Wright County Board Minutes

SEPTEMBER 26, 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 9-19-06, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Item For Consid. #4, “Discussion RE: Hosting AMC District Meeting” (Russek). Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: A. Duis, Atty.; H. Bray, Hwy.; A. Chaney, S. Deringer, S. Doyle, N. Eldred, P. Johnson, M. Lauer, B. LeeMiller, C. Stine, Sher/Corr.

1. Claim, Frank Madden, $3,016.12.

3. Authorize AMC Delegation To Attend District Meeting, 10-12-06, Litchfield.

2. O/T Report Period Ending 9-08-06.

B. ATTORNEY

1. Approve/Sign Grant Application For Emergency Funds From The Department Of Public Safety In The Amount Of $500.00 For The Victim/Witness Program.

C. AUDITOR/TREASURER

1. Refer To Personnel Committee Request To Bring 4/5 Position To Full Time.

D. HIGHWAY

1. Approve Memo Of Understanding With The City Of Cokato And French Lake Township And The City Of Waverly For The Storage And Purchase Of Sand/Salt And/Or Salt For The 2006-2007 Snow/Ice Control Season.

E. SURVEYOR

1. Permission To Fill A Vacant Full-Time Survey Tech I Position With Temporary Help.

Greg Kramber, Assessor, presented a retirement plaque to Dale Engel, Property Appraiser, for his dedicated service since 1991. He was also honored with gift certificate, cup and pin for his 15 years of service and was described as a major contributor to positive movements in the Assessor’s Office. Engel said he had the opportunity to work with a variety of people (taxpayers, coworkers, County Board, townships, cities, school districts, Department of Revenue, attorneys, closing companies, and realtors). He has been called to testify in local and tax court. Engel expressed appreciation for the opportunities provided in previous years by Doug Gruber. On behalf of the County Board, Heeter extended thanks to Engel for his years of service.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, mentioned the retirement of JoAnne Zander who has served as Lobby receptionist for 18+ years. She was described as a person who volunteers to assist others. On behalf of the Board, Heeter extended thanks to Zander for her years of service.

Hiivala requested approval of the year-end designations. This approval is done annually when the State is ready to complete the audit. Designations are made for cash flow and the liability for compensated absences. Cash flow is determined by taking half of the expenditure budget less half of the revenues. The compensated absence designation is made up of vested vacation and sick leave plus the appropriate FICA tax. Russek moved to approve the year-end designations as presented, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

Hiivala requested approval of the August Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines which were previously distributed. The Guidelines do not reflect a portion of accrued interest and sales tax dollars which will be received from the State. Eichelberg moved to accept the August Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

Eric Meyer, Larson Engineer, made a presentation on the Site Review Plan for the Howard Lake/Waverly/Winsted School which is proposed to be constructed south of Howard Lake. They have been working with the Highway Department and the SWCD. The plans presented include Erosion Control, a Paving Plan, and an Overall Site Plan. The calculations used for the Overall Site Plan were based on pre-settlement conditions. The County required that no additional water would be discharged into County Ditch 10 than what currently exists. The new site will include a water retention pond on the east side of the site. All water from the school and parking lots will be directed through a pipe to the new retention pond. The only water that will flow to County Ditch 10 will include that from the ROW and grass area. The natural drainage of the site to the east will be maintained. Several grass areas for water collection will be used upstream. Russek, as liasion to the SWCD, said they prefer public entities to utilize rain gardens. With the Plan in preliminary stages, he encouraged this method near the ball field. Meyer said there are a couple of areas to the west of the school where there may be the opportunity to raise the outlet. These options will be pursued with the SWCD. Russek asked that Meyer contact the school on interest. He could then seek project funding assistance from the RC&D Board. Discussion led to what action was required of the County. Brian Aselson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said it appears that runoff to County Ditch 10 will be the same or less. To be consistent with past requests for drainage to a County Ditch, he suggested that a public hearing be held and notice be provided to landowners on County Ditch 10. A three-week publication is required. Joe Jacobs, SWCD, said Kerry Saxton and another SWCD employee have reviewed the plans. One of the comments made was that they would like to see something more innovative, as it is a public entity. The Plan meets current State rules. As part of today’s Board Agenda, Jacobs will discuss the Water Management Plan which will incorporate several ordinances. He said it was refreshing to see that the Plan for the school had changed to be more restrictive on water flow, bringing it to pre-settlement conditions. Russek said it was not his intent to hold up the project but rather to set a good example as a public entity. On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to schedule a Public Hearing on 10-24-06 at 9:30 A.M. to address the impacts to County Ditch 10 by the Howard Lake/Waverly/Winsted School.

The claims listing was reviewed. Hiivala said the signature copy has been corrected to reflect the following change as requested by Richard Norman, County Coordinator: Page 1, Decorative Designs ($184.31), change from Line Item 031-6301 to 111-6301. On a motion by Russek, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

At 9:30 A.M., Heeter closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing for the proposed project for Elim, Care, Inc. and the issuance of Revenue Bonds under MN Statutes Sections 469.152-469-1651 and Chapter 462C. Elim Care Inc. proposes to add a 46-unit assisted living and adult daycare facility southwest of the current Parkview Care Center. The financing of $7.5 million would be handled through the County, as has been done previously for Elim Care and other non-profit organizations. The County previously held one Public Hearing on this project. The purpose of the second Public Hearing is to allow Elim Care Inc. to incorporate other financing under Chapter 462C. This relates to the Multifamily Housing Development Financing Program. Asleson distributed a copy of this Program which outlines approximate rental costs for 1-2 bedroom units. The Program does not relate to low income projects. It is for the elderly or memory challenged population. The City of Buffalo adoped a resolution at their meeting last evening allowing financing to be handled through the County, as they have completed bonding up to or near their $10 million bank qualified limit. Tim Kiernan, Buffalo resident, questioned whether the County was providing a loan to Elim Care Inc. The Board’s response was that the purpose of the action is to allow Elim Care Inc. to qualify for a better interest rate. The County is not held liable for the loan, even if Elim Care is unable to pay it back or does not complete the project. County residents will realize a benefit from the facility and through real estate taxes paid. Sawatzke noted by law, the County has no liability but the action must be approved by the County. Although an odd arrangement, he felt it may have been set up by the State with the idea that the local government entity involved would not approve of the action if the applicant were not trustworthy or viable. Asleson said with some types of revenue bonds, the payments are made from the revenue collected on the units. Contracts are filed in the Auditor’s Office reflecting that the County is not responsible for payments or liable for the bonds. The County’s General Revenue Fund would not be responsible if they went out of business. Kathy Youngquist said Elim Care Inc. will guarantee the bonds and the property. They have been in business for over 70 years and are trying to bring more services to the community and elderly. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:40 A.M. and the regular meeting was reconvened. Russek moved to authorize signatures on the Program for a Multifamly Housing Development, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

Marian Dziuk, Jansen Ave SE (Rockford Twp.), met with the Board to discuss problems she and her husband have encountered with a neighboring property. The complaint is associated with dirt bike/motorcycle racing. The Dziuk’s met with the Rockford Township Board on this complaint and do not agree with the Township’s position that the dirt bikes/motorcycles do not make more noise than the trucks on the highway. She felt there was excessive noise and dust which was detrimental to their health, especially her husband who she viewed as a vulnerable adult. The noise makes it impossible to use the outdoors when the bikes are racing and jumping. Their home is 150’ from the property line. The neighbors’ property previously only had one track. In the past 1-1.5 years, it was enlarged to a 4-track race track and is 2’-3’ from the property line. Larger and more bikes are being raced since the track size was increased. The Dzuik’s contacted the Wright County Sheriff’s Department. Sgt. Troy Wachter came to their home. They were informed that the Sheriff’s Office could not make the bikers stop but they could make them slow down with a possible fine of $30. The next time the Sheriff’s Office was called, another Deputy informed the Dzuik’s that they could not do anything. She referenced Township Ordinance 89-1 relating to prohibiting a public nuisance. She said the bikers also ride on Jansen Avenue at times.

Russek drove by the area yesterday and there were no bikes. Dziuk responded that when it rains, they do not bike. Russek stated there is no ordinance which prevents them from riding. If they are charging a fee, then it becomes a business which is not allowed in residential zoning. Sawatzke said the Township’s response was that their Ordinance was not being violated. Dziuk said one of the Township Board members came to their home and listened for a short time to two bikes. Another Board member parked by the road (approximately 1 block from their home). She said this location would naturally make the noise of the truck traffic louder than that of the dirt bikes. At the time they visited, there was no dust. One Township Board member suggested the Dziuk’s leave their property while the racing is occuring. She did not find this acceptable. Dziuk provided pictures of the area.

Lt. Dan Anselment said the Sheriff’s Department enforces township ordinances, which at times is difficult to do. When a complaint is received, the Sheriff’s Department lets the township involved decide whether there is a violation. If there is a violation, it is forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office. Anselment said in previous court decisions, judges generally don’t find there is a violation of public nuisance based upon one complaint. Complaints such as this are being seen in other areas of the County. Residents feel that they should be able to use their property as they see fit. The Sheriff’s Department attempts to mediate, which has not worked in this situation. Dziuk said another resident complained to them a few weeks ago. The resident was trying to paint their home and the dust prevented this. The person called the Township Board member and complained. She was unsure whether he would file a complaint. Other than that, there is only one other person who would be directly impacted. She felt they should be entitled to live in the peace and quiet of their home.

Asleson had not read the Township Ordinance. Generally, the County looks to the Township for enforcement. If a person is found in violation of the Ordinance, the matter is referred to the County Attorney’s Office. This may be a situation where the Township Board could readdress the complaint if more than one neighbor is affected. Public nuisance statutes are set up to apply to more than one houshold. He suggested that if the neighbors are concerned, they could approach the Township.

Sgt. Wachter said he has not been out to the area when the bikes were being ridden. He met with the owner of the property where the bike tracks are located. The resident said they ride a couple of days per week. Although Wachter encouraged compromise with the Dziuk’s, apparently this has not been accomplished. Dziuk pointed out that the letter from the Township Board reflects the track has been there for years. She said the track was enlarged in the past year and riders have been older with larger bikes. They are also riding on CR 20 and in the ditch. Dziuk has also contacted the MPCA. Russek encouraged Dziuk to continue to work with the Township and to include a complaint from at least one more neighbor. The Township needs to request enforcement of the Ordinance by the Sheriff Department. Sawatzke said the letter reflects the Township does not feel their Ordinance is being violated which is different than the Ordinance not being enforced. Russek will contact the Township and follow up with the Dziuk’s.

Asleson requested Board authorization of signatures on a Contract For Deed for Parcel #210-100-293200. This is a 6.2 acre parcel with shoreland on the north side of Lake Mary, immediately adjacent to Ney Park. The property is owned by Allone Potter. The Ways & Means Committee has met several times to discuss the purchase. Potter is interested in retaining a life estate. Page 2, Paragraph 4, of the Contract For Deed reflects a purchase price of $200,000 ($40,000 on the date of closing and 5 payments over the next few years of $32,000), with no interest due to the seller. Paragraph 7 reflects Potter’s ability to remain living on the property. Eventually the building would be removed when Potter is no longer able to remain on the property. The County agrees to pay the property taxes which is included in the 2007 Parks Budget. The document has been approved by Potter. Once approved by the County, Asleson will collect signatures as required and the property closing will be scheduled. Sawatzke moved to authorize signatures on the Contract For Deed, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

Joe Jacobs, SWCD Water Resources Specialist, said the Water Management Plan update has been in the process since 2004. A draft of the Plan was distributed. A task force was formed previously to prioritize water quality issues for the next 10 years. The focus is on innovative ways to implement change, reducing the impacts from land use and ag areas. From those concerns, goals and objectives were developed as well as ongoing programming. An Executive Summary was then written. The task force met last week to review and approve the Plan. The Plan will be finalized and presented to the SWCD Board. Jacobs said the Plan was being presented today prior to holding a public hearing. He plans to meet with engineering staff of cities. The Plan will be submitted for approval by BWSR.

Jacobs provided an overview of the goals and activities of the Plan (a summary follows):

Ground Water Quality. The goal is to increase resource data availability and to prevent septic system failures.

Surface Water Quality:

A. Prioritize 303Dlisted waters (waters not meeting State requirements by EPA Standards). Two lakes in Wright County, Locke and Ann, are not meeting these standards as they are being impaired by excess nutrients.

B. Expedite the total maximum daily load process for all 303d listed waters. Lake Ann is scheduled for a TMDL Study by 2013 and Locke Lake by 2018. The TMDL Study reflects pollutants and how much can be sustained before there is a problem. The Study is expensive and funding is an issue. The two-part plan includes the Study and the plan to correct the problem. Clean Water Legacy funding is used toward TMDL Studies. A total of 96% of this funding is going toward studies which have already been completed. Their plan is to contact the State with a plan and to discuss funding.

Development Pressure. The Plan will guide new development with planning and information, and influence new development and land waters to use practices which reduce and/or mitigate negative impacts on natural resources.

Agricultural Land Use. This involves continued partnership with the MPCA and to influence agriculture operators. There are over 280 lakes in the County, with the majority of population growth in the NE Quandrant (1970-2000). Different areas produce different pollutants (ag vs. development). Water tests are being completed on 31 Wright County lakes for nutrient loads and water clarity. This information will be compiled and forwarded to the MPCA. Quality data has only been collected for five years so it is difficult to make long-term forecasts. Of the 31 lakes tested, 23 did not meet federal requirements. The range of phosphorus should be lower than 47mg/litre. Little Waverly currently has a level of 304 whereas Lake Sylvia’s level is 17-21. A reduction of these numbers is the goal, although some lakes will never be made pristine. This would result in a positive impact in the future, as water flows from one body to another along a chain. Data collected shows that watersheds are impaired. The Crow River has 4-5 impairments. Lake Ann (21,000 acres) is listed as impaired and is predominantly surrounded by ag land. A new sampling station is being established to poll water quality data during rain and normal events. Locke Lake (20,000 acres) is made up of water from 10 other lakes and drains to the Mississippi River. There are over 900 homes on the Lake with septic systems which may be directly impacting the Lake. The Study will determine the source of the pollution.

Key Contributors in Water Quality. These include agriculture, urban/surburban development, and rural residential (including lake lots). Hydrology has changed with urbanization. When impervious surfaces are added, a shift in run off is realized. Presettlement conditions reflect that 40% evaporates, 10% is runoff, and 50% is absorbed into the ground. When buildings are constructed, the formula changes to 55% runoff and only 15% being absorbed into the ground. As water goes into the ground, it deepens and widens channels. Extreme amounts of soil sediments are being lost. As soil is moved, so is phosphorus. Nitrogen is different, infiltrating through groundwater. Examples of downcutting were provided as well as a non-compliant septic system. The purpose of the illustrations were provided to show what is occuring as well as what can be changed. Volunteer programs are not working as well as they had anticipated. The Point of Sale Ordinance is working but is not enough. The MPCA is understaffed and their practices are antiquated and ineffective. The MPCA visits the County 1-2 times per year, which is not adequate for what they wish to achieve. The goal is to address urban, ag and rural residential water issues.

Jacobs suggested possibly using a tax incentive/disincentive for water quality resources. Buffered areas could receive a tax break while those that did nothing could receive a potential tax increase. There are only a handful of these types of projects through the SWCD at the current time. There is funding available to fix problems and implement projects. However, not many farmers are coming forth to participate. This same type of tax incentive/disincentive could be used with the Point of Sale and Compliance effort to result in compliant septic systems. A Stormwater Sediment Ordinance will be discussed with the engineering community before being presented to the Board. This type of Ordinance reduces volume and rate. The same rules would apply both to cities and the County, resulting in developers understanding what needs to be accomplished. Mattson questioned whether Mn/DOT has been involved with the impacts to Locke Lake, as they are proposing a road project near that area. Jacobs confirmed they have been working with them. The Ordinance will be tied to the Water Management Plan providing more legal authority, as suggested by the Attorney’s Office. Heeter felt the presentation provided by Jacobs was outstanding and should be made to the Township Officers at their quarterly meeting. Jacobs responded that it was the recommendation of the task force to present this at the Township and Mayor Association Meetings. The Township Association will meet on 10-05-06 and the Mayor’s Association will meet on 10-23-06. Heeter said a combined City/County meeting will be held in Maple Lake on 10-25-06 which will be attended by Mayors, Council members, and City Adminstrators. With regard to the Public Hearing, Jacobs said the goal is to present the Plan to the BWSR for approval prior to the end of the year. A 10-day hearing notice is required and will be published once. Russek moved to set the Public Hearing for the Water Management Plan on 10-17-06 at 10:00 A.M., seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 9-19-06. On a motion by Russek, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the minutes as presented:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential for video arraignment, a courtroom, and efficiencies in managing inmates at the new Jail and Law Enforcement Center (LEC). The County has retained the services of KKE Architects and Adolphson & Peterson (Construction Management). Plans are to occupy the new Jail and LEC in early 2009. The County has proceeded through the programming and studying stage. The site plan includes a footprint for a potential Judicial Center if a decision is made in the future to proceed in this fashion.

Video Arraignment. Some members of the County Board have visited other jail sites where video arraignment has been utilized. The County Board requested the 10th Judicial District’s position on video arraignment and how to best manage prisoners at two sites. Halsey did not feel the practices of other states were relevant, as many other states are understaffed in comparison to Minnesota. The State Supreme Court sets the standard as to when video arraignment is allowed, and it would be unlikely that it would be approved in Wright County with six seated Judges. It may be authorized in counties with lower population as one Judge may cover several counties. The Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution. It was the position of the 10th Judicial District Judges that citizens should be given their rights in person by a Judge. That is the point at which many apply for a public defender. Any action taken by the Legislature in this regard would probably be overturned by the State Supreme Court. Some counties have opted to inform the public of their rights by video tape. Sheriff Miller stated that operationally, prisoners would be transported every day regardless of whether video arraignment was utilized. There are many other types of court proceedings so transport issues will not cease. Staffing costs would remain the same in either scenario but the work load may be reduced with video arraignment.

Courtroom At the Law Enforcement Center. The County Board requested input from the District on including a courtroom in the LEC to be used for arraignment hearings. The 10th Judicial District does not favor a Courtroom at another location. Arraignment hearings are a small portion of cases. The judicial system has many components with many types of hearings. Under the new unified State system, the District is looking to process more cases in less time with less resources, without compromising quality. Many stakeholders participate in the process (Judge, Judge’s staff, Court Administration staff, Court Clerks, Clerks outside of the courtroom, as well as staff from Human Services, Court Services, Victim Witness and Attorney Departments). It is essential that all participants are located together or efficiencies will be lost. Representatives of the Attorney’s Office and Public Defender’s Office may be required to be in multiple courtrooms at a time. Judges assist with other court calendars as time permits, as well as with paperwork for cases not scheduled for court. The District did not support moving a Judge to another location to perform a limited function. Other counties have used satellite offices for courtrooms. All court related functions have been placed into these locations to allow them to work (Hennepin & Ramsey Counties). Washington County has a satellite courtroom in Cottage Grove, which may be closed in the future due to inefficiencies and expense associated with two locations. There are problems associated with the public showing up at the wrong location for court. Satellite courtrooms work if they are a separate self-contained system. It is the position of the District that a team approach is required for efficiency and better justice. County Attorney Kelly said growth and efficiencies must be looked at, along with bonding rates and capabilities. He requested that the County entertain further discussion on the potential of including a Judicial Center with the Jail/LEC project. The rationale would be a more efficient operation, the potential of property being landlocked in the future, and the estimated population growth. The Public Defender’s Office could be located at the Judicial Center, with revenue being realized from rental income. With the added 15-16 Wright County employees per year, the County needs to address space to house employees within the Government Center. Kelly felt the public would look on this as a wise financial decision. Sawatzke responded that although a reasonable suggestion, the inclusion of a Judicial Center would delay the Jail/LEC project by several years. The Architect and Construction Manager have been hired and plans are in place. Sawatzke stated the County will not be proceeding with the Judicial Center at this time. Miller suggested the County meet to discuss the future of a Judicial Center and to determine the time line of that project. That decision will impact how the Jail/LEC can most efficiently manage the inmate population in the interim. Miller felt that the County needed a 5-year plan. Heeter restated that the site has a footprint for courts expansion and such issues as future utility requirements and parking are being considered as part of the Jail/LEC project. Norman suggested that in conjunction with the Jail/LEC project, the County should update its space plan. With the added employees (15-20/year) and the space the Sheriff Department will vacate, the County needs to address how it will utilize space in a 5-10 year time frame.

Efficiencies In Managing Inmates. Miller did not favor transport of inmates. However, this would be required with the plans that are in place. Staffing costs will increase as a result. An estimated 4-5 employees will be needed to monitor 25 inmates at the existing Jail each day. Transport will be expensive and safety is a consideration anytime an inmate is moved. Torfin said once the move has been made to the new Jail location, the current Jail (upper level) will be operated as a Day-Jail. A morning and afternoon transport of inmates for court is planned. Additional discussion will need to take place on housing/transport of different inmate populations. Mossey suggested a proactive approach toward the same goal through continued meetings. MacMillan said efficiencies will be realized through the team approach. He supported meeting again on the efficiencies of managing inmates and the future of the Judicial Center. (End of Committee Of The Whole Minutes)

The Board discussed rescheduling the Committee Of The Whole Meeting of 10-03-06. Mattson moved to reschedule it to 10-10-06. Norman stated that the Architect and Construction Manager are scheduled to present the Jail/Law Enforcement Center plans and cost estimates at the 10-10-06 Board meeting. Mattson amended his motion to reschedule the meeting to 10-10-06 at 1:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0. Sawatzke stated that a joint meeting will be held on 10-24-06 with the City of Monticello, possibly late morning or early afternoon. More information will be provided at the 10-10-06 meeting on when this joint meeting will occur.

Russek moved to adopt Resolution #06-59 for Federal Funding for the CSAH 75 Bridge in Monticello, seconded by Eichelberg. Russek asked Mattson whether this was approved through STIP for funding in Monticello. Mattson was unsure. Sawatzke said this was ATP approved but not officially approved by the Federal Government. By virtue of the Resolution, the County is informing the Federal Government in advance that the County will fund their portion if the Federal Government funds the remainder. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

Russek will attend the AMC District Meeting on 10-12-06. He inquired whether the Board was interested in hosting the next meeting thereafter. The consensus was that Wright County was interested in doing so.

Heeter indicated that Sheriff Miller invited two Commissioners to attend a meeting in Sherburne County on 9-27-06. This meeting will be attended by two Commissioners and the Sheriff from Anoka, Wright and Sherburne Counties, as well as various department heads. The purpose is to discuss a potential partnership for a crime lab. Due to participation by Mattson, Sawatzke and Eichelberg at Committee Meetings on 9-27-06, Russek and Heeter will attend the meeting in Sherburne County. Heeter stated the Agenda for the Sherburne County meeting reflected that Dr. Amatuzio would be in attendance. She felt the crime lab was included with the Medical Examiner Contract. In response to Sawatzke, Norman said he has been in contact with the Ramsey County Medical Examiner’s Office and they will submit a proposal for corner services. Heeter’s understanding was that the crime lab was separate from the Ramsey County contract. There is an issue of timeliness of results.

At 11:11 A.M., Heeter closed the regular meeting to go into closed session. The purpose was to discuss the possible purchase of the following three properties: PID #103-011-000050, PID #209-000-091401, and PID #209-000-16101. At 11:54 A.M., the regular meeting was reconvened.

Bills Approved

A-1 Marine. $133.00

Milo Alama Trucking 800.00

Allina OCC Med 150.00

Ancom Technical Center 653.78

Annandale Advocate Inc. 285.00

Annandale Rock Products 182.02

Aramark Corr. Services 5,310.50

Armor Holdings Forensics 220.90

Auto Glass Center Inc. 735.29

Auto Garage Door & Firepl. 203.06

Baers Body Shop Inc. 4,109.07

Boyer Truck Parts 180.48

Braun Intertec Corp. 3,216.50

Buffalo Bituminous 11,874.82

Building Fasteners 113.96

Center Point Energy 1,006.37

Classic Asphalt /Sealcoat 40,022.70

Climate Air 431.15

Cokato Equipment Inc. 243.55

City Cokato 300.00

Collins Brothers Towing 166.40

Crow River Tools 157.57

Cub Foods 164.93

Deatons Mailing Sys. Inc. 1,223.00

Decorative Designs Inc. 184.31

Embarq 188.58

Maria Felger Ramos LLC 225.00

Freestyle Photo Supplies 521.99

Gopher State One Call 113.70

Gould Bros Chev-Olds 133.13

Grand View Lodge 260.04

Hirschfields Dec Center 191.32

Hoisington Koegler Grp. Inc. 1,606.18

Neal Huemoeller 226.95

Identix Incorporated 230.17

The Inn on Lake Superior 281.37

Intereum Inc. 1,108.81

Interstate All Battery Ctr. 565.09

Jerrys Towing & Repair 149.10

JR’s Appliance Disposal 1,455.30

Cheryl Klinger 100.00

Lake Region Coop Oil 282.54

LaPlant Demo Inc. 1,260.00

LexisNexis 110.00

M-R Sign Company Inc. 5,806.27

Marco Business Products 3,009.12

MARRCH 330.00

MASYS Corporation 2,628.87

McCarty Water & Waste 750.00

Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix 1,015.11

MN Assn. of Assessing Ofcrs. 250.00

MN Assoc. of Co. Offic 165.00

MN Counties Comp. Coop 50,107.51

MN Prevention Resource Ctr. 160.00

Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 115.03

MTI Distributing Inc. 435.56

Office Depot 1,845.87

Omann Brothers Inc. 1,602.59

Tom Praska 366.23

Precision Prints of Wright Co. 297.14

Qwest 2,060.76

Royal Tire Inc. 3,810.04

RS Eden 14,126.00

Jack Russek 210.04

R Salls 145.00

Pat Sawatzke 273.68

Scientific Digital Imaging 104.50

Seton Identification Prod. 484.20

Sherburne Co. Sheriff 37,140.08

Software House Int’l Inc. 991.53

St. Cloud Fire Equipment 134.00

St. Joseph Equipment-Mpls. 158.88

Stationers Inc. 773.82

Streichers 149.10

Tennant 887.41

Lori Thingvold 227.40

Traffic Marking Service 96,825.99

United Locating Services 330.00

Unlimited Electric Inc. 225.00

Veolia Environmental Serv. 7,627.62

Verizon 584.50

Walmart Community BRC 144.26

West Metro Buick-Pont.-GMC 134.03

J. Wolff 125.00

Wright Hennepin Electric 4,439.35

Zee Service Company 236.55

Ziegler Inc. 2,113.11

44 Payments less than $100 2,140.37

Final total $326,564.15

The meeting adjourned at 11:54 A.M

Published in the Herald Journal Oct. 23, 2006.