Wright County Board Minutes

AUGUST 15, 2006

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

Russek moved to approve the minutes of 8-08-06, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Item D1, “Attorney, Authorize Signatures On Deed, Delano Truck Station” (Asleson); Hwy. Engineer Item #4, “Update On Building Removal, Albertville Site” (Sawatzke); Item For Consid. #4, “C.R.O.W. Meeting Report” (Russek); Item For Consid. #5, “SWCD Meeting Report” (Russek). Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda as amended:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: J. Palm, Bldg. Maint.; D. Pullis, Hwy.; G. Lebovsky, P&Z.

2. O/T Report, Period Ending 7-28-06.

B. CIVIL DEFENSE

1. Approve & Authorize Signatures On EMPG Grant FY 2006.

C. SHERIFF

1. Refer To Personnel Committee A Request To Hire Two Deputy Sheriffs To Fill School Resource Officer Positions.

D. ATTORNEY

1. Authorize Signatures On Deed, Delano Truck Station.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented a plat for approval. On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve a plat, “OAK SHORE TERRACE THIRD ADDITION,” as submitted by James P. & Mae L. Campion, trustees of the revocable trust created by James P. Campion, Revocable Trust Agreement, fee owners, of the following described property, to wit: Outlot F, OAK SHORE TERRACE, Sec. 8, Twp. 120, Rge. 25; with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any, having been paid; the park dedication fee has been paid (#115104); the roads have been accepted by Buffalo Township; and the title opinion provided by Douglas A. Schroeppel, attorney, has been reviewed by Assistant Wright County Attorney Thomas C. Zins, who finds the plat to be in order and ready for recording.

On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, brought forth discussion on the contract award for the 2006 River Country Regional Trail, Phase I (Clearwater), SP 86-675-17, TEAX 8606 (059). Fingalson requested this issue be delayed to the meeting of 8-22-06. The City of Clearwater has approved the agreement with the County but needs to find a way to finance the project. The City will hold a Public Hearing on 8-21-06 to discuss tax abatement bonding. Another proposal would be to change the scope of the project and instead of a pedestrian bridge which would require 20+ years of maintenance, they would replace the existing bridge attached to the dam. Both Stearns and Wright Counties would be required to fund approximately $40,000 of the project under that scenario. The bridge currently does not need replacement. Fingalson anticipated discussing this option with Stearns County this week. If this option were approved, the County would have to reject the bids and re-approach the ATP on the bridge replacement. Sawatzke referenced the safety concerns on the bridge which were voiced a number of months ago by a representative of the Clearwater City Council. Fingalson indicated that those concerns have not been corrected but will be addressed during a site visit on 8-18-06. At their last meeting, the County Board took action to refer the contract award for this project to the 8-29-06 meeting. Fingalson said the contract must be awarded at the next County Board Meeting to meet the 30-day time line for bid award. Russek made a motion to move the contract award up to the 8-22-06 meeting from the 8-29-06 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0.

Discussion was continued from the 7-18-06 Board meeting relating to the contract award for the design/build of the Salt Storage Facility at the Maintenance Shop in Otsego. Fingalson recently met with the City of Otsego. The CUP and the site/building plans for both the main building and the salt storage facility were approved. Three bids were previously received (6-27-06) for the Facility. At Fingalson’s recommendation, Sawatzke moved to award the contract to the low bidder, Accu-Steel Buildings, Inc., $78,748. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0. Eichelberg questioned the status of the sewer/water access. Fingalson said the City approved an option which will include participation by all properties connecting in that area. County cost estimate is $30,951. Fingalson said the County will need to determine whether to pay this right away or defer the cost. Sewer/water connections are anticipated in mid-October.

A Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 7-25-06. The minutes and a summary of what transpired at today’s meeting (in italics) follows:

I-94/TH 10 Connection in Clearwater Area and Option C . Heeter gave a brief summary of the Board’s involvement with the discussion of the four different options presented by Mn/DOT for the future Mississippi River crossing. At the time all four options were presented to the County Board, the Board took a stand against Option B but remained neutral on all others. Fingalson said that one of the issues brought up at the previous TCOTW meeting held on June 2, 2006, was the placement and size of the east bound ramp that would access this new roadway. Residents expressed their concern at that time about several issues, including the large amount of right of way that would be needed for the larger looped ramp, and wanted to know what the travel demand was for this large ramp. Humbert said that he had asked the consultant to print up some diagrams, showing expected traffic sources and destinations using this ramp. He also said that the Commissioner of Transportation has made a decision to go with Option C, and the only wetland area impacted in this option is the Fish Lake Crossing, whereas the other three options affected a much greater quantity of wetland. Humbert said that Mn/DOT needed to balance what the Cities were requesting with the environmental impacts and Mn/DOT’s own technical analysis. The consultant’s study indicated that about 20% of the ramp traffic would be on the larger looped ramp and about 80% on the other mainline ramp. Sawatzke asked why 20% of the traffic would use the large ramp when the other ramp is a shorter distance, and Humbert said that people drive based on travel time and take a path that takes the least time and the route that provides the most consistency in travel time. The modeling, which takes the present as well as the future into account, shows that the traffic pattern on TH 10 starts to backup into the east end of St. Cloud. Humbert said that the land use of the future is also considered, and it looks like the east end of St. Cloud will be a destination in the future. The Monticello crossing is already over capacity today and will be severely so in 2040. Humbert said that state-of-the-art modeling is being used to predict traffic patterns, but some of it still is based on speculation. Mn/DOT has been trying to work with local governments for land use plans and using that information to help predict trip generation. This modeling isn’t 100% accurate, but it is the best tool that is available. Mattson expressed his doubt that the east side of St. Cloud was likely to expand, because all of the expansion up to this point has taken place on the west side. Humbert explained that the west side is land locked and most of it is developed now, so growth will start pushing out to the east, based on projections. The City of St. Cloud is pushing for an industrial park north of the airport and hopes to see more development in that direction. Humbert said that most of the long distance trips are crossing at Clearwater, and Mn/DOT is trying to match this by using Option C. If Option D were to be used, then a large portion of TH 10 would have to be improved. Going further east would help relieve the traffic burden at Monticello, but Humbert said that the Becker option offered very little relief to Monticello. Most of the trips at Monticello are local or from Big Lake, and there is very little ability to change a short trip to a different crossing. The new crossing will affect mostly long distance trips. Humbert said that about half of the traffic on the current crossing at Clearwater will most likely take the new crossing, and Monticello will feel very little effect from that. Traffic volume usually grows about three to four percent (3-4%) per year, which would put the traffic volumes on the TH 24 crossing at 15,000/day by 2014, but an additional bridge could cut that down to 8,000. Sawatzke asked if the State has considered expanding the capacity of the current roadway and waiting with the bridge until it is needed. Heeter said that she felt that this project didn’t make sense with the high dollar numbers. Humbert said that Mn/DOT has run into some constraints with the Federal Highway Administration and their policies. In general, it is good to allow for all movements at interchanges in order to allow people to go back the same way they came. The FHWA insists that all movements be allowed, no matter how weak they are. Humbert said that the consultant started with a 30 mph design for the loop, but Mn/DOT said that this would not be very safe because of the sharp curvature of the loop. A 50 mph curve would require acquisition of more right of way. Humbert had the consultant draw up a 40 mph loop, and Central Office is looking at that now. He can’t say whether it will be approved or not, but he likes the design and it would help minimize the impact on the surrounding area. This loop was shown on a layout to those present. Dick Reider, a Fish Lake property owner, said that he served on the first board when talk of a crossing was first initiated; and at that time, the Hasty option was favored. Humbert said that he didn’t recall that there was a consensus on that preference. Humbert said that the concern from the DNR regarding a section of the Mississippi River near the NSP plant was one of the things that prompted the choice of Option C rather than the economic benefit to the corridor. Karen Durant, a Fish Lake property owner, said that even with a change to a 40 mph loop, there are still a lot of concerns for this raised structure in a bowl area. Noise is one of the concerns, and Durant said that Humbert had told her that there would be a site on one of the shores for the testing. With the current policy, residential structures should be about 1,000 feet from the highway, and Durant is concerned that noise will reverberate and that this issue has not been addressed. She said that a key issue to consider, whether or not the ramp is built, is that the highway itself will cut through critical wetland. This is the last strip of wetland in this area. Durant said that the traffic congestion problem is not on the bridge. Vehicles are getting over the bridge but are not making it into the Twin Cities. The wetland around Fish Lake will be collecting all the pollution, and the pollutants will back up into Fish Lake. She also expressed concern that the buffer between the pollution and the private wells will be gone. Durant and other residents have a concern about the deicing materials that might be used and the lighting that will be needed for this ramp area. This is a grandiose project, and even if funding is available, the project should make sense before construction is started. She said that there are currently huge problems in Rogers, Elk River, and Albertville. The only reason there is increased traffic on TH 24 is because there are fewer controlled intersections there, and Durant said that the new highway would kill the city of Clearwater. She and others feel that the main reason for this project is to get people to the Brainerd lakes area, but it won’t solve any of the major congestion in this area. Humbert said that the Mn/DOT designs are based on weekday, not weekend, traffic. Sonny Glazier, a Fish Lake property owner, said that this project won’t be completed for 10 more years, and by then, I-94 will be too small for the traffic; and with communities growing, the traffic will more than double. Humbert countered that this crossing is being designed for traffic levels in 2040, about 27,000 vehicles/daily, each way. It will still be acceptable for that level of traffic. Plans are currently being considered to widen I-94 to six lanes, maybe in 2023. Reider asked where all the extra traffic would go through St. Cloud, and Humbert said that Mn/DOT is planning for a freeway through St. Cloud. This river crossing is just part of a great system of projects. Mn/DOT is trying to identify those routes that have the least capacity and then trying to even out the capacity. Another resident asked what kind of buffer zone there will be for the home closest to the roadway if a vehicle runs off the roadway. Humbert said that additional right-of-way width would be about 24 feet, so there would still be 75-76 feet of buffer zone, and 85% of vehicles are able to recover in 40-45 feet. Durant said that these questions will continue to follow the project because she feels the whole thing doesn’t make sense. The day-to-day traffic issues are not being addressed. Durant said that this project is in the closing phase now because Mn/DOT cut corners and did not follow proper procedures. They didn’t disclose information. Ron Schabel, a Fish Lake property owner, asked the County Commissioners to draft a letter opposing the modifications to Option C. He said that the modifications were presented to a selected few residents of the Fish Lake area a full year and nine months after the final comment period and option selection were over. These modifications would have a tremendous effect on Fish Lake residents. Glazier asked how many vehicles will use each route, and Humbert said that the breakdown is expected to be about 50/50. Glazier said that this will kill the city of Clearwater, but Humbert said that the City was part of the study and they had an opportunity to bring up problems. They preferred Option A, but Option C was their second choice. Heeter said that she feels that there are so many questions about this project that just don’t sit well with her. With 700 vehicles using this ramp at peak time, she just can’t justify building this ramp and doesn’t feel that the timing is right for this $190 million project. Humbert said that planning began in 1995 at the request of the St. Cloud area. The intent was to recognize and to preserve the right of way for future use. If a river crossing weren’t determined and the right of way preserved, then this project would be too hard to ever complete. Then, under the pretext of preserving right of way, it seemed likely that special funding would come through. At this time, Mn/DOT is looking at the right-of-way preservation. Even from day one, the issue was about constructing a balanced system from Sauk Rapids to the metro area. Mn/DOT recognized the need for a four-lane freeway, and river crossing, and six lanes from Rogers to Monticello, and they recognized that this was needed before 2024. The old criteria used to measure conditions on I-94 is based on traffic speed rather than the level of service. Under the old criteria, 60 mph is acceptable for I-94, which doesn’t make sense. Now, the criteria has changed. Humbert said that when Mn/DOT selected the corridor, their decision was based on traffic analysis, environmental factors, and public acceptance. Corridor C was superior over the others, even when the environmental factors weren’t distinguishable features. However, the DNR would not allow them to go to Corridor A because the portion of the Mississippi River included in that option is considered scenic. They looked at a crossing between Clear Lake/Clearwater and Monticello, but the DNR’s preference was to preserve the area near Becker because of less development. The DNR strives to get maximum distance between bridges. If the Becker alignment had been chosen, then that stretch of river would have been cut in half. The DNR wants to preserve long stretches of river, which means keeping this bridge as close as possible to the other one. No matter which option is chosen, there will be opposition from the public. Early in the process, the most vocal opposition from within Wright County was Corridor D. Both St. Cloud and Clearwater wanted Option A, but people in Haven Township would oppose that too. Moving the bridge would solve nothing. Heeter said that she thinks there is some uniqueness because of the lake that would be affected. Humbert said that much of the information presented by the local people is erroneous, and each time information is presented to him, it takes a lot of time to track down the correct information. One issue to focus on is the outlet to Fish Lake to the Mississippi River. Originally the consultant didn’t consider this area a wetland because it wasn’t evident on any map. The consultant did have talks with the DNR, and the decision was made to regulate it as a wetland, and it has been delineated as 0.06 or 0.07 acres of wetland. If the concern is about the loss of wetland, then other corridors stand to lose much more. The other main issue is the noise that will be generated. Humbert said that for the most part, putting an interchange in isn’t going to change the noise level except for sometimes at night, but not to a level that can be detected by humans. I-94 is the noise generator and the other outside noise won’t come in. He had a consultant put a microphone at the site, and they found that the noise level was actually less than had been modeled. Humbert said that Mn/DOT has looked at the wetland and noise and also at the issue of the river backing up into the lake. He asked Jacobs if he had any hard data to indicate that the river backs up through the channel, and Jacobs said that the Soil & Water Conservation District is checking on that data. Jacobs said that Durant has said that this occurs every year, but Humbert expressed his doubt over the accuracy of her information. Jacobs said that he can pull the actual river elevations on the Mississippi River to find out how high it needs to be before it backs up into Fish Lake. Heeter said that she would like to see a decision made regarding the Board’s decision on supporting or opposing the modification of Option C but doesn’t know if that action would be fair to the Fish Lake residents who already left the meeting. She said that both Clearwater and Clear Lake will be asked to take a stand, but she doesn’t know what value Wright County’s stand will have. She would like to go on record that she feels that both the large and small looping ramps are a waste of time and money. Neither will have much value, even in the year 2040. Sawatzke said that the Commissioners could consider opposing the modified Option C and ask that the loop be removed. This would end up costing the federal government less money than it would by leaving it in the plan. Humbert said that there were a couple of modifications made, which led to the shifting of the river crossing. These modifications were made in order to avoid impacting land that has been set aside by both Clearwater and Clear Lake for a sewage facility and to avoid impacting a golf course. Heeter wanted to know why a golf course was more important than people’s homes and their quality of life. Humbert explained that these modifications didn’t cause a new impact to Fish Lake; the fact that it is over the channel is nothing new. Heeter said that she totally supports Sawatzke’s suggestion that the County oppose the modifications, and in particular, the elimination of the two looping ramps. She opposes the modification that moved the design from 1,300 feet away to just 800 feet away and would support eliminating the loop(s) that is likely to carry very little traffic. Sawatzke said that the $5 million saved would make another district very happy. Humbert said that $10-15 million is a more realistic figure. The biggest cost is the bridge itself. Sawatzke said that this loop can always be added later, if necessary. Humbert said that he and others at Mn/DOT have really struggled with the weak movement ramps, and he understands the skepticism because internally they don’t like it at Mn/DOT either; but they are required to follow the federal government policy, which is the same as their own policy manual. Humbert said that the purpose of this new river crossing is to serve traffic from out of the area and to help locals get on the system. Heeter commented that she thought Option D would have helped with Monticello’s traffic, but Humbert said that the modeling disagrees and none of the alignments were shown to take any traffic away from Monticello. The County can go on record with their opposition to the modified Option C, but Humbert said that he didn’t know that it would make any difference to the Federal Highway Administration. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the Commissioners present that they go on record opposing the modification to Option C that shifted the crossing 500 feet (from 800 feet to 1,300 feet) to the east and closer to Fish Lake. It was also the consensus to go on record adamantly opposing both looping movements that were introduced in Option C. Wayne Fingalson was instructed to draft a letter, for Board Chair signature, to Mn/DOT informing them of the County Board’s position on these matters.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter referenced a draft letter to Mn/DOT reflecting the County Board’s position on the I-94/TH 10 Connection in Clearwater. Fingalson was directed to make changes to the draft as discussed. Heeter and Fingalson were given approval to make further minor changes as needed. The letter reflects opposition to the proposed eastbound to northbound looping movements for a ramp and the shifted crossing that were introduced as revisions to Option C, based on both the limited traffic that would use them and the extremely high cost involved.

CSAH 4 Drainage Issue Near Cokato Lake. Asleson said that he doesn’t think that Wright County could be prevented from making improvements to the current water drainage situation near Cokato Lake, but he doesn’t think it would be wise to change the natural flow of drainage. The County policy is to replace culverts with culverts of like size when improvements are being made. Sawatzke said that he thought new culverts actually carried twice as much water as the old culverts. Three 24” culverts were replaced with one 48” culvert, but one of the old culverts was plugged at the time of replacement. Fingalson showed an aerial photo of the area in question. Back in 2002 when this area received lots of rain, flooding conditions were present at the campground and water backed up into the shed. Back in 2002, FEMA approved the project and the sizing of the culverts (based on a risk assessment by a consultant) to help move the water. The channel was at the north end of the campground, right on the property line. It goes at a skew and comes down to a DNR public access. There are also two or three holding ponds on adjoining property that collect runoff from tiles of the watershed, but they are full and are unable to collect more water.

Jacobs said that the two older structures (holding ponds) have been in for some time. Altogether, this watershed covers about 650 acres and is flowing through the channel in the campground. The two structures on the south have lost significant capacity, and Jacobs has spoken with one landowner to the south about updating the structures. That landowner would like to see a series of more basins put in on the south side to cut up the watershed in that area and would also like to see some management technique used that can effectively cut off the east side of the water flow. That would leave 25% of the watershed untreated. The south landowner has shown some interest in doing something this fall, which would include taking care of some erosion, but the property to the north has changed hands and the property to the east was split, so he has not talked to either of those owners. There are a couple of options to consider. An orifice could be put in the CSAH 4 culvert to bring the flow back down to what it was, but that could adversely impact the campground. It might be best to hold off until the fall to see what surrounding landowners are willing to do. Federal and state dollars could help cover about 75% of the cost, but the rest might be the responsibility of the landowner. Eichelberg said that the problem could be reduced if everyone were to cooperate; otherwise there will be a big problem with erosion and water across private property. Cokato Lake is teetering on the brink of being impaired for nutrients. Jacobs said that he had attended an association meeting and they were interested in the activities that were going on, because they are concerned about the large black plume that runs into the lake every time there is a heavy rain. He hasn’t spoken yet with the campground association. Sawatzke expressed his doubt that the flow from the old culverts equals the flow from the new culverts. Hawkins said that the study was done on what culverts should be there, but Sawatzke said that the capacity is greater now than it was. Asleson said that the condition on both sides of the road should be taken into account. Jacobs said that CSAH 4 is blocking the waterway and a culvert is going to be less than what would go through without the road there. This is a modified ditch system. Having the road there is a restriction, regardless of the size of the pipe. Fingalson said that it is very common that a culvert that is replaced has some element of siltation. Besides the existing basins, could something be put within the property of the former campground that could be used as a settling basin? Jacobs said that to be the most efficient, it should be outside the perimeter of the campground. Sawatzke wanted to know if another size culvert could replace the current one. Asleson said that some controls could be put in, but the back up to the campground area must be considered too. The highway itself is a dam, so the County needs to do what it can to keep the natural drainage pattern. Jacobs said that a restrictor plate could be bolted on the culvert until this fall when hopefully another solution will be available. Government can pay for over 75% of the project, but there should be more concrete answers later this fall. Asleson said that this is a matter of trying to keep the natural drainage pattern and affect as few people as possible. Mattson said that he would like to wait and see what the property owners want. Jacobs said that he will attempt to contact all of them and find out what they might be willing to take on. Mattson suggested that the culverts be downsized for heavy rains. Sawatzke said that the problem is that the old culverts needed cleaning and the new culverts are bigger. Hawkins said that when a study is done on water flow, a decision is made based on what size is appropriate in that location. FEMA actually required the risk assessment, but however well intentioned Wright County was, it didn’t intend to cause problems downstream. Jacobs said that the best approach is to do an outlet, but voluntary programs are tough. If the property owners don’t need the improvement, they are very reluctant to pay for it out of their own pockets. Fingalson asked Jacobs to convey to the Township that the County is working with SWCD to get this problem resolved. Russek said that he would like to have Jacobs continue working on getting the ponds cleaned up and working to get a solution upstream that will help the whole watershed. He thinks that the lake association would be agreeable to working on this with the County and SWCD in order to help clean up the flow into the lake. Sawatzke said that he doubted the association would have the ability to get money from their dues. Mattson expressed his desire that the culvert flow be decreased, but Hawkins said that would involve the risk of backup into the campground area, trading one problem for another. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Joe Jacobs of the Wright County Water and Soil Conservation District continue to work with landowners upstream in this watershed to see if they would agree to make improvements to their property that would help reduce the destructive flow of the water to Cokato Lake from the watershed area uphill from the public access.

Crash Mapping and Analysis Tool. Cordell gave a PowerPoint presentation of Wright County’s newest crash mapping and analysis tool that was put together by Mn/DOT and the Local Road Research Board (LRRB). The University of Iowa developed the program and LRRB acquired it to use as a tool to identify and improve problem areas. All 87 counties have received this new tool. Crash data for all recordable crashes ($1,000 or more of damage) within the last 10 years was collected and put together in this program. Wright County now has instant access, through a variety of graphs, to information that documents such things as location, type of weather and road conditions, day of the week, month of the year, and other factors that might have contributed to the crash. This information will be used to focus on the problems that can be solved in order to improve safety on our highways. Wright County also has a video log of all its County Highways that can be viewed from the office, so that the crash data can be easily identified with an actual viewing of the location.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, including the modifications to the letter that will be sent to Mn/DOT. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.

(End of TCOTW Minutes)

Fingalson provided an update on the removal of the County building located on the former Albertville Shop property. The property has been sold and closing is scheduled for 8-22-06. The County previously received three bids on removal of the building and authorized acceptance of the high bid of $5,000. Attempts to contact the person with the high bid have not proven very successful, as phone calls are not being returned. A signature on the proper paperwork was not obtained. Fingalson has proceeded to contact the other two bidders for interest. The second highest bidder indicated to Fingalson that he would have been interested had they had all summer to remove the building. The developer of the property has modified plans and their building will be placed in the approximate location of the shop. Fingalson said the County will need to hire a demolition company to remove the building and concrete by 8-22-06. Bids are currently being obtained from three firms. He was unsure of the cost but estimated less than $10,000 to remove the 60 x 85 building. The salt shed will be demolished and removed by the end of the week. Discussion followed on any penalties to the high bidder for not following through. A bond was not required at the time of bid. The person did submit a bid but the County has not obtained signatures from him as they have been unable to get a hold of him. The County could potentially follow through with legal action for the personnot living up to the agreement and for the cost which will now be experienced by the County. Sawatzke felt removal costs will be much greater given the time frame to remove the building. He referenced the delays in closing on the sale of the property which have occurred at the developer’s request. These delays have pushed the sale from Spring to the present. He asked whether the developer could wait an additional two weeks to allow removal of the building. Asleson recommended that the County proceed with having the building removed by next week. If the County expends less than $10,000, no more than one quote is required. It was noted that anyone that would be interested in removing the building should contact Steve Meyer at the Highway Department. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to authorize Fingalson and Meyer to proceed with having the shop removed at the lowest possible cost.

A Deferred Compensation Committee Meeting was held on 8-08-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0:

Request To Withdraw Funds, Unforeseeable Emergency. The Committee reviewed an employee’s request to withdraw funds. Asleson stated that Section 9.9 of the Deferred Compensation Plan deals with unforeseeable emergencies. He added that only subparagraph (c) might apply to the employee’s request. Sub paragraph (c) defines an unforeseeable emergency as a severe financial hardship to the employee resulting from, “...extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances arising as a result of events beyond the control of the Participant.” After further discussion it was the consensus of the Committee that this request did not meet the definition of an unforeseeable emergency. Recommendation: Deny request. (End of Deferred Compensation Committee Minutes)

Gary Torfin, Jail Administrator, provided an update on the status of the contract negotiations with Adolphson & Peterson Construction. Contract negotiations were held last week. An error was made on the original proposal increasing the cost by $250,000. Since that time, an updated proposal was provided (distributed at today’s meeting). The fees were reduced from $1.169 million to $1.287 million. The error related to the salary of a person who was omitted from the proposal. The rates were adjusted by reducing hourly wages for employees and adjusting the project schedule from 20 months to 18 months. Torfin provided a report on reference checks performed on Mortenson Construction. The proposal by Mortenson removed a person from the project. Sawatzke questioned this as he understood the fee was lowered but the services remained the same. He requested Board direction as the updated proposal by Adolphson & Peterson reflects costs very close to Mortenson’s proposal. All proposals were based on a $30 million project. The original Adolphson & Peterson proposal reflected 12,716 hours on a 20-month schedule. The updated proposal reflected 10,337 hours on an 18-month schedule. Mattson voiced frustration with the oversight by Adolphson & Peterson. Discussion followed on whether the Mortenson Construction proposal included hours for their staff member, Mark Miller. Torfin was unsure whether Miller’s hours were not being charged or whether he would not be participating in that portion of the project. Mattson suggested laying this issue over for clarification. Heeter did not feel this was necessary due to information received while completing reference checks on Mortenson Construction. Although Adolphson & Peterson did make an error in their proposal, she still supported proceeding with them. It was restated their proposal was based on a $30 million project and the proposal reflects a not to exceed figure of $1.287 million. Sawatzke said the fee would not increase if the project takes them longer to complete. Sawatzke moved to authorize the Task Force to continue contract negotiations with Adolphson & Peterson for a not-to-exceed figure of $1.287 million. The motion was seconded by Russek. Torfin was directed to contact Adolphson & Peterson to inform them of the not-to-exceed figure of $1.287 million and that this fee would need to remain consistent even if the project schedule were extended. The motion carried 5-0. The Task Force will meet with KKE Architects on 8-17-06 at 3:30 P.M. Torfin was directed to set up a meeting with Adolphson & Peterson on 8-17-06 at 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. A motion was not required to set up this meeting as the County Board previously authorized the negotiations.

On a motion by Mattson, second by Sawatzke, all voted to authorize County Board attendance at the Jail Seminar being held in Prior Lake on 8-16-06.

Russek attended a C.R.O.W. meeting last week which was held at the St. Paul Regional Water Service Center. A tour was provided. The Center is not owned by the City but is a separate government body which supplies water to 13 entities. Water is supplied by the Mississippi River and a small watershed. This 200-acre watershed has more pollution than the water taken from the River and they are trying to improve the situation through clean up. This group supports Federal and State grant efforts of the C.R.O.W. as the water eventually flows to them.

Russek attended a SWCD Meeting on 8-14-06. Fred Bengston, DNR, made a presentation on DNR efforts to lower water levels on Pelican Lake. They are currently completing an EAW and will need to obtain permits. It may take 5-6 years to reduce the water level. At this time, only one member of the SWCD Board supports the effort. The concern of the SWCD Board is whether this will encourage development on the Lake. It was felt that adding homes around the Lake would place the Lake in a worse state than leaving it in its natural state.

Bills Approved

Brian Abrahamson. $320.85

Allina Health Systems 1,500.00

Ameripride Linen/Apparel 217.13

AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 347.49

Amicus 160.00

Ancom Technical Center 998.00

Aramark Correctional Serv. 10,147.82

Arctic Glacier Inc. 331.53

Kirk Asplin Oil Co. Inc. 111.86

Avtex Inc. 23,334.15

B & D Plumbing & Heating 615.00

Joe Backes 108.13

Blaine Lock & Safe Inc. 115.00

Buffalo Bituminous 409,325.81

Buffalo Hospital 255.75

City Buffalo 44,598.55

Ryan Busch 221.17

CDW Government Inc. 1,424.35

Deatons Mailing Systems 124.61

Marie Demars 113.92

Dental Care Assoc. of Buffalo 348.00

E-Z Flush 565.20

E. Central Reg. Juvenile 10,320.00

Tom Feddema 223.39

Federal Signal Corp. 1,508.44

Gateway Companies Inc. 980.56

Gordys Foods 101.07

Granite City Ready Mix co. 726.20

H & H Sport Shop Inc. 153.00

Hardings Towing Inc. 114.58

Karla Heeter 151.41

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 1,227.25

Hirshfields Dec. Center 187.40

Holiday 1,722.67

Neal Huemoeller 219.39

Info. Systems Corporation 229.54

Junction Towing & Auto Rep. 221.79

Mary Kenning PHD 1,250.00

Janet Klein 117.03

Lab Safety Supply Inc. 1,472.11

Michael Laurent 172.23

Law Enforcement Technology 939.93

Loberg Electric 281.64

Frank Madden & Assoc. 5,875.07

Marco Business Products 1,948.76

Martin-McAllisters Cons. 1,050.00

MASYS Corporation 2,628.87

Mattson Well Company 451.00

McLeod Treatment Program 2,966.33

Midland Corp. Benefits SVC 997.75

MN State Auditor 2,051.28

Monticello Times Inc. 268.10

Motorola Communication 2,915.11

Nextel Communications 156.93

N. Suburban Towing Inc. 240.98

Office Depot 1,784.92

PC Solutions Inc. 202.50

Phillips 66 Quick Shop-Del 127.65

Prop. Records Industry Assn. 125.00

Prosource 2,385.00

Qwest 647.60

Reichels Catering Service 581.76

Russells Sec. Resource Inc. 428.27

Seton Identification Products 477.99

Specialist in Gen. Surgery 955.92

Spectrum Solutions 13,852.00

Super Express 283.29

Tom’s Towing Service 175.72

Total Printing 272.00

Trimin Systems Inc. 1,103.71

Uniforms Unlimited 2,405.95

Viking Coca Cola Bottling 104.25

Voss Lighting 2,458.98

Waste Management TC W 1,826.01

West Sherburne Tribune 116.40

Stewart Wirth 625.00

Wright Co. Highway Dept. 171.18

Wright Hennepin Electric 153.26

37 Payments less than $100 1,680.27

Final total $572,098.36

The meeting adjourned at 10:17 A.M

Published in the Herald Journal Sept. 11, 2006.