Wright County Board Minutes

APRIL 3, 2007

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

On a motion by Heeter, second by Eichelberg, all voted to revise the minutes of 3-27-07 with the following correction: Page 4, second to the last paragraph, thirteenth and fourteenth line, “There was one application last year but the loan never transpired due to the $25,000 threshold.” (Sawatzke).

On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the Agenda as presented.

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


1. Performance Appraisals: M. Ruzicka, Aud./Treas.; M. Meemken, R. Nevala, B. Williamson, Sheriff.

2. Claim, City of Buffalo, $1,139.71 (Jail/LEC Project).

3. Claim, KKE Architects, $71,507.05 (Service for February, 2007: Jail/LEC Project).


1. Tobacco License Renewals: Doc Holiday’s (Delano City) And Boonedocks Saloon (Rockford Township).


1. Refer to Technology Committee: 800 Mhz Project Update, LEC Technology Planning, and Storage Area Network RFQ Recommendation.


1. Accept The Findings and Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezoning:

A. Tom Segner – (Corinna Twp.) – Rezone Approx. 4 Acres from AG and S-2 to R-2 and S-2.


1. Refer To Personnel Committee A Request To Backfill Deputy Sheriff Bernard Williamson’s Position Due To Military Deployment.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, introduced Brad Longtin as a representative for the proposed Mink-Somers Lake Improvement District (MSLID) and stated that the group’s goal is to take immediate action to address water quality issues. The cost of making improvements can only be possible with a Lake Improvement District (LID). Hiivala stated that the first step for the Auditor’s office was to verify that the appropriate number of signatures had been acquired on the petition to establish an LID. Hiivala stated the next step is to present the petition to the Board and request a public hearing to organize the MSLID. Longtin stated that there has been an overwhelming response to the petition. 66% of all land owners included within the proposed District area have been contacted, and of those, over 91% were in favor of the District being formed. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, stated that Minnesota Statute requires that the County provide notice to the DNR and Corrina Township of the public hearing. Longtin stated that he approached the Corrina Township Board on 11-15-06 and they indicated that they did not foresee any reason to block the progress of the formation of the LID. Longtin has also met with the DNR at the local and State level, as well as Joe Jacobs of the SWCD, to inform them of the group’s intent. Asleson stated that the Statute requires a public hearing within 30 days of the Board being notified of the petition. The County is to mail a notice to each landowner within the proposed District, as well as publish the advertisement twice in a widely distributed newspaper (i.e. Maple Lake Press). Asleson proposed 5-01-07 as a viable date for the Public Hearing. On a motion by Heeter, second by Mattson, all voted to set a Public Hearing at 10:00 A.M. on 5-01-07. Heeter asked Asleson if the purpose of the public hearing was to listen to proposed MSLID projects and how they plan to assess the dollars needed. Asleson stated that the County Board has the power to establish the District; however there are other entities such as the DNR, which will weigh in at the Public Hearing.

Hiivala stated that Mark and Ruth Kiviahde of 1254 80th St. NW, Buffalo, owners of the vacant land described as Parcel B on Document A 1018118 wish to petition for a school district change. The Parcel B property rests in Maple Lake ISD #881and divides two parcels with the same PID numbers which are in Monticello ISD #882. The couple is requesting to combine the parcels so that they are both within the Monticello ISD which will allow them to streamline the property for tax purposes. The couple wishes to build upon the combined parcels. Currently, no dwelling exists on the vacant property so there would not be a net gain/loss from a student standpoint between the two school districts. Hiivala stated that Minnesota Statute requires that the request be brought forth to the Board. If the Board approves the request, then the Auditor’s office will alert the two school districts of the outcome. Hiivala invited Mary Palmquist, Land Records Administrator, to the podium to discuss the property’s history. Palmquist explained that the three parcels have two tax parcel numbers; one of which was created last year. The legal description includes two tax parcels with two school districts. Palmquist clarified that to avoid creating three separate tax parcels; one piece was joined to an existing PID. Sawatzke asked what the total acreage was of the combined parcels. Asleson stated that the larger parcel was approximately 4.5 acres. Sawatzke stated that he presumed that there were a total of six acres, all zoned Agricultural with one building entitlement. Mattson asked if perhaps the State Board of Education should be involved in the decision process of the Kiviahde property. Asleson stated that a legislative change in 2003 has made it easier to resolve a split parcel. The requirement in the case of a split parcel is that the parties involved can petition, or request, that all parcels be transferred into one district. The County Board would then produce an order and notify the school districts as well as the State Board of Education. Asleson proposed that this item be laid over for one week so that he can procure the proper document for the Board’s approval. Heeter made a motion to lay over this agenda item until the 4-10-07 Board Meeting to allow Asleson time to prepare the necessary paperwork. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried unanimously.

Hiivala submitted the claims listing for approval. The claims’ listing was discussed. Hiivala stated that the claim for Municipal Software (Page 2, $12,400) was incorrectly coded to the Recorder’s office and should be coded to Planning & Zoning, 01-107-6622, for Tom Salkowski’s compliance equipment. Hiivala also noted that the duplicate page 6 will be removed from the claims’ listing. On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Katie Zintek, 4H Coordinator for the U of M Extension, stated that a member of their support staff left in January and the position will be filled in late April. With the savings the Department has from the vacancy, Extension would like to add a Summer intern position in the office. The position will primarily support 4-H Outreach, but will also assist with other Departmental needs, as the new hire becomes acquainted with the Department during one of its busiest seasons. The Extension office has an opportunity to coordinate with several libraries this Summer, as well as hold a resident’s camp and a sewing day. The decision to bring on an extra intern was supported at the recent County Extension Meeting. Conservatively, $4,200 is the proposed amount allotted for the intern’s full-time salary without benefits. Last year, $6,200 was the amount paid out to the intern whose services were procured from the beginning of June until the end of August. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, asked what the proposed hourly rate would be. Sara Berg, Regional Director of Extension Services, stated that they are planning on a salary of $10/hour for 400 hours, or approximately ten weeks. Ten weeks would allow the intern to be available through State Fair week. On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Mattson, all voted to approve use of support staff savings to fund a second Summer intern.

Steve Berg, Emergency Management Coordinator, stated that in 2006 a grant of $500,000 was given to each region in the State. To receive the funds, a region must have a Mutual Aid Agreement or Joint Powers Agreement in place. Region IV voted to equally divide the funds by the 18 counties and Tribal this year, giving each jurisdiction $26,000 to $27,000. These funds must by spent by 6-30-07. The Region agreed to use the funds for: maintenance of prior projects, personnel and amateur radio network (point to point). This will be done to the extent of the funding support. Berg stated that the Region is behind because of the time it has taken to get an agreement. Don Erickson, Emergency Management for Kandiyohi County, formulated the Mutual Aid Agreement document. The Agreement was sent to Mark Nolan, Safety Director, who has reviewed the document as it relates to risk management and insurance. The document currently is before Asleson for his review. Eichelberg asked Berg if the Mutual Aid Agreement is a temporary agreement or if it is to be used in the following year when the Region applies for another grant. Berg stated that the 2007 application has already been submitted. He further explained that because the 2006 grant money was so late in being allocated, the Region decided to equally divide the money. However, in the future each county will have to put in an application for the funds annually and the amount awarded will be based on need. Heeter asked how the Region proposes to spend the grant dollars. Berg stated that communications is a big necessity right now; however he is open to suggestions. Sawatzke asked if there are items that are currently budgeted for that could be paid for with grant money, leaving a surplus in the budget at year end. Berg stated yes. Heeter proposed that the grant money be used to cover two months of Berg’s salary to offset personnel budget dollars. Berg supported Heeter’s suggestion by stating that the money could be used for personnel matters. Mattson asked Berg if he plans to add another employee to his staff. Berg stated no. Heeter stated that due to the short window of opportunity to expend the grant dollars, she proposed that the Board provide Berg with some direction as to how to spend the money. Sawatzke also proposed that Berg bring back his ideas to the Board within a couple of weeks for how the money should be spent. Berg stated that he needs the Board’s approval of the Region IV Mutual Aid Agreement so that he can bring it back to the Regional meeting which will be held on 4-24-07. Eichelberg proposed that next year’s grant money be used for the 800 mhz which will be a high priority in 2008. Russek asked if the money is a guarantee once the Mutual Aid Agreement is approved. Berg stated yes, and added that the grant money would have been awarded earlier if everyone within the Region would have agreed upon a Mutual Aid Agreement. Other regions have already received their grant dollars. On a motion by Heeter, seconded by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the Region IV Mutual Aid Agreement to secure the grant dollars with a request that Berg return with his recommendations of how the grant money should be spent.

Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, stated that I State Truck Center submitted the only bid for the acquisition of a new Quad Axle End Dump Trailer. The budgeted amount was $60,000. A bid security was not submitted with the sealed bid, as required. Fingalson stated that he has spoken with Brian Asleson, Chief County Attorney, who has confirmed that the County reserves the right to waive defects or technicalities, if it is in the interest of the County to do so. The lack of a bid bond is procedural in nature, rather than affecting the substance of the bid. The vendor has been asked to provide a 5% bid security which was received on 4-02-07. Eichelberg moved to award the bid for a new Quad Axle End Dump Trailer to I State Truck Center for $57,137.25, seconded by Heeter. Carried 5-0.

Fingalson presented the 3-26-07 Transportation Committee of the Whole meeting minutes and recommendations. Discussion and action at today’s County Board Meeting is reflected in italics:

1. Jake Braking. Young, a resident along CSAH 37 just west of TH 25, was present at the meeting to discuss with the Commissioners his desire to have signs posted in certain locations along CSAH 37 to discourage trucks from jake braking. Trucks use this method of slowing down to prevent further wear and tear on their brakes, but the noise emitted from jake braking is often loud and disturbing to nearby residents. Asleson said that a lot of cities have noise ordinances, which makes it possible for them to enforce restrictions on jake braking. Fingalson distributed copies of a memo dated August 18, 2005, which Asleson had sent to Board members on this issue. Young said that he thought the placement of signs might help eliminate or at least cut back on jake braking. Sawatzke said that CSAH 37 attracts a lot of truck traffic, and the gravel trucks seem to be responsible for most of the noise. The landfill operation has posted signs asking garbage haulers not to jake brake, and many have willingly complied with this request. In response to questions about what jake braking is, Fingalson read information he had obtained from the Internet on ‘jake brakes.’ Russek asked Cordell if signs could be posted, and he answered that the officially approved sign for preventing jake braking is actually a noise ordinance sign. It would be non-standard to put up a sign specifically designed to prevent jake braking. Heeter commented that she would like to see a specific sign put up to discourage jake braking, because enforcing an ordinance would take more tickets and time on the part of law enforcement. Sawatzke said that it would be a pretty big assumption to think that truckers would view a ‘Noise Ordinance Enforced’ sign the same as a ‘No Jake Braking’ sign. He said that the signs could be posted close to where the problem occurs to discourage truckers from jake braking. Young said that he thought three signs would be needed. Noise from jake braking had been a problem in the Montrose area several years ago, but Miller said that this was probably due to the high volume of traffic associated with construction on TH 12, which has now been completed. It doesn’t seem to be a problem in Montrose at this time. Heeter said that she felt it would be a very cost effective measure to first see if posted signs could make a difference. Miller said that his department could help with enforcement, but other law enforcement issues would probably cut into the time that might be available for this concern. Educating drivers might help reduce the noise, but Sawatzke said that it would be hard to educate hundreds of drivers from dozens of different companies. He would like to see signs posted. Russek said that he would be concerned about putting signs out without first having an ordinance in place, but Asleson said that tickets could be given out based on the state statute that deals with vehicle noise from mufflers or downshifting. Cordell said that using a more specific ‘jake braking’ sign might help prevent a number of other people from asking for ‘noise ordinance’ signs. He also thought that ‘noise ordinance’ signs might cause a lot of inquiries from the public. There was some discussion as to where the signs should be posted along CSAH 37. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that a total of three ‘No Jake Braking’ signs be posted on CSAH 37. Bill Cordell will research the section of CSAH 37 in question and post these signs where they will be most effective.

2. Joint Powers Agreement with Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns Counties for CHSP Project. Fingalson said that Wright, along with the three counties of Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns were successful in securing money to do rumble stripes along approximately 20 miles of roadway in each county. Approximately $150,000 was awarded for this project. Fingalson was seeking the Commissioners’ approval to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with these counties so that actions can be consolidated, with Wright County doing all of the administrative contract work. Asleson prepared a draft agreement for this meeting. The contract does not have to be approved by each individual county, unless the county insists on formally approving it. The grant will be split among the four counties, and the number of miles can be cut back if the proceeds run short. This would be a one-time Joint Powers Agreement. Fingalson said that he would need the permission of each County Engineer involved. Fingalson said that he had talked to the State Aid office this morning and was told that it would be possible to split the money between the four counties, which would be $37,500 apiece, in which case a bidding process would not be necessary. Hawkins suggested that this project be done jointly until the environmental process is done, and then it could be split up. Fingalson was encouraged to get written permission from the State Aid office to do this. Eichelberg asked Fingalson to come back to the Board when he has all the information about how this can be handled. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Fingalson come back to the County Board regarding the Joint Powers Agreement for handling of the CHSP funds for Benton, Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright Counties. This will take place when he gets a more definitive answer in writing from State Aid about proper procedures and after he hears back from the other three Counties regarding their input.

3. Discuss Selling Excess Mn/DOT Right of Way in City of Buffalo. Mn/DOT acquired property along CSAH 35 for right-of-way purposes before the recent widening of TH 55 to a four-lane highway. As this property was no longer needed by Mn/DOT, a 3/4 acre parcel has been given to Wright County. The property is located on the east side of CSAH 35 and on the north side of the frontage road by the city liquor store. The value of the property is negotiable, as a number of factors play into its usefulness. Currently, there is no access from CSAH 35 or from the frontage road to this property, but both adjoining properties have an access to one or the other of these roads. It was generally agreed that this property would be more valuable when joined to one of the adjoining properties than it would if it were considered as a separate parcel. The Commissioners discussed whether bids should be sought, if a minimum price should be assigned, or if the property could be sold to the City of Buffalo, which would allow the City to dispose of it without a bidding process (something the County is not allowed to do). Sawatzke said that this property could be put out for bids with the understanding that the County has the right to refuse any and all bids. Mattson recommended that it might be wiser to hang on to this property until the value goes up. It can always be sold at a later date. Heeter said that she would like to see this go out for bids, reserving the County’s right to refuse. Marquette was asked to check with the County Assessor to see what property in this area is worth. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that this property be advertised for sale by bids, reserving the right of the County to refuse any and all bids. Brian Asleson will draw up the advertisement for bids upon receipt of information from Richard Marquette as to its legal description.

4. Discuss Options for Selling Property in St. Michael. Marquette explained that Wright County paid about $415,000 for the Chouinard property, part of which was needed as right of way for the CSAH 22 bridge project. A bid opening was held on January 23, 2007 to sell this property for no less than $600,000, but no bids were received. There was discussion on what action should be taken next, hire a broker, have a public auction, or re-bid. The house is probably habitable with very little repair, but the zoning may not allow for it to be used as a residence. Fingalson has received requests from two different realtors who are interested in listing this property. He shared this specific information with the Committee. If the property is auctioned, the buyer usually pays the commission, over and above the selling price. The 2007 budget for the Highway Department has included the expected proceeds from the sale of this property as one of its 2007 revenue sources. Heeter commented that she likes the idea of promoting the property for specific uses and would like to consider selling via auction. Asleson said that he thinks the County would be best off working with someone who has commercial real estate experience. A number of suggestions were made as to who might be able to offer the best results for Wright County and as to what rate is usual and customary for the sale of commercial property. Sawatzke thought the rate could be negotiated. Eichelberg said that he would talk with various realtors and have them contact Fingalson. Mattson offered to contact an auction company and see how they would offer to handle a sale of commercial property. Asleson said that he would contact a couple of commercial realtors from the metro area and see if there is a standard percentage rate for sale of commercial property. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that more information be pursued in considering various selling options for the former Chouinard property. Fingalson will gather the different information that is submitted to him and bring it to the County Board at a future date.

5. Proposed Agreement with Howard Lake for CSAH 6. Hawkins said that he had been contacted by the City of Howard Lake to see if Wright County would be willing to participate in a Cooperative Agreement with them whereby Wright County would be willing to pay for the overlay expense in 2009 that Howard Lake would incur on CSAH 6 this summer. This portion of CSAH 6 is on Wright County’s schedule for overlay improvement for the summer of 2009, but the City of Howard Lake is making other CSAH 6 improvements in 2007 and would like to have the County pay for what they would have paid for the overlay in 2009. They will front the money for the overlay and are willing to wait for the County to pay them their share in 2009, the year that the County had planned to do that work. Hawkins said that this is also an opportunity to turn back two roads to the city, CSAHs 55 and 56, sooner than 2009, and he has prepared a draft agreement for this purpose. There was general agreement that doing the project in 2007 would probably be less expensive than it would be in 2009, and this would be a good opportunity to turn those road segments back. RECOMMENDATION: It was the recommendation of the TCOTW that Wright County enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Howard Lake for the purpose of allowing the City to make improvements to CSAH 6 in the summer of 2007 and to have these bituminous improvements to CSAH 6 reimbursed by Wright County in 2009, the same year in which Wright County had planned to overlay this road. This agreement will also allow for the turnback of CSAHs 55 and 56 to the City of Howard Lake at the conclusion of the 2007 construction season.

6. Discuss Resolution Requesting Transportation Funding. Fingalson said that the Senate passed a transportation-funding package last week, as did the House. The only thing holding this package back is the promised veto of Governor Pawlenty. The proposed resolution that Fingalson shared with the Commissioners today had already been presented to them at a February County Board meeting, but they had asked him to bring it back to the TCOTW for further review. He said that he would like the Board’s support of this resolution so that both the Governor and the Legislature would be aware of Wright County’s wishes to have this funding package pass. Sawatzke said that when he was helping draft this resolution on the AMC Transportation Task Force, he had asked for a bullet on the resolution in support of road impact fees. Since he did not see it on the current resolution, he would like to see it added here. If the Governor vetoes the current funding package, there will, hopefully, still be enough time to get another package ready that can be voted on during this session. A less comprehensive package might be approved. Fingalson recommended that the Commissioners modify the language of the resolution so that they will be comfortable recommending it to the Legislature. Sawatzke agreed that modifying it to fit the recommendation of the County Board would be the appropriate thing to do. After discussion, it was recommended that the reference to local sales tax and expanded wheelage tax be removed and that a bullet be added for road impact fees. Fingalson said that he would make the changes and petition this item onto the County Board’s agenda for their meeting the next day, March 27. This would be timely for this week’s Legislative Conference in St. Paul. RECOMMENDATION: It was the recommendation of the TCOTW that Fingalson make the suggested changes to the proposed resolution requesting comprehensive road and transit funding in 2007 and that he petition it onto the County Board’s agenda for the meeting scheduled for March 27, 2007. This approved resolution will then be forwarded to the State Legislature and Governor to make them aware of Wright County’s support for increased, dedicated transportation funding.

7. Crosswalk Policy. This item was delayed until further notice.

8. Bituminous Surfacing Next to Cold Storage Buildings. Fingalson passed around photos showing the road surface conditions near the west side of the new cold storage buildings at the Public Works site after winter melting and spring rains. In addition to the moisture, salt from the trucks might be responsible for some of the mucky conditions that exist in this area. Two trucks have already gotten stuck in the mud this year. He said that the cost of paving this area, using the labor of the Highway Department, is estimated at $24,000. There was some discussion about using alternatives to paving, such as crushed granite or a mixture of crushed pavement and bituminous. Eichelberg asked what these alternatives would cost, and Fingalson said that he would check into it. He said that funding could come from some of the savings from our 2007 overlay contract. He also said that there would need to be some discussion about the new county truck station in Otsego, as the City of Otsego is requiring that Wright County pave and add curb and gutter to the property. Both of these items can be dealt with at a later time. Fingalson said that he would come back to the Board or the TCOTW with an estimate of costs.

9. Discuss Road Tour vs. Video Log. Wright County has a running video log of every mile of its county routes. Fingalson and Cordell gave a demonstration of this tool to the Commissioners. Fingalson asked if they would want to substitute an actual road tour with some time reviewing those same sites on this video program. A few sites were reviewed and everyone agreed that this is a valuable tool; however, everyone also agreed that an actual road tour is the best way to view all the angles and the surrounding area of a specific site. A road tour will probably be scheduled sometime during the late summer or early fall. (End of Transportation Committee of the Whole Minutes.)

At today’s County Board Meeting, Fingalson stated that Young came to his office to view the video log and was quite pleased with the proposed “No Jake Braking” sign locations. Fingalson requested to set a date for the bid opening in relation to Item #3 for Selling Excess Mn/DOT Right of Way. On a motion by Heeter, seconded by Eichelberg, all voted to set a bid opening date for the sale of the Excess Mn/DOT Right of Way in City of Buffalo for 5-01-07 at 9:30 A.M. Sawatzke proposed that staff should speak with Greg Kramber, County Assessor, to see what the property is worth. Motion carried 5-0.

Fingalson stated that following the discussion of Item #4, Discuss Options for Selling Property in St. Michael, staff has since received two inquiries from two separate realtors. One inquiry was for moving the home off-site, the other expressed interest in the property itself. Fingalson proposed either setting up a task force or perhaps adding this discussion to a Ways and Means Committee Meeting. Sawatzke made a motion to schedule a Ways and Means Committee to discuss selling options. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried unanimously.

Item #6, Resolution Requesting Transportation Funding, has since been handled at the 03-27-07 Board Meeting. The Board adopted Resolution #07-17 and the approved resolution was then forwarded to the State Legislature and Governor Pawlenty. The adoption of the resolution was timely as it was a major topic of discussion at the AMC Legislative Conference.

Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations made by the Transportation Committee of the Whole that were not already taken care of individually. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Mattson.

Pat O’Malley, Sheriff/Corrections, presented the annual contract with the Buffalo Correctional Services (formerly Buffalo Hospital) for jail medical services for calendar year 2007. This is a contract renewal, however the following changes were made:

1) The Buffalo Hospital has renamed the entity providing the services because of National HealthCare Accreditation. The County will now be contracting with Buffalo Correctional Services. There will not be a change in personnel or services.

2) Nursing hours will be increased to 44 hours per week from 40 hours per week. The four hours were added to Monday’s hours as there are no nursing services offered on weekends.

3) The County will now retain ownership of the medical records and there is a business associate addendum relating to Buffalo Correctional Services’ HIPPA requirements.

4) There is an addendum “A” relating to billing for services. Buffalo Correctional Services are agreeing to bill insurance providers where applicable. This was added due to a recent disagreement when Buffalo Correctional Services changed their business practices.

5) The contract rate for 2007 is $126,000 per year, or $10,500 per month. The 2006 rate was $109,824.

Mattson asked if the contract rate increase was budgeted for in 2007. O’Malley stated that an increase was expected, however the anticipation was for a slightly lower increase. O’Malley explained that the contract is still with the Allina Clinic, however due to changes in record keeping, the name of the service has changed to Buffalo Correctional Services. The contract also includes two hours of physician services as well as unlimited phone emergency care consultation which saves on expensive trips to the Buffalo Hospital Emergency Room. Sawatzke asked how much was budgeted for jail medical services, as well as hospital care and transport in 2007. Heeter stated that $200,000 was budgeted and the contract is for $126,000; the difference will be used for hospital care and external medical costs. Heeter asked if the contract is negotiable. O’Malley stated that it was explained to him that the increase is correlated with the cost of doing business. There aren’t any other providers in the area and medical is expensive. However, this contract is used as a tool to help manage external costs of going to the hospital. Mattson stated that $225,000 was budgeted for jail medical services in 2006 and asked if the amount was lowered in 2007. Heeter stated that the 2007 budget was decreased based on what was spent the previous year.

Sawatzke noted an article in the County’s NACO magazine from a few months ago that discussed how some counties have been obtaining health insurance for their jail medical services. The article indicated that inmates who do not have insurance would be charged for services at the same cost the county pays. The benefit behind the above action is that the County would have assurance of what their health care costs would be for the year. The counties that have participated in this type of program have significantly paid less for jail medical services than in years past. Sawatzke stated that he wasn’t sure which providers the counties had used or whether these providers would be accepted by the Buffalo Hospital. Sawatzke indicated that perhaps there are other options for funding jail medical services. O’Malley stated that he had not read the article, nor was familiar with the insurance option; however a Statute was set in place mid-last year allowing the County to be charged the same rate as the largest 3rd party provider. Due to the Statute, the County was able to reduce its jail medical costs last year. Sawatzke stated the benefit of acquiring insurance is that insurance companies can purchase services at a large discount and can pass along that savings to their clients. O’Malley clarified that prior to the Statute, the County was not receiving that savings. Russek noted that he and Norman had attended a session at the Legislative Conference that proposed a catastrophic insurance policy charging $18/month premium with a $10,000 deductible per inmate. Norman clarified that the County would be purchasing an excess coverage policy. O’Malley commended the triage services of the jail nurses, and Heeter stated that the County has been lucky to have had little turnover of its jail nurses. On a motion by Heeter, second by Sawatzke, all voted to authorize signatures on the contract with Buffalo Correctional Services for jail medical services for calendar year 2007.

O’Malley stated that a discussion about saving some of the trees in the nursery area on the Jail/LEC site took place during a previous Board meeting. In response, Richard Marquette obtained a quote for removing and re-planting 100 trees @ $100/each from the Northwest corner of the Jail/LEC building site, to the eastern most border along Highway 25. Moving the trees would be outside of the construction contract and the $10,000 is not included in the building budget. O’Malley presented the Board with several options and clarified that if the Board decided that they’d like to have the trees moved and re-planted, it would have to take place prior to the start of the excavation activities. The deciduous trees should be moved prior to leafing out. Eichelberg asked if any of the trees would be placed along Braddock Avenue. O’Malley stated no. Russek stated that he was not in favor of moving the shrubs at $45/each. Discussion continued regarding transplanting trees out to the Otsego shop at $230/each. Norman stated that he spoke with Steve Meyer, Highway Maintenance Superintendent, about transplanting trees from the Government Center’s west parking lot and moving them to the Otsego site. Norman clarified that the tree transplants would be considered as part of the site work for the Jail/LEC; coded to Fund 34, Capital Improvements. The County will issue bonds to pay itself back. Sawatzke expressed concern as to whether there was any cost savings in removing the trees prior to the site preparation of the Jail/LEC building site. The question is whether it would be more cost effective to work around the trees. Eichelberg made a motion to authorize moving and replanting trees on the site of the Jail/LEC, and code the work to Fund 34, Capital Improvements. The motion was seconded by Heeter. Russek asked who would make the decision as to which trees will be moved to the Otsego site. Eichelberg stated that perhaps the Board should meet with Fingalson and the Otsego shop to determine how many trees are needed out at the site. Heeter clarified that 100 trees have been identified and the recommendation is to leave the trees on site for ease of watering and care. The trees will provide a great buffer along Highway 25. Sawatzke stated that the Parks Department will need to be informed that the trees will need to be watered throughout the Summer. O’Malley clarified that the quote is to move them on-site and confirmed that the trees are to remain within the property lines. Sawatzke stated that staff should ask Fingalson if the property lines will move with the future widening of Highway 25. Russek asked if the quote includes staking of the trees. Heeter stated that the landscape architect has identified the trees for transplanting and staking. Motion carried 5-0.

Sawatzke presented the 3-27-07 Planning Committee of the Whole minutes and recommendations. Discussion and action at today’s County Board Meeting is reflected in italics:

I. NE Quadrant Plan. The Public Hearing on the NE Quadrant Plan is scheduled for 4-12-07 at 8:00 P.M. in the Commissioners’ Board Room, and will be held by the Planning Commission. Cities and townships have been notified and a news release will be sent to County newspapers. The County’s website also contains this information and an area for submitting comments. At the Public Hearing, a presentation will be made by S.E.H., the Consultant for the Plan. Public comment will be received. Any public comment received prior to the Hearing will be copied and provided to the Planning Commission. The record is generally left open for some time after the Hearing to allow for additional written comment. All input received will be reviewed by staff and the Consultant. The Planning Commission will make a final recommendation to the County Board. Ultimately the Plan will come to the County Board for final adoption, possibly in late April or early May. Mattson questioned whether the process for the NE Quadrant Plan has provided more insight into what needs to be done versus what was known prior to the Study. Mattson has received comments that possibly a lot of money has been spent for something that hasn’t helped much. Salkowski responded that this has been a very valuable process, particularly with bringing cities and townships together to discuss issues. With changes to any type of plan, there is always a percentage of people who are not in support of what is being done. Salkowski said the direction received from the onset was that the County’s general philosophy has not changed over the years. This philosophy is that by knowing the resources of the County and to save the beautiful countryside, development needs to be controlled and that most development should occur within cities. Some may feel there is not enough development in the Plan while others feel there is too much development. Recommendation: No action was taken as this was provided as an informational update.

II. Proposal For Next Planning Area. The next planning area will be the Northwest Quadrant of the County, including the Townships of Chatham, Albion, French Lake and everything north of there. The Northwest Quadrant will include 8-9 townships and 4 cities. Salkowski assumed the process for this planning area would be similar to the Northeast Quadrant. However, some things may be done differently based on knowledge acquired through that process. He envisioned kick-off meetings to inform the public of what is being done and why, as was done with the Northeast Quadrant. Salkowski sought action to confirm that the Northwest Quadrant would be the next area completed. In 2008, the study would move to the final part of the County, essentially the TH 12 Corridor (southern half of the County). A contract has not been entered into with S.E.H. for the next study. Salkowski informed S.E.H. that they should draft a proposal for presentation to the County. He supported a continued relationship with S.E.H. as it has been a good partnership. Sawatzke questioned the makeup of the Task Force. Salkowski replied that with the study of the NE Quadrant, there was representation by two members from each township and one from each city. Otsego and Albertville had very little participation. Sawatzke suggested that as the Study moves west, the Task Force could potentially include representation from lake associations, agricultural organizations, and possibly other groups with special interests. Salkowski said the Task Force acts as a sounding board and is not put together as a voting body. The thought is to possibly do this differently in the Northwest Quadrant because of lakes and gravel mining being such large issues. Potentially, several different groups will be formed to discuss these issues, with the formation of the Task Force with the cities and townships later in the process. Salkowski said there are varied opinions on government and planning. Previously, the Board made it clear that the direction being taken was not to completely overhaul the process of the County’s view on planning and zoning. The purpose is to update the Plan, look at what is happening today, and consider what has happened with the Land Use Plan since 1988. The Plan has been updated since that time. The direction taken with the study is that good planning and zoning means preventing sprawl, pushing most urban development into cities, saving good farmland, and saving open space in rural settings. Salkowski said it is often the view that reopening a plan is done for the purpose of more development. The Plan will not be converted into 5-acre lots. This is not the direction received from the Board. The purpose is to review and update the information in the Plan. Salkowski wanted to confirm that the Northwest quadrant would be completed this year and that they can proceed in obtaining a proposal from the Consultant (cost estimates to be received after April 12th. Heeter felt this was already confirmed at a previous meeting, and she has conveyed this to cities and townships in her District. Salkowski said it was the consensus, but a motion had not been made to that effect. Heeter assumed that the next study would happen in late May or early June and last for a year. She asked how Corinna Township would be included in this study, as they are working on their own Land Use Plan. Russek responded that they have invited cities to participate, whether the County or the area does the planning and zoning. There is an opportunity to submit comments if they are within the area being studied. Sawatzke added that the Board has taken the position that State Law must be followed. Whatever happens in the townships doing their own planning and zoning must be as strict or more strict than the County’s Plan. Although these areas are not required to participate, their input is valuable. Salkowski said it is important to point out that townships must be consistent with the County’s Plan map and Zoning Ordinance. It does not appear the County’s Plan and the Corinna Plan (which has been adopted by the Township) will conflict. The style and manner of their Plan is such that it is sometimes hard to tell whether it differs from the County’s Plan. As in the Northeast Quadrant, in situations where the city and township involved do not agree there may be situations where the County has to make a decision on what the Plan will reflect. Eichelberg questioned the process of hiring a consultant for the Northwest Quadrant. Salkowski responded that if the County is satisfied with S.E.H., he would prefer not to proceed into the hire and interview process. Eichelberg felt the County could make that decision after the April 12th Hearing. Mattson referenced a handout provided by Planning & Zoning (attached). The handout reflects an outline of proposed steps for Township/County relations in those townships that desire to administer their own planning and zoning programs. Salkowski indicated that they have relied quite heavily on the city and township representation at the meetings to gauge the sentiment in those areas. There have been two township board members at all task force meetings and they rely on their input. They have all received notice of the Hearing. Salkowski expected that every city and township will respond on their likes and dislikes of the Plan. Recommendation: Designate the Northwest Quadrant of the County as the next area to be studied.

III. Township Zoning. Salkowski said Ordinance Amendments that were proposed and discussed last year were found to be unacceptable by some townships. Salkowski referenced the handout of proposed steps for those townships that desire to administer their own planning and zoning program. The outline is based upon comments received, a review of the law, and discussions with various townships officers. The input led them, both from a legal and administrative standpoint, to what is being proposed. Staff feels this is the best way to serve those who reside in townships, who are taxpayers of both the County and township they reside in. Salkowski is concerned with the administrative and day-to-day operations, while Zins in primarily interested in the legal side of things. Salkowski wanted to prevent people from unnecessary duplication of applications and hearings between the township and County. However, if the township desires to spend the energy and finances to take on the tasks themselves, law does provide for that with limitations. That is the reason the outline of proposed steps was compiled, to efficiently serve taxpayers and to allow those townships who want to administer their own planning and zoning the opportunity to do so. In review of the two townships that attempted to perform their own planning and zoning, it became evident that record keeping, record retrieval, and being able to meet the demands of real estate agents, closers, insurance companies, etc. on a timely basis is expensive. There is a lot more detail required than most realize. The first item on the attachment relates to Building and Sewer Permits being issued by the County. Salkowski said record keeping is built around building permits. There has been a lot of taxpayer funding invested in hardware and software to provide the ability to answer questions as soon as possible. Salkowski did not feel they could operate properly with two sets of records on the same topic (one set at the township and one at the County). Copies could be provided to one another, but he favored one unified record-keeping system to provide the best service to the public as possible. There are many things that can be done to assist those townships that want to perform planning and zoning. They are willing to work together with the townships to accommodate the taxpayers’ needs. Besides record keeping, Salkowski said transparency is important. If a township performs planning and zoning, they do need connections, particularly on building and sewer permits. If a building permit were issued by a township, the builder has a right to start the project. If the County does not find out until two weeks later, it would be unfair to stop a project if a problem were identified. Finally, the County has Sewer Inspectors and Building Inspectors on staff. Members of the township pay part of those salaries whether the township elects to use their services or not. Building and sewer permit fees do not finance an office. Taking building permit funds at the township level will not fund the township’s planning and zoning operation. The funds will go to the private building inspector the township will hire. Salkowski supported continuing to issue building and sewer permits at the County level. The County’s Planning and Zoning staff also completes the record keeping and answers the phones/questions. This would be preferred rather than the County referring a question to the township clerk who may not have a record system available. However, if the township wants to perform the planning and zoning, the County would agree to not issue permits until the township administrator has signed. They would also consult with the township prior to denial of a permit to make sure they are in agreement on the denial. A system could be established to accept the applications at the township with them being forwarded to the County. If the concern is the person does not want to drive to Buffalo to apply for a permit, there are methods which can be established in the township hall to accommodate that. In the past, Salkowski has found that many contractors (particularly those who work in more than one township) prefer to make application in Buffalo. Complaints were received on routing people back and forth between the County and township. If the township wants all applications to start at the township hall, a process could be established to get them to the County for review. A portion of the fee could be rebated to the township to cover their expense but it is relatively minor in comparison to the entire fee. By doing this, there would not be two sets of records. In the past, inquiries for Stockholm or Middleville Townships were referred to the Township. Some people had hard feelings when they were unable to reach a township representative and did not like being routed around. Salkowski suggested the permits come to the County and the County could field questions. If something needs to be referred to the township, they would continue to do so. In the case of Stockholm and Middleville Townships, the plan is for the County Planning & Zoning office to assist with incorporating records from those townships into the County’s records to develop a good history. This is very important to administering this properly. When making decisions on current proposals, the County needs to know if someone has a variance, divided property, or legal action pending. With regard to the Board of Adjustment (BOA), the law allows townships to set up their own BOA and authorize adjustments. In those situations and in order to be consistent with County administration, Salkowski recommended that all hearings be tape recorded and a proper record of the tape maintained. The County would set minimum standards on what the files will look like, as documents need to be retained from any hearing. A small portion of the hearing fee would be sent to the County. The County’s Planning & Zoning Office has the capability to scan and record documents, which will avoid the requirement for the township to duplicate this equipment. The files would also be incorporated into the County’s record system. Salkowski requested that the County receive notice and be provided a chance to comment on hearings. The same process would apply to C.U.P.’s except platted subdivisions. Mattson questioned whether the township’s BOA would have the final say or whether the County Board would be involved. Salkowski said that would depend on the township and the County’s Ordinance. He thought if the township were deemed the final authority, that would be the end of it. Municipal laws under which townships operate allow for city councils to have the final say on variances. This is very different than statutes which apply to the County, which reflect avoiding mixing politics and variances as much as possible, so that people are not handing out variances just prior to an election. The County statute sets up an independent body that the County Board appoints. It is forbidden that anyone but that independent quasi judicial board issues variances and the appeal to that is to District Court. In the township system, the township would decide how they set up the BOA. Once a decision is made, appeals would be to District Court. Sawatzke asked for Salkowski’s opinion on the reaction and response when a specific township begins to hand out variances and C.U.P.’s which are less strict than the County’s, and to the point where the goals and objectives of the Land Use Plan are not being met. Salkowski said the County would address this when it came up. As the County has always provided hearing notices to the township, he would ask to be notified of any hearings the township holds and be provided an opportunity to comment. If it became obvious that the way things were being administered at the township level were completely different, the County would either set up an agreement providing a method to work things out or it may require legal action. He was unsure whether this had been very well addressed in law or court cases. The law says the township must be consistent with the County’s Plan. What happens when things are not handled in this manner would be dependent upon the township board and the County Board. Sawatzke said C.U.P.’s would be a good example as issuance provides something significant. An example would be landfill approval. He felt a process needed to be in place if a township approved something that has a major impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Salkowski said this would be the purpose of the County receiving notice. It would provide an opportunity for the County to comment prior to the township taking action. If approval was granted on something that doesn’t comply with law, the County Board would have to decide whether to take legal action. In the case of a C.U.P. or variance being issued for something that is not allowed in the Plan, the County would notify the township prior to the hearing that what is proposed is not legal and cannot be done. The next step would be legal action. Sawatzke referenced variances that hold a 15% lot coverage rule. He questioned what would happen if variances were issued with 16.5% to 17% lot coverage on small lots or perhaps variances on property line setbacks. If variances differed from township to township, this would pose a problem. Salkowski did not see a way to address these things until they happened. His experience has been that township officers have many of the same concerns. He said this is all about partnership and working together. Zins said in terms of hierarchy, it is clear that rezoning should be consistent with what the County does. Townships could be allowed to do their own variances or C.U.P.’s based on details worked out in an agreement. It should be made clear in the County’s Ordinance that this is allowed and that the townships have personnel able to do this. There are also recording requirements in the County’s Ordinances to require townships to be accountable to the County on the process of granting C.U.P.’s and variances. In an extreme condition, there is a process for decertification. A hearing could be held at the County and the township would be informed they could no longer perform variances or C.U.P.’s. The law is loose in this regard but he supported the County setting up the framework early on, allowing the authority to go to the townships to the extent desired and then a mechanism would be in place to revoke that authority if things do not work our correctly. In a given instance where a township did something inconsistent with what the County felt was correct, there is not much recourse. Salkowski referenced a court case involving the issuance of a variance in another county. Basically, something was done contrary to State and local ordinances. The county stepped in and was successful in court. Zins suggested including mechanisms in the County’s Ordinance to deal with such issues to avoid court every time there is disagreement with a township. Zins said if the County’s Planning & Zoning Office is able to negotiate an agreement with a township on who is responsible within the framework of the office, then that will be the mechanism. Salkowski made it clear that the intent is to avoid litigation at all costs and to form a partnership with townships. He felt that they were to the point where the County and townships were working together in most cases. He could understand differences of opinion, but he did not feel that would serve anyone from a taxpayer’s point of view. They were trying to form the most efficient partnership to satisfy the township and also to maintain a professional system that is transparent. He said there has been a very effective partnership for many years with the townships. With regard to subdivisions, they are all treated as C.U.P.’s (particularly ones which are platted). The Planning Commission holds a hearing to review and approve the subdivision. There are a few which are administratively approved (lot line adjustment or 1 per 40’s). State law requires a plat to be signed by the County Board. In the case where a township would perform the C.U.P. approval and the preliminary plat was approved, Salkowski did not want the plat presented for Board approval only to have it denied. Although the County may authorize C.U.P. approval on the township level, a different process is required for subdivisions. Finally, they are recommending (based on law and case law) that the County be the final authority on rezoning. This is the only way to avoid two hearings (one at the township level and one at the County level). Salkowski said the Planning Commission in Wright County does not take action. The applicant could meet with the township and a recommendation would be made by the township board. There are some limitations due to the 60-day rule. If the township can justify the decision to deny a rezoning, they would have the authority to do that. Approval of a rezoning request requires a change to the County’s zoning map. The only body authorized to change the map is the County Board, as it is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Essentially, Salkowski said they would like to start with Stockholm and Middleville Townships, who are already performing planning and zoning. Zins was of the opinion that the Ordinance would need to be updated so the County’s position is clear. There should also be some type of agreement with the two townships. What is being sought is County Board consensus that this is the set of concepts used to resolve issues with Stockholm and Middleville Townships. This would set the pattern to use with other townships. Sawatzke said this gives the township the opportunity to participate in the process yet with the incorporation of a general set of rules that apply county wide. There has been some concern raised that these rules will play out in practice. Russek said whatever is done, there will be one map or set of rules for the townships to follow. They cannot have different townships doing different things. He did not have a problem with the outline as proposed. Heeter inquired what amendments will be required to the Ordinance. Zins said that right now, it is assumed that the County does all of these functions. The County would basically be in better shape having changes enshrined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance would reflect the type of mechanism that accommodates a partnership with the township if they decide to perform their own planning and zoning. Each township would follow the rules as outlined. Right now there is no mechanism in the Ordinance for townships to do their own planning and zoning, although it is an authorized option in State law. Salkowski said State statute gives a general overview but it is up to the County to make it work on a day-to-day basis. This type of partnership was viewed as the best way to pursue how to serve taxpayers. If done right, it will work very well. Salkowski noted that the expected revenue for permits did not meet the goal last year or this year, as the building industry is way down. Zins felt that a draft Ordinance could be presented at a future Committee Of The Whole meeting. Salkowski said Stockholm and Middleville Townships may have commitments and contractual agreements where a Memorandum of Understanding or Joint Powers Agreement will be drafted to carry the County for a short period of time. John Jones, Silver Creek Township Supervisor, supported bringing discussion on township planning and zoning to the newly formed Township/County meeting. Mattson responded that agendas for those meetings are based upon questions sent in by townships so that the appropriate personnel are available to answer questions. Salkowski said that he has good relations with most township officers. Some indicate they want to perform their own planning and zoning and others would not. What Salkowski plans to do is to send those interested townships a revised summary of what was presented today. The next step would be to talk with the township officials. Salkowski said if a township makes the decision to become a city (there has been some limited interest), that is different from what was discussed today. Recommendation: The Committee consensus was to support the outline of proposed steps for Township/County relations in those townships that desire to administer their own planning and zoning programs. These steps will be refined and sent to townships who have expressed an interest. (End of Planning Committee of the Whole Minutes and discussion).

At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendations made by the Planning Committee of the Whole. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Mattson.

Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, stated that following the Building Committee’s concerns, a heat survey was done at the Human Services Center (HSC) building with an infrared camera. It confirmed the Committee’s suspicion that the floor is the source of cold infiltration, not the walls. Several fixes were proposed, however the best solution would be to insulate the HSC building slab. Hayes has received two quotes for the work. Ernst has provided a quote of $11,050 to add 24” of rigid insulation around the base of the slab; part of which would be below grade along the North and East sides. McDowall has provided a quote of $11,870 which does not include the excavation or backfill work. McDowall does not want to do any of the excavating. The work can be done any time after the frost is out.

Eichelberg asked if the slab and bituminous along the North and East sides would have to be cut. Hayes stated yes. Sawatzke asked Hayes who had proposed foam insulation as the best “fix”. Hayes stated that several trusted contractors have been consulted and it is common knowledge that exposed concrete readily transports cold temperatures. Sawatzke asked how thick the insulation would be. Hayes stated that the insulation would be 2” thick. If the insulation was much thicker than 2” it will protrude from the building. Sawatzke and Russek both stated they are not convinced that insulating the exposed concrete would alleviate the cold problems. Hayes stated that it has been identified how the cold is coming into the building, and the building has some inherent limitations with regard to creating an overall fix. Norman informed the Board that other measures have been taken at HSC to help alleviate the cold temperatures within the building. A full engineering study could be performed at a high cost in order to produce a long-term solution. Russek confirmed that the building was not designed for office space, but as a retail site.

Eichelberg moved to approve the work and grant the $11,050 contact to Ernst construction. Norman stated this would be coded to Budget 100, Site Improvements. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Sawatzke proposed insulating only one side of the building this year and follow up with infrared photos again next year to determine if insulating the concrete is the proper fix. He asked if the foam insulation would be exposed and whether anything would be applied to the insulation as a protectant. Hayes stated that the insulation would be placed two feet down along side of the foundation, of which 8” would be exposed. Hayes clarified that the ground can freeze up to 42” deep. The insulation would not have a protective covering. Sawatzke questioned whether the insulation would be friction fit against the bottom of the building. Hayes clarified that the insulation would be caulked. Russek agreed that concrete is poor insulating material. The motion carried 4-1 with Heeter casting the nay vote. Heeter stated that she’s not convinced that this will fix the problem. She clarified that she does want a good working environment for County employees, however questioned whether any other solutions have been thought about. Sawatzke stated that he’d like an assurance that this is the best “fix”.

Bills Approved

Albertville Body Shop Inc.. $607.67

AMI Imaging Systems, Inc 124.10

Ancom Technical Center 166.33

Aramark Corr. Services 5,317.04

Auto Glass Center Inc. 243.68

Auto Garage Door & Firepl. 111.30

George Bakeberg 544.16

Bebeau, Brian 3,400.00

Jean Bresin 195.00

Darnell Brethorst 112.04

Buffalo Auto Alignment 688.00

Business Ware Solutions 321.84

Carver Co. Treasurer 4,358.85

Center Point Energy 6,200.57

Centra Sota Lake Region 24,584.23

Comm. of Transportation 939.53

Concrete Paving Assoc. MN 150.00

Country Inn 164.26

H Cragg Co. 8,626.50

Ralph Douglas 515.06

Joyce Farrell 1,100.00

Firstlab 195.00

Fred Pryor Seminars 358.00

Gateway Companies Inc. 1,315.27

GCS Service Inc. 141.50

Gilson Company Inc. 775.44

Gould Towing 133.13

Grainger 624.71

Granite City Cash Register 123.14

Hay Group 448.00

Amy Hertzog 291.00

Hirshfields Dec. Center 174.62

Neal Huemoeller 330.77

Integrated Fire & Security 1,177.81

Intereum Inc. 471.92

Interstate Battery Systems 769.52

Junction Towing/Auto Repair 316.84

Cheryl Klinger 300.00

LaPlant Demo Inc. 731.15

Lawson Products Inc. 390.80

Mainstream Properties 11,700.00

Maple Lake Lumber Co. 169.42

Marco 220.00

Marco Business Products 4,076.63

Michael Minnick 182.62

Mobile Vision 230.61

Motorola Communications 406.21

Municipal Software 12,400.00

Jeffrey Namie 5,848.50

Nextel Communications 2,706.00

Office Depot 2,574.89

Opal Correction Group 422.50

Plansight LLC 11,420.00

Reds Auto Electric 173.83

RS Eden 7,258.25

Ryan Motors Inc. 487.00

Scenic Signs 592.08

Setina Mfg. Co. Inc. 189.71

Software House Int’l 247.08

Spectrum Solutions 645.00

Sprint 162.18

SRF Consulting Group Inc. 4,366.62

State of MN-Office Enterpr. 965.00

State Supply Co. 280.36

T & M Towing/Snow Plowing 181.06

Tech Depot 1,276.91

Total Printing 146.44

Univ. of Minnesota 384.63

Unlimited Electric Inc. 236.58

Varner Sheet Metal Inc. 123.50

C Walker Trucking 1,600.00

Walmart Store 01-1577 656.07

Westside Equipment 1,430.37

Wright Co. Auditor/Treas. 2,329.23

Wright Co. Hwy. Dept. 28,169.62

Wright Hennepin Electric 637.72

Xcel Energy 1,573.96

Zack’s Inc. 1,112.71

32 Payments less than $100 1,602.85

Final total $176,724.92

The meeting adjourned at 10:23 A.M

Published in the Herald Journal April 30, 2007.