Wright County Board Minutes
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 10-24-06 were corrected as follows: Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 3rd to last sentence, change to read, “McLeod County joined for 2007” (Russek); Page 8, last paragraph, 9th sentence should read, “Sawatzke and Mattson amended the motion to include a range of $25-$30/square foot for precast wall options” (Sawatzke). Sawatzke said he did not recall Liska making a comment of not going below the $30 level for precast wall options. He felt Liska suggested the $25 level. Russek said that was his understanding as well. Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson said the minutes as presented were correct. However, he wanted to point out some comments that were made at the meeting which bothered him and might be questioned by people who read the minutes. He referenced Page 5, which reflected “After meeting with Fingalson, they realized how far off this estimate was” and said this comment makes him question whether KKE knows what they are talking about. Other comments that bothered him included, “Fingalson’s goal is to extract as much gravel as possible. The plan reflects a good balance between the two, although Fingalson has not had the opportunity to review it”; and “They do not know the bearing capacity of the gravel and whether it is adequate.”; and “Lindemann said he did not recall elevations being included. He said KKE was unaware of the gravel resources until they met with Fingalson.” Mattson said the gravel issue has been discussed through the entire process of building the new jail. Two other comments included, “Lindemann concluded that there are another 75 days remaining in the Design Development Phase. He asked for Board direction on size and what would be included. They would then come back with a specific design.” and “The use of swales was not included at the time the cost savings was drawn up and has not been evaluated.” Mattson said in reading the minutes, one would question what was going on and whether KKE knew what they were talking about. The minutes are correct as written but he had concern with what was happening and the open checkbook. The motion carried 5-0 to approve the minutes as corrected.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Chief Deputy Attorney Item #3, “Authorization To Retain Expert Witness, Onyx Tax Appeal” (Asleson). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: C. Anderson, Assr.; S. Sandberg, Atty.; D. Kotila, Hwy.; C. Schulz, P&Z; T. Barfknecht, C. Curtis, T. Doerr, T. Wachter, Sheriff.
2. Refer Capital Improvement Planning To The Capital Improvement/Finance Committee.
3. O/T Report, Period Ending 11-03-06.
4. Approve Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Knights Of Columbus #6608, Silver Springs Golf Course, 1854 Cty. Rd 39, Monticello MN 55362 (Monticello Twp.).
5. Approve Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Minnesota Women On Wheels, Delano Sports Center, 4354 US Hwy. 12 SE, Delano MN 55328 (Franklin Twp.).
6. Approve & Authorize Signatures On Labor Agreement With LELS, Inc.
7. Accept $239,469 Dividend Payment From MCIT.
8. Review & Approve Budget Committee Of The Whole Minutes, 2007 Budget Process.
1. Approve & Sign Agreement For Prosecution Services Between The Wright County Attorney’s Office & The City Of Annandale.
1. Approve Agreement With Functional Industries, Inc. RE: Use Of Wash Bay In Public Works Building.
1. Refer To Building Committee Shooting Range Line Cover.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested the Board set the final cutoff for payment of the 2006 claims for 12-19-06 at 4:30 P.M. He plans to address this at the next Leadership Team Meeting. Eichelberg moved to approve the request, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Merle Anderson of the Clearwater River Watershed District was present to discuss a project on Cedar, Albion, Swartout and Henshaw Lakes. Anderson said the 2002 rainfall events appear to have caused changes to the Cedar Lake drainage area, resulting in an increased phosphorus load in Cedar Lake (supported by monitoring efforts). The Cedar Lake Conservation
Club petitioned the CRWD Board and the result was a preliminary engineering and appraisers report. Public informational meetings and a public hearing followed. As a result, the project was ordered and the anticipated results are a 1’ water clarity improvement in Cedar Lake. The project cost is $355,000 with an anticipated annual maintenance cost of $80,000. Anderson suggested with the Board’s permission, representatives of the County (Heeter and Hiivala) and the CRWD (Zindel and Anderson) meet to discuss financing the project. At a future date, the CRWD may request an advance from the County. Mattson questioned whether the County would be liable if a lawsuit arose. Anderson responded that the County would not be responsible, that if the project were challenged the District would be the respondent. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said watershed districts have an entire chapter in Statutes which apply to them. These Statutes reflect that the County would provide funding through bonding or general fund reserves in this situation. They further reference County drainage law which reflects the Auditor shall assess properties per Statutes. The watershed district is a government entity itself. Asleson will work with Hiivala in this regard. It was thought that the CRWD does not need funding at this time. The situation will be readdressed after prepayments of the assessments are received. An interest rate will need to be set by the County Board at a future date. Heeter participated in the CRWD public hearing process. She commended the CRWD Board on their handling of this controversial item. They stuck to their mission of enhancing water quality. It was the consensus that Heeter and Hiivala can meet with the CRWD on this issue.
Hiivala presented a draft resolution relating to an Application for Cancellation of Forfeiture, PID #206-000-031302. The line of title was incorrect so the tax forfeit notice did not get to the true owner of the property. The owner saw the notice when visiting the property and contacted the County immediately to request pay off. Asleson said the Sheriff had posted a notice on the property and a letter was sent instructing those living on the property to vacate by a specific date. The last time the Sheriff visited the property, it was vacant. The problem is that the notice was not served to the contract for deed holder, who is willing to pay of the taxes and hopefully clean up the property. The tax statements were being mailed to the property and possibly received by those residing there. Sawatzke moved to adopt Resolution #06-73, Application for Cancellation of Forfeiture, PID #206-000-031302. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
The claims listing was discussed. Mattson said the claims listing reflects a dividend payment in the amount of $239,469 from MCIT. Hiivala indicated this dividend will be placed in the General Fund and reflected on the November budget reports. Russek thanked Dick Norman, County Coordinator, for his service on the MCIT Board of Directors. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Capt. Gary Torfin, Jail Administrator, presented a draft resolution which must be passed by the County Board because of the decision to construct a new jail. Statute 641.21 requires this action when a jail is erected or repaired in excess of $15,000. This amount used to be $5,000. In the past, Torfin said they were unaware of this requirement. The reason for the resolution is to make the DOC aware of the intent, to involve them in the process, and to make sure the County is in compliance with their rules. Torfin said the DOC has been involved from the onset of the jail project in Wright County. Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #06-74, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, presented the November Parks Commission Minutes and recommendations. The following summarizes discussion and action taken at today’s County Board Meeting:
Silver Creek/Hasty Sportsmen’s Club Partnership Regarding Public Archery Range. Heeter, the County Assessor and Parks Administrator attended the Club’s meeting. The Club owns an 11.3 acre parcel of land on Silver Lake that includes an access, trap range, shelter and a club house. The proposal is to add a public archery range on Club property. Issues which need clarification include insurance, terms and length of lease, roads, grounds, range, building maintenance, facilities open to the public, and deed restrictions/first right to purchase. Township road designations would also need to be checked on. The Parks Commission consensus was to explore the possibility with the Club and to fulfill the need of a public archery range. Since the meeting, the Club brought the idea to their membership and it was supported. The County’s insurance has also been contacted and it appears there will be no issue regarding liability. Sawatzke wanted the project to be self supporting. Participation fees and programming should cover the increases in expense. Mattice said these issues will be put forth at a future date for review. Heeter felt this was a great opportunity. It was the consensus of the County Board to support the concept of the Public Archery Range partnership.
William Anderson County Park Trail Donation & Layout. A $5,000 donation was given to the Parks Department for the purpose of establishing a trail in the Park. Mattice developed a trail plan and took GPS points of the proposed location and existing facilities. The consensus of the Parks Commission is to move forward with this project and begin physical construction for the trail in 2007. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattice was directed to work with Hiivala on the appropriate fund location for the $5,000 donation. It was placed in the Ney Park Fund. The Board felt a separate fund should be designated so not to confuse expenditures for each Park. The donation could be reflected as a Parks revenue and expended through salaries. Sawatzke did not want overtime to be incurred. Russek moved to accept the $5,000 donation for the trail system for the Willard Anderson Park. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0. The donation was made anonymously.
Cross Country Ski Trail Groomer. Mattice requested approval to apply for a grant for a ski trail groomer (50/50 match). The unit has been partially funded through the Budget process and he would like to apply for the grant to fund the remainder. Russek moved to authorize Mattice to apply for the grant, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Proposed Camping Fee Increase In Relation To Clearwater River Watershed Project. Notice was received from the CRWD of an assessment due of $13,955.60 for a project to improve water clarity on Cedar Lake. The County owns property on Cedar Lake (Schroeder Park & Campground). The Parks Commission supported raising the camping fees $2 per night with the additional funds placed into the campground improvement fund to pay for the assessment. Once the funds have been raised, the $2.00 would continue to be placed in the fund to pay for future improvements to the campground. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattice said the assessment must be paid by November 25, 2006. The proposal would be to pay for the assessment from the campground improvement fund and to replenish funds with the increase in campground fees in 2007. There is an estimated $12,806 in revenue for 2007. There is approximately $40,000 currently in this fund to cover improvements at Schroeder and Collinwood Parks. The proposal is to increase camping fees at both Parks. Sawatzke instructed Mattice to contact the CRWD to inform them that the payment will be made prior to November 25th but that they may not receive it due to mail time. Asleson said State Statutes do not require a public hearing for the establishment of camping fees. However, they could be included in the schedule being reviewed at the public hearing if desired. Sawatzke moved to pay the $13,955.60 assessment immediately to avoid the ongoing payment plan, to increase camping fees by $2/night, and to include the increase in camping fees in the upcoming public hearing on changes to the County’s fee schedule. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said one bid was opened at the last meeting for a 1/2 acre parcel the County owns in Middleville Township. The question arose as to whether the land carried a building entitlement. The County and Middleville Township both view the lot as unbuildable. Asleson was in contact with Winston & Melissa Shelton who submitted the bid ($4,500). They are landowners of all land that surrounds the property. Mr. Shelton indicated to Asleson that they were agreeable that the deed would include a covenant providing that no building entitlement would accompany the transfer. The intent is to combine all land as one tax parcel, which was also what the bid requirements indicated. Russek moved to award the bid for the 1/2 acre parcel to Winston & Melissa Shelton, $4,500, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0. The necessary paperwork will be drawn up to remove any building entitlement.
Asleson presented a bill from Crossroads Animal Shelter for the boarding and euthanizing of a dangerous dog. The amount is not covered within the dangerous dog contract the County holds with the Shelter. The issue also involves the prosecution of a criminal matter for failing to register a dangerous dog. Short of litigating the bill through the Courts system, a deal was made that in return for a plea to a lesser charge or dismissal, the County Attorney’s Office decided not to pursue payment of the $324 by the owner of the animal. Asleson has attended meetings where discussion involved the County possibly being responsible for animal control in house. There have been problems with stray animals in the unincorporated areas of the County. Heeter commented that an estimated 1800 calls are received for dog issues. The dangerous dog issue is another piece. Something may come forward at budget time on this. Asleson said an ordinance dealing with dangerous dogs may be brought forth in 2007. Because of recent court decisions, the Court of Appeals has questioned or reversed decisions if a city did not have an ordinance in place relating to dangerous dogs. The presumption was that State Statutes were enough but the court system does not concur. Sawatzke moved to pay the bill to Crossroads Animal Shelter, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
Asleson requested that the Board authorize him to retain an expert witness for the Onyx Landfill Tax Litigation. The County Board authorized the hire of Paul Bakken, Real Estate Appraiser, in 2006 to assist with the case. The appraisal has been completed but must be redone due to changes in the appeal (some parcels dropped out). The trial is set for early next year. It was the consensus of Asleson, Bakken and the County Assessor that another expert be called for assistance. The questions relate not only to the value of the property but also on what is considered taxable. The County can only tax real property. The County’s position is that the liner, leachate collection system, and items in the ground are attached to the real property and should be taxed. Asleson requested the hire of Dr. George Karvel. He was a Professor at St. Cloud State University for many years. He is quoted in newspapers which address real estate trends, and is now serving as a part-time Professor at St. Thomas and also serves as an expert witness. The billing rate is $350/hour. It is the conclusion that Dr. Karvel’s testimony would be beneficial to the County’s side of the case. Asleson requested approval of up to $5000 in expenditures. If any further expenditures are required, Asleson would present a request to the Board. Asleson said landfill taxation cases are uncommon. Dr. Karvel did testify in one in Wisconsin. In that case, the Tax Court weighed its opinion fairly heavily on Karvel’s position. Mattson moved to engage the services of Dr. Karvel up to $5,000. If the expenditures are to exceed this amount, Asleson would present another request to the Board. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
A Budget Committee Meeting was held on 11-15-06. Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0:
Proposed Fee Changes. The meeting was reconvened from 11-08-06.
I. Human Services.
Mleziva outlined changes reflected on the attached policy.
A. Item III, B1, Child Care Licensing/Renewals; Background Checks, Licensing/Renewal Applications, last sentence will now read, “A $150 fee will be charged for a licensing inspection for a change of premises unless a $150 fee has been paid within the past twelve months.” State Statutes allow for the change and Wright County is charging the maximum allowed. Revenues are placed in the Collections Line Item. Recommendation: A public hearing is not required on this change as the fee is allowed by State Statute under the Social Services Chapter. The proposed change should be referred to the Human Services Board for approval.
B. Item III, M, Public Health Services. The following fees are proposed:
Item; Previous Fee; Proposed Fee; Effective Date
Pneumonia Shot; $25; $35; 10-23-06
Flu Shot ;$18; $25; 10-23-06
Cholesterol Screen; $20; $30; 10-12-06
Lead Blood Testing; ; $20 (if uninsured); 01-01-07
Dental Flouride Varnishing; ; $20; 02-01-07 (children)
The increase in Pneumonia and Flu Shots is to cover increased vaccine costs. The Cholesterol Screen increase is covering administrative costs through the WOW Van (last increase 2003). New services of Lead Blood Testing and Dental Flouride Varnishing include a $10 lab cost and $10 administrative cost. Asleson indicated that Public Health Statutes allow fees to be set for items such as vaccines. The fees would not require a public hearing but would require action by the Human Services Board. Recommendation: A public hearing is not required per Public Health Statutes. The proposed fees should be referred to the Human Services Board for approval.
C. Item III, R, Adoption. The 10th Judicial District has ordered the Human Services Agency to perform home studies for step parent adoptions. A $300 fee is charged unless the petitioner meets Federal Poverty Guidelines. Asleson said there is a Statute in the Social Services Chapter allowing agencies to charge fees to those not on public assistance. Recommendation: A public hearing is not required as the fee is allowed by State Statute under the Social Services Chapter. The proposed change should be referred to the Human Services Board for approval.
Jobe and Pooler outlined changes on the attached proposal.
A. Plat Checking. The proposed fee simplifies the process and increases the base plat checking fee. The proposed $300 fee is in the medium/high range of counties surveyed. There has been an increased number of errors found on plats submitted, resulting in a lot of time spent rechecking plats. Recommendation: Hold public hearing on the fees as proposed.
B. Custom Jobs. This is being taken over from the IT Department. The proposal is to charge staff time at $50/hour plus print charges and digital data fees. Custom jobs would be performed as time permits (i.e. at the discretion of the Department). The per hour charge varies by County Department. Norman said this may relate to what the staff salaries are of those who complete the work. The proposed $50 fee is consistent with what Planning & Zoning charges. Swing said the $50 fee in the IT Department is based on market value after surveying other counties. Comparing Custom Jobs to Data Sets, Pooler said Data Sets are already created where staff time is involved in creating Custom Jobs. Asleson said the skill set involved with GIS work is different than that of requests which require clerical skills. Added to employee cost is the ability to recoup development costs of the system. Recommendation: Hold public hearing on the fees as proposed.
C. Print Charges.
-Color is being added to products. Cost increases cover the cost of ink and equipment.
-Custom Maps will include additional sizes. Cost will now be provided up front. The previous cost method included toner and cost per square inch.
-5’ Contour lines to any standard or custom map is proposed. Cost is based upon the average cost of printing.
-All prints will be offered in copy or pdf format at the same cost.
Recommendation: Hold public hearing on the fees as proposed.
D. Digital Data. This section is proposed to be moved from the Information Technology Department fee schedule to the Surveyor Department fee schedule. These items have been taken over by the Surveyor with GIS.
-2005 Digital Aerial Photos. New products offered allow smaller sections of aerial photos to be purchased. This provides value to a person who may not want to purchase the aerial photo of the entire County.
-5 ft. Contours will now be available and can be broken down by section and provided digitally.
-PDF copies of Standard or Custom Map products will be offered. Although in digital format, the information cannot be manipulated.
-GIS Data. The current schedule has a sliding scale based on the number of parcels. The proposal is to consolidate and make the costs consistent. A $50 minimum order is proposed because setup time is involved whether by mail or by cd. A survey of collar counties reflects $.10 per parcel is the minimum charged. Some counties are considerably more than that. All GIS data requires a signed license agreement by the purchaser indicating it cannot be resold. The Road Centerline Data is proposed to decrease in cost to be more in line with the value of the product and market value. The proposal is to add Other County-wide Datasets providing the option to purchase additional layers to the GIS data with the fees based on time and effort. Recommendation: Hold public hearing on the fees as proposed.
Digital Data “Data is available to government entities at half price.” Jobe explained that digital data is provided at no cost under both the IT and Planning & Zoning fee schedules. GIS is now located under the Surveyor Department and a product value has been identified (cost of software, staff time). Jobe proposed that a fee be charged to cities for the data. What cities will do with the information is unknown. Companies may purchase the information, add something to it, and sell it. An ongoing fee or subscription would be an option. There is a cost associated with putting information on the website but it is more convenient. Swing stated that at previous meetings (Technology and City/County), a draft intergovernmental agreement was discussed. The agreement would be a partnership of working together on technology and utilizing portals. The draft agreement was tabled and never endorsed or signed. It could be rewritten as desired and have specific language for different cities. Swing has been involved with collaboration on technology projects, both regionally and Statewide, and felt charging would result in a barrier to collaboration. Norman offered the suggestion that if a municipality signs an agreement reflecting they would not charge others for the information, the County would not charge them. Those cities that did not sign would be charged. Norman felt the public may have a problem with having to pay more than a municipality for the same product. Jobe said the proposal to charge cities half price was a compromise. He felt the product is worth a certain value and that is what should be charged. Recommendation: This issue merits further discussion. Swing will rework the draft agreement and bring it forth at a future Technology Committee Meeting for discussion. On the proposed changes by the Surveyor, the following will be removed “Data is available to government entities at half price.” The current fee schedule will apply until it is changed in the future.
III. Information Technology.
Swing outlined changes on the attached proposal. The “Subscription To Enhanced Parcel Viewer” is not anticipated until the first quarter in 2007 as the product is still being developed. Swing said other enhancements may require fee changes in the future and he would like those presented to the Technology Committee for recommendation. Asleson said these services involve accessing information from a remote location. A public hearing is not required but the fees should be approved by the County Board. The fees would be justified by recouping development costs of the product. Swing said Information Technology does not own data but sells it on behalf of the land records departments. He supported data fees in the Information Technology schedule (current location) and GIS in the Surveyor Department. Revenue from data fees collected is placed in the General Revenue budget. His goal is to encourage the public and business to obtain data via the internet versus in person. Recommendation: A public hearing is not required on the changes as proposed but they should be presented for Board approval. The “Subscription To Enhanced Parcel Viewer” will not be included in the proposed changes but will instead be presented at a future date to the Technology Committee for recommendation and approval by the County Board.
IV. Recorder. Unger said that the Landshark Project was discussed during Budget Sessions. The product is installed and they are working to establish a fee. A total of 22 counties in Minnesota are looking to install or have installed the product. Fees are not consistent and work is being completed to make them more uniform. Unger would like to see fees established by January 1, 2007. He envisions the following: $50 setup fee for each account (one time) and a $50 monthly subscription fee (ongoing). An in-house per image fee would be established for recorded images. These fees would not require a public hearing but should be presented for County Board approval. Recommendation: A public hearing is not required. Any fees proposed in the future should be presented to the Technology Committee for recommendation and approval by the County Board.
V. Planning & Zoning. A proposed fee schedule for the Compost & Recycling Facility was presented. These fees are not part of the County’s fee schedule. Recommendation: Hold a public hearing on the proposed fee increases.
Mattice presented a fee increase for Camping Sites. The fee would increase by $2 for Electric and Non-Electric sites. This is based upon a notice of assessment from the CRWD for the Cedar, Albion, Swartout, Henshaw Project #06-1. The estimated cost of that project is $355,000 and Wright County’s assessment is $13,955.60. The assessment is due 11-25-06 or the cost will be assessed over a five-year period with interest. The Parks Commission recently met and supports the increase. The two dollar surcharge portion of the campground fees is placed in the Campground Improvement Fund (currently has a balance of over $40,000). The increase of $2/site would be placed into the Fund and would not impact the Levy. The purpose of the project is to improve water quality and it was felt that users of the Park should fund the assessment. Mattice was instructed to present the assessment to the County Board for approval at their next meeting. Mattice said custom programming is completed for groups at Ney Park. He inquired whether these fees should be presented for approval at the Public Hearing. Asleson said it would depend on whether there is authority in the County Parks Statutes to do so. He will research statutes and provide an opinion to Norman and Mattice. Recommendation: Hold a public hearing on the proposed fee increases to the Campground Fees. (End of Budget Minutes)
On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to schedule a Public Hearing to address Fees for Service Charges on 12-19-06 at 9:30 A.M. The fees would be effective 1-01-07. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Norman said the Agricultural Inspector Contract will expire at the end of 2006. The Ag Inspector is willing to serve another year at the same amount. Eichelberg moved to approve the contract, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Russek requested that the dais chairs in the Board Room be replaced. Due to the age of the chairs, the cylinders cannot be replaced or repaired. Norman will have the Purchasing Agent provide samples of chairs available.
ACCU Steel Inc.. $78,748.00
Allina Health Systems 500.00
Ameripride Linen/Apparel 457.43
AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. 1,975.00
Ancom Comm. Inc. 5,155.22
Annandale Rock Products 270.48
B & D Plumbing & Heating 153.00
Blaine Lock & Safe Inc. 137.50
Bristows Kawasaki & Polaris 566.51
Buffalo Hospital 9,227.00
Burdas Towing 164.01
Bureau of Crim. Apprehension 150.00
Center Point Energy 495.60
Centra Sota Lake Region 18,348.92
Central MN Concrete Cutting 375.00
CNA Surety 340.00
CUB Pharmacy 3,233.65
Decorative Designs Inc. 184.31
Design Electrical Cont. 35,924.58
Edens Group 295.00
Emergency Physicians PA 124.50
Ernst Gen. Construction Inc. 363.00
Eye Care Center of Buffalo 153.00
Fairview Northland 104.00
Greg Findley 114.70
Gateway Companies Inc. 4,265.34
GCS Service Inc. 227.17
Greenview Inc. 8,084.08
Hay Group 439.77
Karla Heeter 261.66
Hickmans Service Inc. 417.04
Integrated Fire & Safety 4,002.13
Int’l Code Council 724.50
Interstate Automotive 276.90
LaPlant Demo Inc. 538.11
Michael Laurent 256.15
M & M Express 234.25
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 350.00
Mille Lacs County Jail 1,550.00
MN Office of Enterprise Tech 370.00
Mobile Vision 203.15
Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 653.51
Mpls. Comm. Tech. College 275.00
Municipal Software 6,696.00
Office Depot 2,147.15
Penhall Company 31,780.00
Physicians Desk Reference 173.85
James Powers 174.00
Reds Auto Electric 115.16
Redwood Biotech Inc. 290.00
Restoration Tech. Inc. 7,370.00
Royal Tire Inc. 353.33
Ryan Motors Inc. 236.31
Scenic Signs 251.80
Setina Mfg. Co. Inc. 886.70
Sherburne Co. Sheriff 48,922.24
Mike Simmons 126.40
Software House Int’l 247.08
St. Cloud Times 221.00
Sun Newspapers 341.30
Trans Union Corporation 135.10
Transoft Solutions Inc. 1,695.00
University of Minnesota 875.00
Voss Lighting 322.70
Westside Wholesale Tire 1,874.25
Wright Co. Sheriff 353.91
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec 449.18
Wright Hennepin Electric 2,146.65
28 Pymts. less than $100 1,166.92
Final total $298,194.19
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Jan. 8, 2007.