government Center roof could be between $100,000 to $150,000 depending on the type of roof system. He questioned long-term plans for the Human Services Center and whether it would be more cost effective to replace or repair the roof. The consensus of the Committee is to make repairs at this time. Hayes will obtain information on various types of roof systems for future discussion on long-term facility needs. The repairs will be funded out of Budget 100, Site Improvements.

Parking Lots

Repairs are needed to the Government Center parking lots. Quotes have been received from Astech, St Cloud; Southwest Paving, Inc., Cologne; and a third is coming from Classic Asphalt, Maple Grove. The lowest quote received is currently $35,791. Hayes will contact the City of Buffalo regarding their portion of the lot by the Library. Consensus of the Committee was to proceed, with funds to come from Line Item 100, Site Improvements.

Parking Deck Resurfacing

The deck was resurfaced six years ago at an approximate cost of $30,000 with a normal life span of five years. The deck is beginning to leak and some patching has already been done. At this time it is unknown how extensive resurfacing needs to be and whether it needs to be stripped. This was provided as an information item.

Heating/Cooling/Air Quality - Human Services Center

Heating and cooling equipment at the Human Services Center is old and starting to break down. Depending on the long-term plans for the facility, Hayes questioned whether maintenance should replace units as they break down or consider replacement of all the units with an energy efficient system. Cost to replace all 9 units would be approximately $30,000 or about $3,500 as individual units need to be replaced. Air quality and handling issues were also discussed. Consensus of the Committee was to replace units as they break down at this time and for Hayes to obtain a proposal for an engineering study for the Human Services Center.

Third Floor Heat Pump Replacement

Third floor is the only area of the Government Center where heat pumps have not been replaced as part of a remodel project. Hayes questioned long-term plans for the third floor, and replacement of units at an approximate cost of $3,500/per unit as they break down. Discussion followed on current and long-term space needs. Consensus was to replace units as they break down as remodeling plans for the third floor are tied to decisions regarding the Courts and construction of a new law enforcement complex. Heeter requested the Courts issue be placed on an agenda for discussion.

Modular Office Furniture For Commissioners’ Offices

There was discussion on office size and how the amount of space available in the Commissioners’ offices could be better utilized with modular office furniture. Hayes will contact the furniture vendor to obtain a proposed office layout and cost.

A Building Committee Of The Whole meeting was held on 4-4-06 for an architectural interview with DLR Group. Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

DLR Group - Jonathan Crump-Project Leader, Matthew Johnson-Project Manager, Joseph Haines-Justice Planner, Martin Berglund-Justice Planner, Don Horkey-Mechanical Engineer, George Fantauzza-Construction Coordinator

DLR Group has 13 offices throughout the U.S. and more than 500 professionals including architects; mechanical, electrical, civil and structural engineers; site developers and landscape architects, interior designers; construction administrators and CADD specialists. DLR has emerged as a nationally recognized leader in the planning, programming and design of criminal justice facilities, currently ranked #1 by World Architecture Magazine. They have worked with 80+ county jail projects and 30+ law enforcement facilities nationwide. DLR’s project approach would include Transition of Program to Design; Site Planning; Aesthetic Design; Design of Law Enforcement Center, Communications Center and Jail; Operational and Staffing Efficiency; and High Performance Building Design. Operational efficiency and housing unit design are key elements cited as a means to maximize efficiency. DLR would focus on innovative approaches to facility energy efficiency, as well as maintaining a healthy environment for staff and inmates. A life cycle cost analysis would be used to compare multiple systems. Past projects cited for energy/maintenance savings included Washington State Penitentiary Warehouse (Walla Walla WA) and Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (Wilsonville OR). Some possible solutions for energy/maintenance efficiency may include ground heat pumps, heat reflective materials, day lighting through use of skylights, and thermally efficient exteriors. A cost savings would be realized by maintaining a link to the Law Enforcement Center and constructing adjacent buildings using the exterior wall. Fewer perimeter walls would be constructed and a secure perimeter would be maintained. DLR cited their experience including specialized jail, law enforcement and courts expertise, integrated architecture and engineering team, local community representation, proven track record, and their relationship with Wright County since 2000. Question/comments followed. In response to Sawatzke, DLR stated construction administration is included in the calculation of fees as requested in the RFP (listed under contractual conditions) and extends 15-20 years beyond the contract. The range of fees is set out by phases. The estimated cost of $34 million to $37 million including contingency does not include FF&E or soft costs. This equates to a cost of $231 to $253 per square foot. The Minneapolis jail median cost is $240 per square foot. DLR was questioned on why their cost proposal was higher. DLR responded that the cost is approximately the same for the finished product. The difference lies in the time spent on the project. The hours assigned to the job can be negotiated down. The range of fees will be dependent upon what is being sought from the architect. Mattson inquired on the process for subletting jobs to contractors. DLR indicated that when contractors submit a bid, they include a recommendation of a low bidder. Normally they include a pre-qualification that a subcontractor must have experience in a particular trade. Discussion followed on DLR’s experience with Scott County. DLR discussed this as a unique design in an urban location, including jail security design innovations and expansion opportunities through remodel of office spaces, expanding the perimeter, and adding floors. Scott County’s design operationally worked as far as function and concept design. Some water pump issues were experienced and the problem was remedied. DLR stated they will stand behind their mistakes and correct problems which arise. With regard to technologies, DLR Group founded the technology for ground and water source heat pumps which are still in use today. Wind generation will be analyzed through life cycle cost analysis. Use of generators is an alternative. DLR explained that wind power on site has expensive battery back up and it is best to sell the power to a utility company instead of integrating it directly into the building. Grants are available to make this an economically viable option. Other options are reducing power during peak load periods and use of geo thermal systems. Torfin referenced the requests for language changes in the AIA document. The response was that these items could be negotiated. The scope of the work and contractual requirements would be discussed. Contract and fee issues were viewed as negotiable items. Norman questioned DLR’s responsibility on change orders associated with something not completed properly through bid specifications on the design of the facility. DLR responded that it would be dependent upon whether it was a design problem or a benefit for the owners. Norman asked whether DLR had ever built a direct supervision jail facility on an open site and whether it had the ability to double bunk. DLR referenced the Douglas County Jail in Omaha (1980’s) and another in Maricopa County in Arizona (1800 beds). The most recent is a current project in Grand Island, Nebraska which is in the design phase of a 300-bed facility. Norman questioned whether a standard pod template had been developed through past projects. DLR stated that each specific user group has different operational and utilization requirements. Jail cells may be similar in size but each has unique needs. DLR concluded by indicating they have enjoyed the past relationship with Wright County and desire to continue with the Jail and Law Enforcement Project.

A Building Committee Of The Whole meeting was held 4-5-06, 10:30 A.M. for an architectural interview with Durrant. Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Saatzke, carried 5-0.

Durrant - Denny Wallace-Principal In Charge, Bruce Schwartzman-Associate Project Manager, Mike Lewis-Managing Principal, Don Swanson-Director of Mechanical Engineering, Anthony Enright-Design Planner and Project Manager.

Durrant has offices located throughout the country with one headquartered in Minneapolis. The local firm makes use of their most Senior Engineers to perform a thorough review of what is engineered locally. Durrant specializes in criminal justice facilities locally and throughout the country, with over 350 employees nationwide and 57 located in the Minneapolis office. Durrant has over 70 years of experience with a nationally recognized reputation in correctional facilities. They have a history of completing projects on schedule and within budget.

Durrant’s Scope for Services includes Planning, Programming, Architectural and Engineering Design Services, Construction Administration, Transition Planning, Construction Management Services, and Post Construction Services. Communication is viewed as critical to project success. The following were highlighted:

Concept Design & Staff Efficiency. Designing architecture that will compliment efficiencies, centering around operations, circulation and flow. Communication is key factor to that solution.

Cost Management. Selection of systems is proactive. Durrant referenced a past project where a 2” wall is constructed versus an 8” wall, saving 6000 sq. ft. of space. Operations are not impacted.

Selection of Appropriate Materials. Durrant works with cost estimators to find local materials, resulting in a positive impact on budget.

Expansion for Flexibility & Growth. Durrant will work to position buildings for future growth. Community perception will be addressed. Day lighting techniques will be used to eliminate the need for windows on exterior walls.

Swanson provided an overview of what would be done to integrate mechanical/electrical systems. Energy conservation and design would be addressed from the onset of the project and would be through an integrated approach involving users.

Questions/comments followed. In response to Russek, Durrant explained that the primary office for this project will be located in Minneapolis, although the Des Moines office will be utilized for their expertise in engineering. Wallace is the Minneapolis Management Principal and Lewis is the Des Moines Management Principal. With regard to the Mille Lacs County Jail Expansion Project in Milaca, MN, Durrant said another firm was hired for the initial planning project and was not hired to continue. The project involved adding structure to an existing building for an additional 50 beds. Durrant was able to provide a solution to the problems that existed. Torfin referenced the RFP and noted that it did not reflect any proposed changes to the AIA document. The response was that Durrant did not have any questions or specific concerns on the revised language. They are comfortable with the County desiring to retain ownership of the documents and utilize specifications from past buildings. If these do not match what is desired, a custom design is created. Their contract would not provide a warranty for work completed. Construction warranty is part of the contract and is a construction/builders component. Errors and omissions is in place for the County’s protection. Prior to one year post completion, Durrant would work with the contractor to make sure items warrantied for one year are functioning properly. Many components carry longer than a one year warranty and Durrant would be available to assist.

Hayes asked for input on unique design elements versus standardized jail features. Durrant explained elements of cell configuration including integration of systems (wall materials, location of mechanical systems behind cells, and ventilation). Three dimensional tools are used to superimpose the building on site. Another example of work was cited in the Polk County Jail, Des Moines IA. Systems were integrated resulting in a net cost of $178/sq. ft. New designs have been tested and have a thorough evaluation prior to use by clients. Kelly asked for the leading contributing factor in situations where problems have arisen in jail projects. Durrant responded that this would be the communication issue. They felt it was imperative to define the overall objectives and budgetary constraints early in the process. Their change order rate is less than 1.5%. Another area would include substitution of materials that do not meet specifications, resulting in systems not working as designed. Norman questioned the handling of change orders relative to something being overlooked by the architect in the plans and specifications. Durrant responded that they would take responsibility for items which are missed. A contingency fund is budgeted to handle other types of change orders. Norman questioned whether Durrant would be willing to include contract language to reflect these terms and conditions. Durrant responded that this would be agreeable as long as the document represented a fair resolution process for both parties. Russek questioned how they have handled resolution in other projects. Durrant said they must address issues early to determine and coordinate the appropriate resolution. Successful resolution is realized through strong partnering between the contractor, owner, architect and engineer. Discussion also included roofing products. Durrant stated they utilize current technologies and products to select the best system for the use. Mechanical equipment is kept off the roof whenever possible and the more rectangular the building the better. Hayes requested Durrant’s perspective on the programming document. Durrant felt the spacial layout was excellent. They would work to remove as much from the roof as possible and reduce recidivism on meth/drug issues through a possible drug treatment facility. Federal funds could be utilized. Another area would be video arraignments to reduce movement of prisoners. It was noted that the Wright County Judges do not favor video arraignment. Durrant suggested inclusion of space for video arraignments to plan for the future. Torfin questioned the cost of Schematic Design Phases 1 and 2. Durrant indicated they invest time early in the project, resulting in more accurate budgets and decisions made early on. Some of the mechanical/electrical elements are discussed during this phase to assist the architect in design. Discussion followed on construction management services. Durrant does provide this service. If the County elects to have a construction manager, it would be important to hire them early in the process. Communication and cooperation is key between the construction manager and the architect.

The final issue discussed was the project schedule and time line. Durrant will forward a project time line to the County. This time line may be altered to meet the County’s needs.

A Building Committee Of The Whole meeting was held 4-5-06, 1:30 P.M. for an architectural interview with Wold Architects & Engineers. Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

Wold Architects & Engineers - Michael Cox - Principal-in-Charge, Joel Dunning - Manager/Designer, Norman Glewwe - Corrections Programmer, Matt Mooney - Mechanical Engineer

Wold Architects & Engineers, located in St. Paul, Minnesota, has provided service to 21 Minnesota Counties over the past 38 years. In addition to the key members of the team at today’s presentation Wold has a staff of architects and engineers in the areas of sustainability design, interior design and furnishings, mechanical and electrical, a consulting team in areas of electronic security systems, structural engineering, budget management, civil engineering and landscaping, food service design and a support staff of 100 plus. An overview of projects at Crow Wing County, Ramsey County, Carver County and Dakota County were cited as examples of recent construction experience with law enforcement facilities. Seven key points were identified for jail planning: security systems, housing system flexibility, safe and secure, maximize staff effectiveness, durability, facility as a management tool, and understanding the operations plan. Wold operates with an integrated team approach, working closely with County staff and the County Board in the planning and design phases, and are on-site during the construction phase to ensure the facility is built to plans and specs. Dunning cited energy efficiency considerations in their other projects and stated Wold Architects & Engineers was featured in the January/February 2005 edition of “Correctional News” in an article entitled Saving by Design on the energy efficiency of the new Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center. A 35-39 month timetable was presented. Glewwe explained their total management approach emphasizing quality documents and a defined checklist which is continually reviewed to ensure the project is on time and within budget. In concluding their presentation Cox stated Wold is committed to meeting Wright County’s objectives, to respond to unique operational needs, to make the best use of the County’s finances and staff in building a new facility, and are committed to be a resource for life on a Wold project.

Following the presentation there was an opportunity for questions. Sawatzke questioned why Wold was not selected by Scott County for their new jail facility. Cox stated they had done several previous projects for Scott County and they wanted to try someone else. However, they have continued to work with Scott County on their master plan and are currently doing their 6th project for Scott County. Other questions concerned what types of problems were encountered in other projects, how they were resolved, at what point mechanical/electrical engineers are brought in, and their timetable. In response Wold referenced the warranty period as being a critical time to ensure that everything has been built and is functioning according to specifications. They follow a detailed checklist from the start of the project and checkout system at completion. A security system malfunction was mentioned as their worst experience. Wold has their own mechanical engineers who are involved in the project from the beginning. Cox stated designing a jail is a long-term commitment and their timeframe is what they believe is needed to design and construct a jail facility of this magnitude and do it right. Dunning stated there are things that can be done to accelerate a schedule such as at Ramsey County where precast outer walls were used rather than concrete block. Regarding energy efficiency, Mooney stated they work closely with utility companies to take advantage of any opportunity for rebates and weigh the short-term cost to long-term payback carefully. Remaining comments concerned the involvement of specific staff members at Wold.

Wold Architects & Engineers provided the Committee with a summary of their presentation and a copy of the article from “Correctional News”.

A Building Committee Of The Whole meeting was held on 4-12-06 for an architectural interview with KKE Architects.

KKE Architects - Randy Lindemann - Principal-in-Charge/Design, Cliff Buikema - Project Manager, Carey Ottman-Everson - Production/Construction, Larry Svitak - Mechanical Engineer, Jay Hruby - Electrical Engineer, Jeff Pronschinski - Security Equipment Consultant, Damon Farber - Landscape Architect

KKE Architects, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota has 18 years experience in Jail and Law Enforcement design over the past 37 years. In addition to a staff of 210, KKE contracts with expert consultants in the areas of mechanical and electrical engineering, landscape design, and food services. KKE has a long history of projects with Sherburne County as well as correctional facilities at Mower, Dakota, Olmsted, Steele, and Benton Counties in Minnesota. Energy efficiency, maintainability, site masterplanning, staff efficiency and building innovation were listed as components to long-term savings. Insulated precast walls, borrowed light, video visiting, long-span structure, drive-through sallyport/main floor intake, central booking island, pod design options, security electronics, maintenance equipment access, a master site plan and traffic flow were reviewed as means of obtaining energy efficiencies, flexibility of spaces, maximizing staffing efficiencies , and planning for future growth. Lindemann stated they have developed long-term relationships with multiple projects for county clients, have an experienced team with consultants who have worked together on many projects, and work hard to do things right and for less cost.

Sawatzke questioned the proposed site designs with Courts separated rather than connected. Lindemann stated each of their site plan options were based on their understanding this was a phased process, however, if selected as the architect they would design the complex according to the County’s direction. In response to a question from Russek regarding energy payback, KKE promotes energy simulation to determine energy cost factors, length of payback, location of doors and windows, etc. Approximately five acres would need to be dedicated for a geo-thermal system. Regarding problems encountered at other projects, Lindemann stated the quality of documents is the most important aspect of controlling problems in a construction project. Mechanical and electrical engineers are involved from the outset of the project and KKE is on-site during construction. Kelly questioned their number of change orders with other projects. Lindemann stated an average of 2%, with the industry standard allowing up to 5%. He stated they have had some projects with no change orders but they are a natural part of the construction process. Lindemann referenced four types of change orders in response to a question from Norman regarding how situations are handled where the architect left out something that led to a change order, or if there was conflict between the architect and County over a change order. The project schedule was briefly reviewed with an approximate bid date for June, 2007. There was brief discussion on time of the year for letting a bid and contractor response. In conclusion Lindemann stated they pride themselves on long-term relationships; have the skills, ability, and knowledge to do the job with long-term cost savings; and are excited about the opportunity of working with Wright County.

Following the presentation the Committee met separately to discuss the four architect interviews that were held. Following discussion, consensus of the Committee was to continue consideration of Wold Architects & Engineers and KKE Architects. Miller, Torfin, Norman and Heeter will contact other counties who have contracted with Wold and KKE for references.

The meeting was recessed to Monday, April 17, 2006, at 1:00 P.M. At today’s meeting the following minutes were corrected to include attendance by Eichelberg. Sawatzke moved to approve the 4-12-06 and 4-17-06 minutes with the correction and recommendations, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

Jail Project Architect Selection.

The consensus at the previous meeting was to continue discussion today on consideration of Wold Architects & Engineers and KKE Architects for the project. References on the two firms were discussed.

Recommendation: Select KKE Architects for the Jail Project.

Other.

Torfin provided information on training being held by the National Institute Of Corrections. The training, “Managing Jail Design & Construction” will be held in Longmont, Colorado on May 1-4, 2006. Associated costs will include ground transportation and partial hotel accommodations.

Recommendation: Authorize Heeter and Sawatzke to attend the National Institute Of Corrections Training.

Sawatzke stated the County interviewed four very good architectural firms and there was lengthy discussion before the unanimous decision was made to select KKE. The next step will be to negotiate a contract with KKE to provide architectural services for the Jail/Law Enforcement project.

Heeter recessed the County Board Meeting at 10:11 A.M. for a Parliamentary Procedures Presentation by the Dassel Cokato FFA. Participants were Pam Dahlman, Rachael Dahlman, Blaine Hartkopf, Eric Dahlman, Ryan Urban, Paul Nowak, and Isaac Dahlman. The Dassel Cokata FFA team is one of ten teams participating at the State competition next week. The students were thanked for their presentation and wished good luck at the competition.

Heeter reconvened the County Board meeting at 10:35 A.M.

A Labor/Management Loss Control meeting was held on 4-12-06. Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Russek. Mattson questioned the cost of safety shoes being increased from $100 to $125 in a relatively short period of time. Melvin stated it is consistent with several other counties and Building Maintenance buys a less expensive type shoe than Highway which resulted in a lower average expenditure for safety shoes. Eichelberg stated when the steel begins to show through they no longer meet safety standards. Motion carried 5-0. A summary of the meeting follows:

2005 Risk Management Summary. A handout was provided reflecting a summary of the 2005 Wright County Risk Management Summary including Accident/Incident Reports, First Reports of Injury, and Auto/Property/Liability Claims (attached). Nolan was recently hired as the Safety Director and will deal mainly with safety issues. Melvin will continue working with Workers Compensation.

First Reports Of Injury. The summary reflects 39 First Reports Of Injury in 2005, compared to 40 in 2004. The MCIT Annual Report was recently presented to the County Board reflecting Wright County’s experience rating is below 1.0 (industry average). The majority of reports come from the Sheriff and Public Works departments. However, the Sheriff Department does employ one-third of all employees. Those two departments also carry the most job-related hazards. It was noted that some of the reports did not result in an immediate injury but the report of the injury was filed in case a claim did arise at a future date.

Accident/Incident Reports. The summary reflects 67 total Accident/Incident Reports filed in 2005, compared to 55 in 2004. Filing of reports is fundamental for the Risk Management Program as a means to track and identify hazards which may need attention. Slips and falls during the winter months account for 10 of the 16 slips/falls. Although Building Maintenance salts and sands, employees are encouraged to wear boots. The category of exposures will now only include situations when a disease was actually contracted. Prevention is a new category that was deemed necessary by revision of the exposure definition and reporting trends.

MCIT Automobile/Property/Casualty Claims. The summary reflects 45 claims for 2005 totaling $43,069.12 ($16,787.17 Wright County deductible). No major claims were realized. The largest claim, totaling $4,847.37, is being disputed by MCIT and may be covered by the League of MN Cities (on behalf of the City of Otsego). The total number of claims in 2004 was 26. The number has increased partially because of tracking all claims. There were 14 claims with no loss to the County or damages covered by another party. Wright County insures 300 automobiles, trailers and trucks and is one of the largest fleets MCIT insures.

Update On Loss Control Activities.

Public Works & Parks. Public Works has their own Safety Committee which meets monthly. This group held a Fall Safety Training Day and initiated a Hearing Conservation Program (base line testing with annual rechecks). Other training included a presentation on ATV and snowmobile safety, working with mobile and heavy equipment, and a presentation on meth. In February, all maintenance workers were sent to a Work Zone Safety Training. Last month, chainsaw training was held. In May, a training will be held on Right-To-Know Hazard Communication Safety and Workplace Accident/Incident Reduction Program. Other upcoming training will include severe weather spotter, safety/fire extinguisher sessions, and defensive driving for maintenance vehicle operators. MSDS inventory was completed. A mock OSHA inspection was completed on the outlying shops. Minimal followup was required.

Building Maintenance. Plans are to implement a Hearing Conservation Program. The MSDS inventory was completed. In May, training will be held on Right-To-Know and Bloodborne Pathogens. An additional Bloodborne Pathogens Kit will be provided for the new courtroom. The fire extinguishers and alarms are maintained through an annual check that was recently completed. The automatic external defibrillators are inspected on a monthly basis.

Human Services. Ergonomic assessments are being completed monthly, by request or as a followup to an injury. All buildings are posted for OSHA Compliance.

Emergency Procedures/Drill. Last year, Wright County implemented a new emergency procedures system. A paging system will be used to evacuate buildings. A drill will be held on 4-20-06 as part of the statewide drill for Severe Weather Awareness Week. A fire drill will be scheduled in the upcoming future, possibly as part of Fire Prevention Month in October.

Automatic External Defibrillators. Three defibrillators have been purchased for the County in the past few years at a cost of $1600 each, with the assistance of grant funding and matching funds from companies. The Safety Council is offering a special price of $1460/defibrillator through the end of May (including the cabinet, carrying case, response kit, and one extra set of pads). The defibrillators were placed at the Public Works Building and on the Annex First and Second Floors of the Government Center. The Human Services Center has a defibrillator and most squad cars carry them. Helgeson will check to see if one is located in the Bailiff area near Court Administration. He estimated approximately five lives have been saved because of carrying them in the squad cars. In review of the Government Center, Allina previously recommended that the defibrillators be located so they can be easily accessed and used within three minutes. This provides over a 50% chance of saving the person. For every minute thereafter, the percentage drops by 10%. The Committee discussed the importance of training and that more employees on each floor should be trained, not only on the defibrillator but in other areas (i.e., bomb threats, CPR, opening mail, etc.). The Safety Council will be contacted to determine what training is provided with the defibrillators. Allina will be contacted to see if another assessment of the buildings can be completed.

Recommendation: Authorize Safety Director to research grants and funding and approve purchase of AED’s with a goal of having one per floor minimum.

Safety Concerns.

Anderson brought examples of worn steel-toed boots and requested that County funding toward the purchase of boots be increased to $125/year. Reimbursement is currently $100/year or on an as-needed basis with approval by the employee’s supervisor. The Safety Committee budgets each year for this expenditure and typically the line item is not depleted.

Melvin said that this issue was discussed last Summer by the Safety Committee. At that time, expenses compiled reflected the average reimbursement to be around $100. A survey of surrounding counties reflects that $100 is the average reimbursement, although some include this expense as part of a uniform allowance. The Committee discussed the importance of purchasing quality protective footwear.

Recommendation: Support increasing the footwear reimbursement program to $125/year, emphasizing that supervisors should document reimbursement.

A Technology Committee meeting was held on 4-12-06. Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes with the recommendations, seconded by Mattson. Mattson commented that computer equipment has been sold at the County’s annual action for only $1 and $2. Sawatzke questioned the statement regarding loss of service on purchase of equipment through ebay. Melvin stated the service aspect would be lost for purchasing items not the sale of items on ebay. Motion carried 5-0. A summary of the meeting follows:

Nazca/MCCC Agreement & Web Portal Agreement.

Swing provided a time line of what has transpired to date. In June, 2004, the Board approved a letter of intent to enter into an MCCC Web Portal Agreement with Nazca. In August, 2004, the Web Portal Project was presented as a 2005 Capital Improvement Project for 2005, with $35,000 to be expended in 2004 from the Recorder’s Equipment Fund and $85,760 to be funded in 2005. Also in August 2004, the Board endorsed the Nazca/MCCC Contract for the development and support of the Web Portal for MCCC Counties. In September, 2004, the Nazca/MCCC contract was signed by MCCC.

The concept of the Web Portal is to provide government records on the Internet. Swing said Nazca reorganized last Fall resulting in employees being terminated and a delay in the project. The consensus of the eight counties involved in the MCCC was to forward a letter to Nazca citing breach of contract due to non-performance issues and request a refund of over $240,000. Nazca is disputing this. They would accept termination under a separate clause of the contract.

Swing said Wright and Carver Counties were targeted for the project. Wright County has expended $73,000 of the $120,760 thus far. Each county involved with the MCCC pays a different amount based upon population. Sentiments vary on how to proceed. There has been significant progress in the past month on the Wright County portion of the project and he would find it difficult to start over. He felt the contract would be satisfied over time but had concern with long-term support. If a refund is realized from Nazca, those funds could be used toward an RFP. Vendors would be invited to evaluate the system to determine whether it was useable or whether the process would need to start over. There is the possibility that a new vendor could proceed utilizing the current information. Nazca feels Wright and Carver Counties are 90% complete. It was felt that Nazca desired a successful implementation with these two Counties. A meeting will be held in the near future between Nazca and MCCC to discuss the issue. Asleson said Wright County could proceed with an individual agreement and agree to pay the remainder upon satisfaction. Norman said any new contract should reflect scope of activities, time lines, etc. Ongoing maintenance is outlined in the Agreement.

Recommendation: Continue to work on communications with Nazca and provide an update to the Committee in approximately one month. No additional funding should be expended toward the project at this time.

Disposal Of Old Computer Equipment.

In November, 2005, the County Board authorized disposal of computer equipment through Integrated Recycling of Monticello. The company removes the equipment and pays the County for the metal. This method has worked well but another method is sought due to the increased volume of used equipment. The IT Department currently is required to wipe the drives before disposal, which is a time consuming effort (1 hour/computer). The Committee discussed non-profit organizations and Human Services clients who may desire a computer. Norman stated that Human Services clients would need to purchase computers at the County auction held annually. Swing requested approval to dispose of equipment either to non-profit organizations or through Burg Electronic Recovery. Burg Electronic Recovery would inventory equipment, provide a quote, pick up the equipment, wipe the drives with certification that this has been completed, and properly dispose of the equipment. They are certified to wipe drives based on National defense standards, and propose to pay Wright County $500 to dispose of equipment currently inventoried. There are several other counties currently working with them. Swing will contact Chisago County to inquire on their experience with this vendor and will provide a copy of the Agreement to Asleson for review. Asleson should also provide an opinion on non-profit groups obtaining the computers after the wiping process has been completed by the IT Department.

Recommendation: Proceed with disposal of equipment through non-profit groups or through Burg Electronic Recovery upon review and approval by the Attorney’s Office.

Other.

Swing brought forth discussion on purchase of equipment through ebay. An article was referenced citing savings realized by St. Louis County on the purchase of used radios. Helgeson was in contact with another county who sold an air boat through ebay and the process went smoothly. This may be considered for selling forfeited vehicles. Swing contacted Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, whose opinion was that although there is a high probability of success, the service aspect would be lost. The Attorney’s Office will be consulted for an opinion. This was provided as an informational item.

A Ways & Means meeting was held on 4-12-06. Mattston moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Russek. The motion was amended to correct a date in the minutes to read, “at the April 18, 2006 County Board Meeting.”, instead of “April 25, 2006”. Motion carried 5-0.

Seasonal Bid Openings

Bids were closed at 9:00 A.M. by Chair Russek. Bids for the various seasonal categories were opened. Mayer read totals as bids were opened. Highway staff will tally bids and present a summary and recommendation to the County Board at the April 18, 2006 County Board Meeting.

Bills Approved

Allina OCC Med $170.00

Ameripride Linen/Apparel 213.97

AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 124.00

Ancom Technical Center 507.41

Aramark Correctional Serv. 4,985.24

Arrowwood Resort 278.98

B & D Plumbing & Heating 444.00

Bachman Printing 612.87

Darnell Brethorst 150.86

Buffalo Hospital 9,452.00

Buffalo Hosp.-Otpt. Comm. 8,127.54

Center Point Energy 12,323.38

Crysteel Truck & Equipment 13,715.16

Cub Pharmacy 1,040.32

Culligan of Buffalo 992.22

Emedco 159.41

Todd Gau 160.20

Janet Gholson 226.95

Granite City Cash Register 533.93

Karla Heeter 274.66

Rolland Helgeson 113.07

Amy Hertzog 217.61

Hewlett Packard 1,025.60

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 6,423.61

Howard Lake Herald 1,384.95

Husom Electric 1,697.50

Cheryl Klinger 100.00

Lakedale Telephone Company 258.01

LaPlant Demo Inc. 538.11

Loberg Electric 100.64

Magneto Power 253.91

Marco 792.15

MN Assn. of Co. Probation Of 725.00

MN Co. Attorneys Assoc. 115.00

MN Office of Enterprise Tech. 463.86

MN Safety Council 380.00

Office Depot 213.71

James Parker 349.98

Precision Prints of Wright Co. 305.66

Qwest 9,051.60

Software House Int’l 145.91

St. Cloud Fire Equipment 550.00

Subway 200.00

Super Express 241.76

Tom’s Towing Service 106.50

Total Printing 592.94

15 Payments less than $100 908.72

Final total $81,748.90

The meeting adjourned at 10:58 A.M

Published in the Herald Journal May 8, 2006.