JANUARY 16, 2007
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 1-09-07 County Board Minutes, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Atty. Item #3, “Authorize Signatures On Durst Closing Documents, Land For Stanley Eddy Park” (Asleson). Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Heeter, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: L. Martie, Atty.; D. Anderson, K. Mortenson, Hwy.; C. Elness, K. Hoyne,
D. Lange, Sheriff.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 12-29-06.
3. Schedule Employee Recognition Ceremony For 2-20-07.
4. Refer Deputy Sheriff Step Increases To Negotiation Committee.
1. Approve Abatement, PID #103-051-004030, Scott & Laureen Fenske (City of Buffalo).
C. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer To Technology Committee Regional Radio Board Joint Powers Agreement.
1. January Parks Commission Minutes.
E. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Approve 2007 Increase In Per Diems To $60 For Planning Commission & Board Of Adjustment Members.
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 12-12-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter moved to approve the Minutes as presented, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0:
Comprehensive Plan. A handout was provided on the draft Comprehensive Plan covering the NE Quadrant of the County (attached). The NE Quadrant Task Force has met monthly on the Plan which is near completion. The next meeting is scheduled for 1-22-07. SEH will provide a draft of the Plan to Task Force members prior to that date. Public Hearings will likely occur in February or March. Salkowski explained that the process is behind due to staffing issues with SEH. A few outstanding items remain including a proposed “2 per 40” classification and the Rockford Township issue. Late in the process, a draft was also received of the Buffalo City Plan which is not consistent with the County Plan. Salkowski has contacted the Buffalo City Planning Commission and Buffalo Township Board. The Buffalo City Plan will not be accepted for incorporation into the County’s Plan at this time. More discussion will be required on the implications which propose a ring road out into the Township (Buffalo and Rockford). Salkowski felt this could be resolved in the next month. The Cities of Albertville and Otsego did not participate in the County’s NE Quadrant Plan process; otherwise, all cities and townships made the Task Force Meetings regularly. The handout includes a draft map for the future land use in the NE Quadrant. This map is similar in classification to the current County Plan with the exception of three new classifications and one change. The map includes an aggregate resource classification located primarily in Monticello Township but partly in Buffalo Township. Law requires that gravel areas be designated. At the most recent Task Force Meeting, a fair amount of time was spent working on policies which apply in the Aggregate Resources Area. Another new designation is Resource Land which identifies 3-4 areas worthy of special protection (YMCA property near Monticello, Pelican Lake area, Schmidt Woods in Buffalo Township, and the flood plain area in the southern part of Rockford Township). The Task Force has worked on policies relating to these areas. What used to be designated as Major Growth is now Transition Area. Monticello and Monticello Township have an annexation agreement so mapping that area was relatively simple. With Buffalo, Hanover, and Rockford cities, there was a fair amount of discussion between the cities and townships on designation of areas which may become orderly annexation areas. Buffalo Township, in particular, is strongly promoting a new district between the Agricultural (“1 per 40”) and Rural Residential (10 acre lots, “6 per 40” with a PUD) districts. The County’s Comprehensive Plan will rename the “AG/Residential” district, “Rural Residential” to better reflect the nature of the district. With the “2 per 40”, it would double residential density. There is some concern on how this will impact the AG area not only in the NE Quadrant but in the remainder of the County as well. There is debate on whether agriculture exists in the NE Quadrant, but there are certainly parts of the County where farming is the primary use. If the County elects to proceed with “2 per 40,” Salkowski said there will exist a “1 per 40” Ag District and a “2 per 40” Rural District. The Rural District may be more applicable in the NE Quadrant and may not apply in other townships where animals and agriculture is still thriving. The City of St. Michael voiced concern on maintaining a “1 per 40” agricultural area in order to make better use of sewer and water services. Most other cities did not voice concern provided the County maintains something on large lots. The advantages of a “2 per 40” Rural District is that it would provide slightly higher density than “1 per 40” and is between that and Rural Residential at “6 per 40.” In those areas where traditional farming is not holding on, a lot of demand is seen for horse facilities. The Wright County Feedlot Officer has been working with these requests and others, including specialty farms. Corinna’s Plan will be designed with most of the Township as Rural Residential. If that means “2 per 40” and the County adopts that designation, Salkowski did not feel it would be difficult to blend Corinna’s Plan into the next phase of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. It was the consensus of the Task Force that if the “2 per 40” designation is agreed upon, the study of the NE Quadrant was near completion with the exception of Rockford Township. Monticello Township had some issues with going to a higher density in the AG District but did not strenuously object to “2 per 40.” Buffalo Township appears as though they are willing to support the “2 per 40.” The Plan is headed in the direction that Aggregate and Resource Areas will remain “1 per 40.” Everything else in the NE Quadrant would be “2 per 40.” This designation would not necessarily apply to other areas of the County where ag land will be preserved. Mattson was concerned with putting pressures on other township boards if this is approved. The response was that this was discussed with the Buffalo Township Board. Pressure moves with the economy. What happens in one place influences another. The County’s position is to preserve rural areas and for most development to occur in cities where services are available. Salkowski has been in contact with representatives from Rockford Township over the past few months. He said their position is that the Township is no longer interested in the type of planning that Wright County performs. The County was presented with a map in October that reflects the Township’s recommended plan for the entire Township to be available in 5-acre lots except for the Commercial/Industrial strip on TH 55 from Buffalo to Rockford (2700 acres). In October, Salkowski, Russek, and Dan Jochim from SEH met with the Township to explain how this request would not fit into the manner in which counties perform planning & zoning. Resolution was not reached. The Township Board feels strongly that the entire Township should be treated in one way. After the November Task Force Meeting, a meeting was held in the Rockford Township Hall. After that, Township representatives made a presentation at the December Task Force Meeting. Based on that presentation, the conclusion was drawn that the County’s method of planning & zoning was rejected. Salkowski then recommended that the most appropriate action for the Township would be to incorporate. Salkowski explained that all of western Hennepin County has incorporated, as has Franklin Township/Otsego. The decision to incorporate is made when the primary goal is to generate tax base. Once incorporated, the planning program that best fits the Township can be pursued. The perspective between the County and Rockford Township at this point is so far apart that Salkowski described it as “opposite extremes.” Salkowski said that Ken Felger, who was one of the Township’s appointees to the Task Force, has resigned. He suggested a new appointment be made to the Task Force. A meeting could be held to discuss the situation. However, if the Township’s position remained that there should be a commercial strip between Buffalo and Rockford, and the remainder of the Township be made into 5-acre lots, it would not fit into the County’s planning program. He thought the Township may want to pose this question at their annual meeting. Mattson asked whether feedlots are allowed to expand once incorporation occurs. The response was that the presentation made at the December Task Force Meeting reflected there was no farm land worth saving in Rockford Township. Russek added that it would then be up to the City to establish an ordinance. Salkowski suggested studying the areas of the Northwest Quadrant (Townships of Chatham, Maple Lake, Silver Creek, Clearwater, Corinna, Albion, French Lake and Southside and the Cities of Maple Lake, Clearwater, Annandale and South Haven) and the Highway 12 Corridor (Townships of Franklin, Woodland, Victor, Stockholm, Cokato, Middleville and Marysville and the Cities of Delano, Montrose, Waverly, Howard Lake and Cokato). They tried to group townships with similar interests and locations together. Salkowski suggested obtaining the completed NE Quadrant Study from SEH prior to making any decisions on whether to retain SEH for future studies or whether to proceed with an RFP. SEH is now familiar with the County’s systems, ordinances and plans. The primary decision by the Board would be to decide how to proceed. Salkowski suggested moving to the NW Quadrant followed by the Highway 12 Corridor. Heeter said Corinna Township served notice that they will be doing their own planning. She asked whether Corinna Township would be included in the Study. Salkowski said there was no reason why the Corinna Plan couldn’t be blended into the County Plan dependent upon clarification of a few items. In general, there is little difference between the Corinna and County Plans. After attending the Public Hearing at Corinna Township, Salkowski felt it would be about six months before full implementation. He suggested a meeting to see if the Township Plan will fold into the County’s Plan or what will occur to make sure the two entities are working together. It appeared that Corinna Township has the same goals and policies of the County. The Township’s Plan can be as strict or stricter than the County’s. The philosophy was similar and that the differences in details could be worked out. Mattson said outside of the gravel areas and lakes in the NW Quadrant, there would not be much difference in the western portion of the County. Heeter agreed, stating there is a little more growth and more urgent issues in the NW Quadrant. Salkowski said a line could almost be drawn at the Crow River. The landscape is different to the North of the Crow River compared to the South. With regard to the direction the County is heading, Salkowski said the goal is to make the design and policies transferable to other portions of the County. They will accommodate differences in different areas. It is important for the County to decide which direction they are heading with regard to the Study. A decision would be sought relatively soon with regard to the consultant. Recommendation: It was the consensus of the Committee that the next area to be studied would be the NW Quadrant.
Township Zoning Issues. Salkowski said there is a difference with the townships in policy direction and administration. The nature of the issues in Stockholm and Middleville Townships is different than that of Rockford Township. Stockholm and Middleville accept the County’s general principles on agricultural and rural preservation. A partnership will be formed to promote these principles. Details will be worked out through negotiations between the parties. A draft agreement is anticipated in early 2007. He said this was different than Rockford Township or other townships that do not support the County’s principles.
Salkowski attended a Public Hearing held on the draft Corinna Township Plan on 11-28-06. His purpose was to obtain clarification on the Plan. A written critique of the Plan was provided at the Hearing by Clarence Shallbetter. Although Planning & Zoning staff does not agree with all of the points in the Shallbetter report, they do agree that the Corinna Plan is lacking in data to support a Comprehensive Plan. The impression he received at the Hearing was that many decisions were still to be made. The goals and strategies are comparable to the County’s planning principles, but the Land Use Plan map cannot be compared to the County’s Plan as it places most of the Township into a Rural Preservation District. It does not adequately define what that means in terms of future development. Other differences include some expansion of the Commercial/Industrial District. If the Rural Preservation District means “2 per 40” and the County adopts a “2 per 40” District, things will blend fairly well. The goal is to define what Rural Preservation means. There are a few policy statements or strategies which conflict with the County’s Plan. Staff would like to review a few important highlights with the Board before preparing a final response. Sawatzke referenced the Corinna Township Land Use Plan map and questioned whether the area defined as Ag/Residential was designated as “1 per 40” and noted that some areas were not defined. Salkowski responded that some maps are laid out to provide a general idea of the direction headed. He supported defined areas to avoid any confusion or the assertion of favoritism during zoning decisions. Sawatzke did not want to see the “2 per 40” designation through the entire County. Salkowski said with regard to the Corinna Township Plan, it appears that developments will need to meet detailed requirements. There is a lot of emphasis on PUD’s and saving farm land in the Plan. The County will be involved in the review process to make sure the process for development complies with the stated policy in the Plan. Russek said that about three years prior, Franklin Township felt they needed more tax base and went to a “1 per 10” designation. Over half of the land has since been annexed into the City of Delano. He did not feel growth of cities is stopped by increasing density. Salkowski said the definition of planning is the attempt to be prepared. Although there has been a recent break in the housing market, another cycle will follow. It is important to be prepared for the next cycle. Recommendation: Salkowski was directed to draft a letter to Corinna Township on their draft Comprehensive Plan reflecting any inconsistencies with the County’s Plan. The draft should be prepared and presented for Board review before it is sent to the Township.
Public Comment. Bob Esse, Silver Creek Township, referenced the draft presented at the 12-04-06 meeting reflecting definitions of land use including Rural Residential. This would allow land to be zoned Ag, Ag/Residential, or in unique situations R2A. He suggested that with some revisions, these definitions would apply to both Corinna and Rockford Townships. Salkowski said land use definitions have always included a Rural Residential District (previously A/R). The problem lies in that an entire Township cannot have this definition. John Deitering, Rockford Township Supervisor, said the Township is concerned with replacing the tax base. If the City of Rockford annexes land, the Township may have problems with their overhead expenses (bonding, township hall, equipment). Deitering said no tools are offered to replace the tax base. The Township also has a disadvantage in staffing as most are volunteers and not experts in planning & zoning. They have been forced to hire professionals to assist in defending what they do have. Deitering preferred working with Planning & Zoning staff. He did not want the process to be held up but feels the right thing must be done for those in the Township. Larry Otto, Rockford Township Supervisor and resident, said he had taken offense to the report prepared by Planning & Zoning staff for the County Board. With regard to accusations on the meeting the Township Board held, the purpose was to notify residents and obtain their consensus on what they wanted to see. A fair amount of residents attended the meeting and expressed their opinions on the option of higher density, industrial and commercial land uses. The County’s land use map reflects no increase. He felt the Transition Area reflected helps the cities but not the townships. When the Township received the draft plans from the County, they responded. He said there has not been any negotiation since between the County and the Township. The draft map did not include any new commercial zoning for the Township. He felt the Township would look considerably different in 20 years. To be a viable Township, there needs to be a tax base. Otto said he lives in the far corner of the Township and would probably not be affected by anyone else. As a Township Representative, he must consider what the residents of the Township want. He said an explanation was never provided as to why the Township cannot be zoned in one designation. With a “1 per 5” designation, he did not feel land would sell and develop overnight. Hopefully the landowners would use the knowledge of the land and its intended use. Otto said Russek and Salkowski never met with the Township, they did not hear any options, and said the County Board would turn the request down. Otto said Rockford Township is under pressure. If the plans of Buffalo, Hanover and Rockford are reviewed, there will not be a Township much longer. Ken Felger represented the Township at the Task Force Meetings. He understood there was discussion at these meetings that Felger had a hidden agenda. Otto stated that Felger represented Rockford Township residents very well and felt it was unprofessional and uncalled for to make that assumption. The Township Board approached Felger and asked him to serve on the Task Force. He did this at no cost. Otto’s personal opinion was that Felger resigned from the Task Force because of the abuse. Otto described Felger as a dedicated Township representative who donated much time to the cause. Otto was upset with the staff notes made by Salkowski to the County Board. He said many things were incorrect and the Township was not contacted to negotiate. Russek said that the Board receives a copy of anything sent to the Township. If the Township wanted to change the land use to “1 per 5,” it would be better to incorporate to make better use of the land. Salkowski responded that Felger had been a friend for most of 20 years. He did not see Otto at the Task Force Meetings but he possibly had attended. He did not recall any negative discussion with regard to Felger at those meetings. He felt he was being falsely accused. As far as negotiations, Salkowski said he had taken the Township at their word that Felger represented them and the interests of their residents. Attached to the report was a copy of Felger’s statement. He said what the Township presented was a complete and utter rejection of what the County does. With regard to his statement on the Township becoming a City, Salkowski did not have any hard feelings if they believe this is what the citizens desire. If this is the case, the Township should then take the responsibility to hire people and become a city. Salkowski said the County can’t change their entire Plan based on one township’s request. It was made clear from the start how the County operated. Gordon Weber, Planning Commission, has been a member of the Task Force. Although it is a good process, there are some flaws involved. He said the County and the townships should desire the same thing. He was unsure how this would meld together as all townships are different. It would be hard to create a County-wide Plan. Weber felt that Salkowski had done a good job leading the Task Force. Salkowski has views and beliefs that come from years of planning. For those on the Task Force who do not have this experience, the topics come fast and furious and the process moves quickly due to the cost. When he attended the meeting on 12-04-06, there was written documentation from Rockford Township stating they wanted the “1 per 5” designation. They were looking for something different than what was available but Weber did not feel this had to be the “1 per 5” designation. He did not feel the Township was looking to incorporate but rather to discuss the issue further. Weber offered the following suggestions as a means to deal with the situation. The first was to slow the process down and obtain some consensus. The draft plan could be brought to the township level for discussion and a vote. Secondly, from that development a County plan could be prepared based upon what the townships want. Sawatzke noted that Weber is the Planning Commission representative on the Task Force (one appointment). Heeter said the process has been to obtain input from townships. For example, the Silver Creek Township Board formed a committee made up of nine citizens. A decision was made not to do anything for five years. The Township Board said that was something they did not want to hear. Heeter said this is an issue and that it is hard for people not to have a personal agenda. The issue pushes people apart who may even be neighbors. The County is working diligently to hear everyone and there may be those who are not happy with the process or outcome. Russek said a public hearing will be held on the Plan. However, the Plan is not to that stage yet. Weber said as a Task Force Member, he senses some dissatisfaction from the townships and feels this should be looked at. Heeter asked Weber for his opinion on how to proceed. Weber stated the Plan should be brought back to the townships. The Task Force members should vote on specific changes as sometimes they leave meetings and do not know the outcome. Sawatzke felt these were good points. He hoped that Rockford Township was not at the point of “1 per 5” designation or nothing else. He felt Salkowski was accurate is stating that the County Board would not approve a “1 per 5” designation and that not everyone in Rockford Township supported this designation. With all townships, there are different views on the preservation of open space and ag land. Sawatzke said if the suggestion is to work with Rockford Township on this, he would agree. If the Township wants 5 acre designations only, he did not feel this could be resolved. The meeting was recessed at 2:40 P.M. and reconvened at 2:50 P.M. Ken Felger, Rockford Township resident, said there is an upcoming monumental decision and all facts need to be brought forth. He referred to 1st page, 3rd paragraph of the information provided by Planning & Zoning on the Comprehensive Plan (dated 12-12-06) which reflects “The City of Rockford at one time advocated a minimum 20-acre lot size for areas within its future growth zone, but Rockford Township categorically rejected that idea.” He said the City of Rockford passed a resolution in August, 2004 indicating the City can exercise a subdivision rule over an area, unknown to the Rockford Township Board. At that time, they were in negotiations with the City to create an orderly annexation agreement. Due to strong objection, no action was taken. Felger referenced the second page of the document which reflects staff comments on a meeting held at the Township Hall on 10-24-06 with Russek, Salkowski, SEH, several landowners and the Township. Felger said the reason they met was to get equal time with County staff as the City of Rockford. The City drafted a letter to Salkowski indicating they wanted to exercise some control or manage some areas in the Township. Felger did not recall that at that meeting they informed County officials or SEH that they no longer accept the County planning program for the Township. At that meeting, Salkowski provided to the Township a copy of correspondence to the City of Hanover. Felger said a map was discussed at the 10-24-06 meeting. Salkowski responded to the group that he was not impressed with it. Felger thought that was the end of the map issue, but it continues to be brought up. It was brought up at the 12-04-06 NE Quadrant Meeting as if it were set, but Felger viewed the map as a starting point. It was not their intent to divorce the relationship with the County but rather to work with the County. The suggestion of the Township incorporating is not viewed as an option. Relative to the NE Quadrant Plan, the Township held a meeting last March to obtain input from the Township residents. The meeting of 11-27-06 was characterized as an orchestrated event, but Felger said that was far from the truth. It was held as an update only for residents. His concern was that the minutes did not accurately reflect what transpired. With regard to his resignation from the Task Force, Felger said it had been intimated that he had some personal interest. He did not serve on the NE Quadrant Task Force for the purpose of getting his land subdivided. He was there as a representative of Rockford Township. Felger made a presentation at the 12-04-06 NE Quadrant Task Force Meeting. The presentation included common concerns of residents, without bias. In emails with landowners in Rockford Township, he said Salkowski expressed an opinion that the information presented was the personal opinion of Felger. Felger was disappointed that his actions or presence minimized the concerns presented. The emails further indicate that the intent of Rockford Township in holding the meeting was to insult the work of County officials. Felger was offended that it was insinuated that the Township would mock the County on the process. He felt if anything, the NE Quadrant Plan mocked the Township and everyone who doesn’t go along with the program. The public meeting in the Township was held to update residents on the progress of the NE Quadrant Plan and the likely outcome. What was not indicated by Salkowski and stated several times at the Public Meeting was that the plan presented by the Township was a draft. Russek said as a County representative, he was offended that he was not invited to attend the Rockford Township public meeting. Felger responded that Russek could have attended. Russek does not receive a Township newsletter and said he was unaware of the meeting. The morning after the public meeting, Russek received a phone call from a person stating unfavorable comments were made about the County at that meeting. Russek did not feel the County should be blamed for not showing up. He suggested that County representatives be invited to such meetings. Felger said as the first part of their Agenda, they welcome any officials. Notice was sent to residents and landowners. Felger apologized for not providing notice to the County. Felger said he was excited from the beginning of the prospect of getting together and receiving input on concerns. His idea was that the Plan would be put together under the auspices of the County but with all concerns addressed. He felt that Deitering addressed a legitimate concern that the Township was not trying to increase the tax base but replace the tax base lost because of annexation. According to the State Demographer, the Township is at its peak population. There is an anticipated loss of population in the next 25-30 years and the Township cannot continue to bond for paving projects, equipment and salaries. He felt the County should allow some additional Commercial/Industrial zoning and increased residential density. During the Township public hearing, the concept of “1 per 10” was suggested with overwhelming response. Felger referenced Page 4 of the 12-12-06 Background/Support Information provided for today’s meeting. He requested clarification on the sentence, “Therefore, Salkowski has offered the County position that the Plan will make no changes for Rockford Township in order not to prejudice the incorporation process,…” Salkowski said the Rockford Plan is about 6-7 years old, and the Plan would be left as is during the incorporation process. Another option would be a new draft. The idea is to proceed with the incorporation to meet the Township’s needs. They would not do anything to prejudice anyone. Felger asked whether the current Plan in place today would be what they would have (they would not vary from this in the new draft). Salkowski said this was an option but obviously more discussion would be involved on either method if incorporation is pursued. Felger asked that Salkowski be a friend to the Township by listening to the concerns. At this time, he did not feel incorporation was an option. The information he presented at the NE Quadrant Meeting he felt was the truth. He has received emails since in support of the presentation. Salkowski said both he and Felger had varied opinions and outlooks on this issue and these differing opinions can lead to anger. However, the County must reach a decision. With any planning process, requests of a group may not be met. The County is offering the best option to the Township that is available. He referenced the recent incorporation completed by Scandia Township and felt this was an option. He did not feel it was a matter of sitting down and negotiating a little bit. He referenced the information presented at the 12-04-06 NE Quadrant Meeting by Felger. If this is what the Township wanted, he felt the Township Board owed it to the citizens to incorporate. Wright County is set up to service rural townships with a few building permits and a little commercial/industrial. Rose Thielen, Clearwater Township Board, said she was speaking on her own behalf. She supported the position of the Wright County Board and the Planning & Zoning Office relative to preserving rural landscape. Land use planning is a difficult process and she was not looking forward to this process next Spring. Although she understood the process is more difficult the nearer to a City, she worried about a precedent setting action. She felt a balance was needed between what is required now versus future generations. She referenced Hassan Township who is now buying back property as green and open space was lost. With pressure of annexation, she felt townships should work together rather than severing land to the highest bidder. Working on the Township Board, Thielen said she appreciates being able to operate under the Land Use Plan that they developed with the County less than ten years ago. The Plan provides a template about the broader vision of all townships in the County. She did not feel Wright County wanted to become similar to a Chicago area in the future. Many people do support land preservation and citizens needed to be well informed. Thielen was supportive of creating ways to solve problems of townships closer to the metro without selling off the farm. Salkowski was not looking for Board action at this time. Contrary to what has been stated, he felt the County does listen and that there have been avenues for input. The Task Force did decide to close off the meetings for public input as they were not getting the work done. There has been concern that people have not been allowed to speak at these meetings. He explained that in several instances, 1-2 people almost took over the meetings. They needed to complete work so they eliminated that. There will be another public hearing. Salkowski said he never felt empowered to sell out the County Board’s position which has been clear from the beginning of the process. Unless he is directed otherwise, he will continue in this fashion. He hoped Rockford Township could find another solution other than incorporation but there is no way to make the entire Township 5 acre lots. Sawatzke referenced the map and the area shaded green near Pelican Lake. Salkowski explained that what is shaded green has already been purchased by a public agency. The remainder of the area is in St. Michael City (identified as Ag in their Plan). The Plan recommends that the City adopt a program similar to the County to protect Pelican Lake. Salkowski suggested a cooperative agreement with cities and townships for areas such as this to preserve the property or densities. He is currently working through the DNR to see if a precedent has been set elsewhere which would require the cities and townships to enter into an agreement which would protect an area forever, such as in the case of Pelican Lake. Salkowski has met with representatives of each city and township that would be involved in preserving Pelican Lake and those entities agree that the Lake needs to be protected. The County Attorney’s Office has prepared a draft document in this regard for signature by the County and the cities and townships involved. The document indicates that all parties have now or will have zoning authority for this area and agree upon maximum densities, setbacks, etc. The County’s Plan will identify this document. Recommendation: It was the consensus that staff should continue to work on the draft agreement relating to the Pelican Lake area and with the cities and townships involved. The agreement should then be presented for review by the County Board. (End of Committee Of The Whole Minutes).
Richard Norman, County Coordinator, noted that the 9:05 A.M. Agenda Item, “Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Sgt. Keith Heaton” should have been placed on the 1-23-07 County Board Agenda. It was placed on this week’s Agenda in error.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, requested payment of a claim to Dr. George Karvel in the amount of $5,687.50. Dr. Karvel has been retained as an expert in connection with the Onyx Landfill tax appeal. The claim relates to service from November/December, 2006. Two previous years of the case have settled. What remains as unsettled is payable 2007 taxes. The trial is scheduled for June 2007. In addition to approval of the claim, Asleson requested authorization to retain Karvel for additional services. Previous Board action set the expenditure limit for Karvel at $5,000. Asleson envisioned an additional $20,000 may be expended to Karvel on this case. He consulted with Greg Kramber, Assessor, who was unable to attend today’s meeting. Kramber’s opinion is that Karvel has added to the County’s case. The County has also retained the services of Paul Bakken, Appraiser, with a contract for $8,000 for the written appraisal and pre-trial work. Any expenditure beyond that will be billed on an hourly basis. Asleson estimated the cost will be $15,000-$20,000 easily just for the services of the Appraiser. Sawatzke questioned whether anyone has compared the cost of litigation to what will be gained. Asleson said this is dependent upon how far apart the two parties are on value, which he estimated at $40,000/year in taxes. The taxes received will be shared between the State, County, Township and School District. Asleson said they felt it was worth litigation. Sawatzke said the County must also defend the integrity of the system. Heeter moved to approve the claim to Dr. George Karvel, $5,687.50, seconded by Mattson. Heeter questioned whether Asleson was seeking authorization to further retain Karvel, which Asleson affirmed he was. In response to Mattson, Asleson said they have been satisfied with the quality of work. The motion to approve the claim carried 5-0. Heeter made a motion to authorize retaining Karvel for additional work up to $20,000, seconded by Sawatzke. This will be funded from Budget 100, Professional Services. The motion carried 5-0.
Asleson requested the Board authorize signatures on closing documents with Gerald & Arlene Durst. This is for the purchase of 181 acres to the east of Stanley Eddy Park. The Parks Administrator has negotiated easements with property owners to connect the Park with the
Durst land via a trail system. The County will purchase this land on contract for deed with the following payment schedule: $700,000 due at closing ($600,000 available through a grant); $150,000 due 12-01-07; and $150,000 due 12-01-08. The total purchase price is $1 million. Heeter moved to authorize signatures, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
At their last meeting, the County Board discussed a request by Buffalo Township for the County to take over a portion of Braddock Avenue NE. This road will service the new Jail/LEC site. At today’s meeting, Asleson distributed a draft resolution relating to this action, as well as a copy of a memorandum from the Highway Engineer on possible improvements needed for Braddock Avenue. After discussion, the draft resolution was revised as follows: Item 3 should read, “The County’s acceptance of a portion of Braddock Avenue NE shall be effective when the County receives a Certificate of Occupancy for its Jail - LEC from the City of Buffalo”; Item 5 was deleted which related to maintenance and snow plowing. The Board felt the Township would perform snow plowing until annexation is complete. Asleson will revise the draft resolution and forward it to both the Highway Engineer and the Township for comment. On a motion by Heeter, second by Sawatzke, all voted to lay this item over for one week.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented for review two proposals from Larson Allen, CPA, consultants & advisors for audit services. The first would be for a one-year contract for the period ending 12-31-06 at a cost of $53,250. The second would be for a three-year contract for the periods ending 12-31-06 ($53,250), 12-31-07 ($55,225), and 12-31-08 ($57,275). Hiivala received favorable comments on Larson Allen’s services from Rock County (3 years’ experience) and Swift County (1 years’ experience). In response to Sawatzke, Hiivala said the County paid the State around $57,000 for the last audit. He said the contracts allow for cancellation at any time if the County is dissatisfied with the service and recommended approval of the three-year contract. Sawatzke noted that the contract did not include language for the County to discontinue service if dissatisfied. However, Hiivala said the Audit Manager from Larson Allen conveyed to him that the County would have this option. Asleson has reviewed the contract. The County may desire to add language on their ability to terminate services. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said the contract also does not reflect when the audit will be completed. Hiivala said the single audit requirement is that it must be completed by September. The contract reflects a July completion date. If the audit is not completed by September, the County would have to sign a letter for an extension. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the one-year contract with Larson Allen for audit services.
The November Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines were presented for approval. Mattson referenced the temporary help line item for the Sheriff Department. He has contacted the Sheriff for a response. He was also concerned with the temporary line item balances in other departments as well. Sawatzke thought that in the past, departments sought Board approval for overages in this line item. Hiivala will provide a report to the Board on both temporary and overtime line items. Eichelberg moved to approve the November Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Referred from the last County Board Meeting, discussion resumed on the Clearwater River Watershed District’s (CRWD) request for $180,000 in funding for their water quality improvement project. Marvin Brunsell, CRWD Chair, was present for discussion at today’s meeting. Hiivala said the unanswered question from the last meeting was the interest rate that would be assessed to the CRWD for monies borrowed for their project. The County is currently averaging 5.5% on short term investments. Considerable discussion occurred on the process of how the funds will be borrowed and how payback will occur. Hiivala said the CRWD will borrow a lump sum from the County and assessments will be spread over a five-year period (due May and October). Tax payments will be made directly to the County. Brunsell said that cities normally assess an additional .5% over the interest rate to cover delayed payments or properties which are deleted from the assessment roll. The CRWD has made up the assessment roll and it has been delivered to the Auditor’s Office. The County is the financing agent. Under Watershed law, the County is obligated to advance funding for watershed projects. The CRWD has already expended dollars toward engineering and expects to spend more this winter and spring. Asleson said Statutes indicate that the County is supposed to finance projects but payments are to be collected as if this were a County ditch (Section 103E). Payment will be made to and held by the County. After further discussion, Heeter moved to borrow $180,000 to the CRWD at a 6% interest rate on the assessment roll. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. The motion was amended to include a five-year term. Sawatzke said if an assessed person does not make payment, the assessment will be regained at some point through tax forfeiture. He inquired whether the CRWD had allowed residents to challenge their assessment. Brunsell responded that would be one of the reasons for the spread in interest rate. Sawatzke said the CRWD may need to have an ad valorem tax next year in the event that someone challenges their assessment and it is determined that it must be reduced. The motion carried 5-0.
Hiivala referenced an agreement the County entered into with the City of Monticello relating to a $2 million interchange project. The County is obligated for $200,000/year for ten years at the interest rate of 3.95%. Hiivala said the claim was paid last week for $200,000 plus interest and funded from the Road & Bridge budget. This was provided as an informational item.
On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Mattson, all voted to approve a plat, “DEER VALLEY ESTATES,” as submitted by Ralph J. & Jane Goelz, husband and wife, fee owners, and Security State Bank of Maple Lake, mortgagee of property described in part as: That part of N1/2 of the NW1/4 of Sec. 31, Twp. 121, Rge. 26, commencing at the NW corner, together with part of the SE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Sec. 30, Twp. 121, Rge. 26 lying Sly of a line commencing at the SW corner; with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any, having been paid; the park dedication fee has been paid (#117713); there is a written agreement on file from the Township to accept any new roads; and the mylars, title opinion and declaration of protective covenants prepared by D. A. Schroeppel, Esq., have been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be in order and ready for recording.
At the last County Board Meeting, a claim was pulled to the National Association of Counties ($1,676.00) for dues. Norman was to research whether this was a duplicate payment. At today’s Meeting, Norman indicated that it was a duplicate payment and that the claim would not be paid.
On a motion by Mattson, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
The meeting recessed at 10:08 A.M. and reconvened at 10:19 A.M.
Randy Lindemann, KKE Architects brought forth discussion on review and approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Submittal Drawings for the Jail/LEC Project. Present for discussion were Damon Farber, Landscape Architect, and David Rey, Civil Engineer. They are about 75-80% complete with the Design Development (DD) process which commenced on 10-10-06. An interim report was provided on 11-14-06 where KKE received official approval to proceed with the DD process. The DD process is scheduled to be completed on 2-01-07. At that time, KKE will submit DD documents to A&P for pricing. The material will then presented at the County Board Meeting of 2-20-07 with approval being sought at the 2-27-07 Meeting. At that meeting, KKE will also request authorization to advertise for early bid packages and the County will need to make a funding commitment. The early bid packages will include site development, site utilities, footings, foundations, and pre-cast cells. Early bid packages will be submitted to A&P on 3-08-07 with bid opening on 3-29-07.
The City of Buffalo requires the CUP submittal by 1-19-07. A public hearing will be held on 2-12-07 by the City’s Planning Commission. The City will address approval of the CUP on 2-20-07, which is the same day that KKE will present the DD package to the County for approval. The CUP has some very deliberate requirements. Lindemann said that with the DD package, there were things which they were not prepared to discuss including pricing. The conceptual design was converted to the City requirements and submitted for their review. Pricing will be provided to A&P on 2-01-07.
The City’s architectural site plan requires more detail on engineer drawings. KKE highlighted the location of ponds, roads, sidewalks, parking and building elevation. In December, KKE learned that the City will require curb and gutter on all paving, as well as screening of rooftop and mechanical equipment. The site plan includes some incidental mechanical and roof vents. One piece of equipment is scheduled to be on the ground for easier maintenance. Three types of screening are planned including a 2’ high screen to cover vents and plumbing out of the roof. Another is a physical screen wall enclosure (20’ wide x 20’ deep x 8’ high) around the loading area, trash compactor, and kitchen mechanical. The panels will match the building. Mattson inquired whether the SWCD has been involved. Lindemann responded that they have been contacted by the SWCD. They are waiting for KKE to establish hard and grading surface plans. Consideration is being given to security and use of motion sensing or electronic controls that may be required. The third type of screening being used is landscape screening.
David Rey, Civil Engineer, presented the grading plan which remains the same as presented in early November. The plan is driven by two things including making sure the site drains properly and lowering the elevation as much as possible to recapture soil. Drainage is from the northwest corner of the site to the east toward TH 25. The infiltration basin is located at an elevation of 1018’ which is about 8-11 feet higher than TH 25. Rey did not know the exact elevation of Lake Pulaski but assumed TH 25 was above the Lake level. Russek questioned whether consideration had been given to using pervious blacktop for parking lots to reduce the capacity of holding ponds. Rey responded that they haven’t used this material and there is not much history of use in Minnesota. This product has a great history where there is no salt or sand use. The lots must be swept in the Spring or material goes into the pores. There is also a maintenance question to consider. Seal coats are typically applied in 5-6 years. When this is done, the permeability is removed from the pavement and it no longer functions as designed. Other materials could be used but would be at a significantly increased cost. The SWCD has asked that they look into use of bio-filtration swales. Using this type of system is more cost effective from a storm sewer standpoint. Rey highlighted the location of the water and sanitary sewer services. There will be a water main loop around the building to provide the required number of hydrants. Sawatzke said that Leander Wetter from the Historical Society was present regarding grading on the back edge of the Historical Society property. Lindemann had discussed this with Wetter and Rey. Although the request for fill in that area is not reflected in the CUP, it will be part of the project. Lindemann has been working with the City’s engineers on development of a public utilities agreement.
Damon Farber, Landscape Architect, said the goal is to create a landscape that is sustainable, has reduced maintenance, and uses native materials where possible. He outlined the location and types of trees/groundcover which would be used. Screening was designed to address crime prevention. Mattson questioned the use of trees and wondered if the design would result in more snow on the road. Farber said they have reviewed the way the snow would be deposited and felt the trees would also provide a wind break. An attempt is being made to save as many trees as possible along the southern and eastern portions of the site. Richard Marquette, Engineering Assistant, said the trees in that location are being used to replace trees on road projects. He estimated around 10-20 evergreens that would be eligible to be moved. Anything over 8-9 inches in diameter is hard to move. Sawatzke felt the trees could be used on that property, another property owned by the County or City, or moved to the Stemper property temporarily. This should be addressed soon so the trees can be moved as soon as the frost is out of the ground. He suggested that Mattice work with a tree mover. Farber has an inventory of cedar, spruce, pine and evergreen trees at that location. He felt they could work with the County on this.
Lindemann said the final site drawing required by the City is for site lighting. Lindemann provided an overview of the plans from the Electrical Engineer. The plans reflect the location of poles with general ambient lighting and landscape feature lighting. For the most part, the lamp source itself is not visible. The lights are dark sky compliant per City regulations. The plan includes decorative lighting in the front of the building directing night time traffic into the entry. The lights are low wattage and meet City requirements. The pricing includes metal halon (white colored) lighting. This type of lighting was selected relative to the building color (dark charcoal). The County can switch to high pressure sodium (yellow/orange). Efficiencies are comparable so the selection comes down to color. The other consideration is security. The low lumen cameras can change from color to black/white at night. There is no area on the site that exceeds the 1’ candle at the boundary as per City requirements. The only place with some light spill is at Braddock Avenue at the location of the entry sign.
The balance of the City requirement is to submit the architectural floor plans. KKE has been working hard with the County to hold to the square footage of the building. The changes made since the 10-10-06 and 11-14-06 meetings with the Board have been dramatic, all across the building. One of the changes requested was to break the indirect supervision area into smaller units. This does not impact staffing but provides more flexibility for classification. The Jail kitchen has been designed. Square footage was taken out of the vehicle sally port. They have worked with the Structural Engineer and determined a pre-cast system will be used in the Jail and composite steel will be used in the LEC. The drawings reflect exterior materials being utilized including pre-cast concrete and flush metal wall panels. On the Jail side, windows are 3’ x 4’ but the openings are only 8” x 4’. A larger piece of glass was used to break down the size of the building. The full security windows are independent of cells. KKE plans to provide an updated plan to the County on 2-20-07, which will be the plan taken forward into the Construction Document Phase.
The entry area has been redesigned as pre-cast concrete. Over half of the glass was removed. The lobby area will also serve as a transition to the Jail. The lobby entry will include a small, covered canopy. Daylight will be used in the lobby and central part of the office area. The office base material will be of darker pre-cast and the second story will have punched openings. The previous plan included sun shades around the entire building. Those shades will not be used on the north and east sides to reduce costs. High performing thermal windows are being used.
KKE has worked with the City to meet all of their requirements. Lindemann said the City has been a terrific partner. A letter was received from the City reflecting the site is under their jurisdiction as the electric utility provider. The team designed the electrical infrastructure based on the City’s requirements. They are working on rates and capital incentives. More information will be provided at the 2-20-07 meeting. The code review will also be submitted to the City and they will be the final approval for the building permit. Heeter moved to authorize KKE Architects Inc. to seek approval of the CUP documents for the Jail and LEC project and to submit the documents to the City of Buffalo for review and approval. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 1-10-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, Norman stated it was his understanding that a public hearing is not required for the requested fee changes. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the minutes as presented:
Recommended Fees for Web Based Recorder Information. Larry Unger, Recorder, referenced his memo dated 01-05-07 and discussed the LandShark system which he has been working with Bill Swing on for over a year. The LandShark is a remote access system that will provide customers with real estate documents/images they can view and download any time of day for a subscription and a per image fee. Currently the County provides data at no charge; however images have been only available via fax or in-house which consumes Recorder staff time. Title companies, abstracters, financial institutions, and attorneys will be the site’s largest group of users. This remote access to Recorder Documents will be of an advantage to taxpayers. The software was purchased from TriMin Systems which has proven to be a good, responsive vendor. The new product is web based and user friendly. Twenty counties will have this same system in place within a year and neighboring Sherburne County is currently using this system. Unger stated that he and TriMin salesman, Randy Hopper, held an informational open house in December, 2006, and had approximately twenty customers present to make inquiries of how the system would work. Downloadable images will be $.25 per image whereas currently, customers are often driving over twenty miles to come to the County offices to pay a dollar per image. Customers will still have access to the website data free of charge. Heeter asked if those who still wanted to come in to pick up documents would still be able to do so. Unger stated yes. Unger explained that there will be a subscription fee which will require a log-in and password. He also stated there are approximately 130 escrow companies which will be using the system and bringing income to the County. Eichelberg stated he feels the fees are right in line with what other counties are charging. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, stated that he is assuming that the fee schedule would require a public hearing. Bill Swing, IT Director, stated that the Data Practices Act will allow us to bring software/technology updates like LandShark to Wright County without the need for a public hearing. Unger stated that the December presentation did inform the public of the fees. Unger stated that Brian Asleson, County Attorney, had questioned whether there would be a liability due to data privacy. Data privacy will be increased due to the subscription fee, which will ensure that the images are not shared with others. Along with the log-in and password, an agreement will be posted which covers what the consumer can/cannot do with the password. Asleson has reviewed the agreement and feels it’s pretty generic. Heeter questioned whether a public hearing would be required and Norman stated that he’ll get confirmation from Asleson. Norman asked for the effective date of the program. Unger stated that he’d like to test the system for a few weeks; however February 1st is the effective date. Norman stated that evenif a public hearing was needed, we should still be able to meet the effective date. Swing stated that this is the first fee-based service via the website that has been issued to the public. The County is in the process of bringing e-web to the public. Eichelberg asked if the fees will be charged monthly. Unger stated that this would be charged to escrow. Jobe inquired as to how escrow would be set up. Heeter stated that the Committee should know about whether a public hearing will be required by next Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the following fee schedule effective February 1, 2007:
Initial Acct. Setup Fee $50.00 (one time charge)
Monthly Subscription Fee $50.00 (access to LandShark and County data bases)
Image Download Fee $ .25 (per image)
(End of Technology Committee Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 1-10-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0:
LAND RENTAL. Richard Marquette, Engineering Assistant, referred to his memo dated 01-08-07 which stated that the Rassat site has 27 3/4 acres of cropland currently for a one year contract with Dale and Linda Gapinski. Rental rate for 2006 was $55 per acre. The County has extended the contract for the last couple years. The Gapinski’s said that 2006 was a low production year at the Rassat site with dry weather. At a minimum, they would like to see the rate not be raised, perhaps reduced. The Stemper site had 25 acres of crop rental at $65 per acre in 2006 with Dale and Linda Gapinski. This site will need discussion as the new jail site will reduce the available cropland rental. Marquette stated that in the past the County has rented 2 parcels of land and the contracts have been extended. However, with the new jail site, a question arose on how much land the County should rent out. Marquette referenced the Stemper Rental Site map. Norman stated that the County will be moving materials and stockpiling which is of concern in regard to the amount of remaining rentable land. Sawatzke stated that perhaps Marquette should talk to Randy Lindemann as far as how much land will be non-rentable with the new jail site. Sawatzke recommended approving the rental of the Stemper Site at $65/acre for only a one year contract. Mattson recommended asking Lindemann to square off the non-rentable property to prevent undesirable zigzagged property lines. Norman stated that Cliff Buikema will be meeting with the sheriff department staff on 01-11-07 and recommended Marquette contact him when he is out here. Marquette stated that he has a previously scheduled appointment. Sawatzke asked if the renters have been paying rent. Marquette stated yes. Gapinsky has other properties as well. Sawatzke recommended that the Rasset site should be rented at $55/acre for a 2 year contract. Sawatzke asked what types of crops are planted at each location. Marquette stated beans or corn which are sometimes alternated. Recommendation: Norman recommended that Marquette contact the jail architect to have him draw the property lines for non-rentable land. The Rasset site will be offered for rent at $55/acre for up to two years and the Stemper site for $65/acre for only a one year contract. (End of Ways & Means Minutes)
Mattson moved to appoint Michael Messina to the GRRL Board, replacing Wayne Rebischke whose term expired at the end of 2006. Messina has a business background and is the Mayor of Maple Lake. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0. Heeter extended thanks to Rebischke for his service.
Mattson attended the 1-04-07 Township Association Meeting where the issue of the County holding meetings with townships was discussed. At that meeting, it was the consensus that each township should submit a written question as a possible topic of discussion. Mattson requested use of the County Board Room for the first couple of meetings. It was felt that meetings will be held the third Thursday of the month with the first one being held on 2-15-07. He suggested that the meetings be attended by himself (as communicator) and Commissioner Russek (as Planning Commission representative). Mattson moved to approve the request, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Norman received a draft resolution from NACO relating to the loss of Federal Entitlement Benefits for inmates. When a person is incarcerated, the Federal Government ceases their Medicare/Medicaid entitlements. The local government unit ends up with the expense. The resolution would seek relief from the current legislation to allow inmates to be eligible for their benefits. If adopted, the resolution would be forwarded to the Congressional Delegation. Heeter moved to adopt Resolution #07-05, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
The Board discussed a request from Court Services for two reserved parking spots in the west parking lot. Norman said this type of request normally is referred to the Building Committee. However, the West parking lot expansion project is scheduled to commence this Spring or Summer and this is not the only request for reserved parking that he has received. The Jail is looking for spots but has not submitted a formal request. Court Services is looking at obtaining an additional vehicle in May. They currently have one vehicle that does not have a reserved parking location. Norman said that Phil Thinesen, Dispatch, is willing to allow use of one of their reserved spots by Court Services. Margaret Munson, Court Services, said the request is for one reserved spot this Winter. The one car they use has been parked in general parking and there is no where to park it during snow removal. The request for the second reserved spot could be delayed until after the West parking lot project is complete. Heeter moved to authorize Court Services to use the reserved parking spot effective immediately, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
Acme Typewriter Inc. $236.28
Ameripride Linen & Apparel 628.51
Ancom Communications Inc. 357.57
Ancom Technical Center 251.42
Annandale Advocate Inc. 157.95
Apec Industrical Sales/Serv. 400.97
Aramark Correctional Serv. 15,360.54
Assn. of MN Emerg. Mngrs. 135.00
Bogart Pederson & Assoc. 680.00
Brothers Fire Protection Co. 490.00
Buffalo Hospital 3,511.50
City Buffalo 28,088.60
Bureau of Crim. Apprehen. 2,820.00
Cargill Inc.-Salt Division 46,547.75
Carver Co. Treasurer 19,035.45
Center Point Energy 16,871.42
Centra Sota Lake Region 4,930.71
Central McGowan Inc. 193.05
Central MN Mental Health 465.00
Centrasota Oral & Maxillo 2,881.00
H Cragg Co. 625.00
Dental Care Assoc. of Buffalo 803.00
Dept. of Public Safety 5,730.00
Dept. of Corrections 16,947.25
Tom Feddema 144.18
Maria Felger Ramos LLC 163.30
Force America Inc. 718.86
Gateway Companies Inc. 1,300.55
Gould Towing 175.73
Greenview Inc. 295.48
H & H Sport Shop Inc. 119.00
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 2,824.49
In The Line Of Duty Inc. 300.00
Intoximeters Inc. 1,157.13
John’s Precision Machine 147.00
Kandiyohi Co. Sheriff’s Dept. 1,860.00
Kue Contractors Inc. 71,345.00
Lakedale Telephone Co. 349.32
Kimberly LeClaire 955.00
Lorman Education Serv. 319.00
Major Appliance Repair 135.73
Marco Business Products 1,362.98
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 1,750.00
MASYS Corporation 47,830.68
Menards - Buffalo 5,221.90
Mid-states Organized Crime 300.00
Midland Corp. Benefits SVC 997.75
Mille Lacs Co. Jail 1,050.00
Millers Sewage Trtmt. Sol. 350.00
MN Asphalt Pavement Assoc. 160.00
MN Assn. of Co. Officers 2,850.00
MN Copy Systems 144.59
MN Dept. of Health 263.75
MN Deputy Registrar Assoc. 414.00
MN Onsite Wastewater Assn. 685.00
MN Recreation & Park Assn 187.00
Monticello Auto Body Inc. 106.50
Monticello Times Inc. 306.40
Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 1,058.04
Nat’l Business Institute 329.00
Nextel Communications 964.12
Office Depot 2,210.13
Onanegozie RC & D 150.00
City Otsego 455.00
Photo 1 277.68
Reds Auto Electric 312.95
Paul Reitman 2,500.00
Royal Tire Inc. 279.71
RS Eden 6,648.50
Jack Russek 141.39
Ryan Motors Inc. 612.26
Safe Comm. of Wright Co. 10,650.00
Scenic Signs 130.50
SRF Consulting Group 36,131.71
St. Cloud Times 169.00
St. Joseph Equipment-Mpls 380.55
State of MN-Administrative 9,719.00
Tension Envelope Corp. 3,904.83
Tools Unlimited 539.55
Total Printing 337.18
Trans Union Corporation 110.79
University of MN 280.00
Verizon Wireless 335.06
Voss Lighting 340.80
C. Walker Trucking 560.00
Waste Management TC W 842.11
West Payment Center 298.00
Westside Equipment 602.66
Wright Co. Journal Press 485.92
Wright Hennepin Electric 2,015.04
Keith Wurm Construction 1,140.00
27 Payments less than $100 1,179.37
Final total $400,798.14
The meeting adjourned at 11:08 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Feb. 26, 2007.