Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 15, 2008
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 1-08-08 were corrected as follows: Page 1, 4th paragraph, remove last word “revised” (Norman). Heeter moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Russek, carried unanimously.
On a motion by Russek, 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:
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Performance Appraisals: W. Marschel, Aud./Treas.; K. Davis, R. Mossman, Sheriff.
2. Claim, Prairie Country RC&D, $8,353.00.
3. O/T Report, Period Ending 12-28-07.
4. Claim, Frank Madden, $7,051.48.
B. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. 2008 Tobacco License Renewals: Hawk’s Sports Bar, Cub Foods Monticello #31444 (Monticello City).
C. SHERIFF
1. Refer To Building Committee Request To Add Two Additional Access Gates To Impound Area @ County Shop Location.
Denise McCalla, Chief Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, referenced Page 1 of the handout reflecting two claims to be paid from the Administration Department budget: MN Assn of County Administrators ($260) and MN City-County Management Assn ($105). Both claims reflect “Norman Registration” but the claims are actually for Membership Renewals. Mattson referenced Page 10, Aramark Correctional Services reflecting a billing of $1,000 for services from 11-07-07 to 11-28-07 and questioned why the billing would be this late. McCalla will research the claim and report back to Mattson. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 1-09-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Russek. Russek questioned why the recommendation was to hire KKE Architects to provide an analysis of the area when Buetow & Associates were utilized in the past for interior architectural work. Norman said KKE Architects was suggested to expedite the process as KKE has staff in Buffalo almost weekly due to the Jail/LEC project. Mattson added that the County has retained the building plans that Buetow updated. Heeter and Mattson supported the request to proceed with KKE Architects. The motion carried 5-0 to approve the minutes and recommendations:
Administration Department Remodeling. Included in the 2008 Budget is authorization to hire one Administrative Clerk in the Administration Department. Remodel of the Department is required to accommodate the new staff person. Norman requested two positions in the Budget but was authorized for one. At the Committee Meeting, he requested that the remodel address space needs for an additional staff member as well. The remodel will only accommodate the Administration Department short term. With the upcoming relocation of the Jail and Sheriff Department to the new site, he encouraged the scheduling of a Committee Of The Whole Meeting to discuss long-term space needs of the County. The Committee can address the vacated space as well as the future of the Courts.
The goal of the Administration Department remodel is to:
• Create workspace for staff
• Provide for future growth (2+ years)
• Structure the Department to accommodate working together
• Provide security
Norman said a remodel would also address confidentiality issues. At times, the current layout does not provide what staff feels is an adequate setting. Several options for expansion were discussed. The Department currently occupies space on both sides of the corridor. If the hallway were closed from the mezzanine to the security door access to Courts, the Department could expand into that space. This would provide opportunity to accommodate additional staff, address security issues, and allow the Department to function in one area. Another option would be to expand into the stairwell that leads to the Commissioners Conference Room, closing that stairwell. Future expansion would be dependent on whether Courts was relocated to the new Jail/LEC site. If this did occur, Administration could expand into Courtroom 6 and possibly into a portion of the vacated Jail recreation area. Heating and ventilation needs to be addressed in a portion of the office area as it is linked to Courtroom 6. In order to provide comfortable conditions in the Courtroom, it adversely affects the office area making it cold. Norman requested authorization to hire KKE Architects to provide an analysis of the area. Recommendation: Authorize hire of KKE Architects at a not-to-exceed cost of $2,500. Funding from Site Improvements. (End of Building Committee Minutes)
An Owner’s Committee Meeting was held on 1-08-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, the following changes were made to the minutes: Page 1, Members Present, change from “”Russek” to “Heeter” (Sawatzke); Page 1, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence, change from “1-21-07” to “1-21-08” (Mattson). Mattson moved to approve the minutes as corrected including the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried unanimously:
A&P.
A. PROJECT UPDATE: A&P. Streich stated that the Jail/LEC project has gone 165 days without an accident or loss time. The structural steel, including the decking, is being set in Area A. Following completion of Area A, mid week of 1-14-08, the work will continue in Area B. The in-floor radiant heat, Styrofoam, and underground work, is being placed in the LEC garage. Pouring of the slab on grade will begin on 1-15-08. Completion of the garage roofing will take place on 1-09-08. The roof blocking continues. Mechanical hangers will be installed in Area A on Monday, 1-14-08. The scaffolding is being placed on grid K of Area C. The masonry walls will be poured as they are the load bearing walls for the precast. The precast walls will be set in Areas B & C. The precast cells will be delivered on 1-18-08. Upon approval, the setting of the first precast cell will take place on 1-21-08. Four additional cells will then be delivered so that the precast roof can be set and completed down to Areas C & F. Heeter asked how the cells would be delivered. Blotske stated that the cells would be transported via truck from Topeka, Kansas. She stated that Old Castle had notified A&P last week that they made a corporate decision to deliver the cells from Kansas, rather than Ramsey, Minnesota. Heeter asked how many cells could be transported on a truck. Streich stated that one unit (2 cells) weighing 64,000 pounds is transported per truck. Streich added that there are 129 units. Heeter questioned the transport costs and whether it would be passed onto the County. Blotske stated no as the County has a signed contract with Old Castle and they made the decision to change the transportation location. Sawatzke asked if the Owner’s Committee is still invited to view the cell. Blotske stated that scheduled delivery of the first unit of cells is on 1-18-08. On 1-21-08, the contractors and County representatives would be invited to view the cell. Sawatzke asked if Old Castle would wait to construct the other units until after the approval of the first cell. Blotske stated yes.
B. PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER #013, PNEUMATIC TUBE SYSTEM, INTERIOR ARCH. WOODWORK, AND GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES. Blotske presented a proposed change order (PCO #013) for an addition to the pneumatic tube system, at a cost of $13,235.26. Buikema stated the decision to add a pneumatic tube system was in result of discussions with Pat O’Malley and Todd Hoffman. The system is to send warrant information quickly from the Dispatch Center to the Intake/Booking desk within the Jail. Sawatzke asked how often the system would be accessed. Hoffman stated that there are approximately 5-7 arrests made each day. Hoffman stated that by law, the arrested individual is supposed to receive the hard copy of the warrant. He explained that the majority of warrants are received after 4:30 p.m. when staffing is minimal. In review of the plans, there were approximately seven locked doors between Booking and Dispatch. The amount of time it would take a staff person to walk the warrant down to the Jail would be time consuming. The long term solution of incorporating this system is quite inexpensive. Heeter asked if the $13,235.26 cost incorporated all of the installation and system costs. Blotske stated yes. Torfin explained that the costs incorporate the additional cabinetry to hold the unit, additional sheet rocking, and electrical. Norman asked if the cost includes 40’ of piping. Buikema stated yes as it also includes the cost of the remote blower power unit which supplies the air pressure. The system is to send documents from second floor to first floor and perpendicular for forty feet. Heeter stated that it appears the pneumatic tube system would pay for itself in staff time. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed and approve PCO #013, Change Issue: BP#3 PR 006 – Pneumatic Tube System, Interior Arch. Woodwork, Gypsum Board Assemblies. Blotske stated that PCO #020 is to add 1 1/2” of rigid insulation at the roof parapet walls. The insulation is required in order to provide a complete roofing system and was excluded in the scope for Bid Category 6A Miscellaneous Carpentry. The value of the PCO is $14,880.00. Heeter asked what a parapet wall is. Streich stated that it is a 2’ extension of the wall above the roof level that goes around the perimeter of the building. Sawatzke asked if the insulation comes in 4’x8’ sheets. Streich stated yes. He questioned the quantity of the sheets needed to complete the work. Blotske stated that the insulation would encompass 9,600 square feet. Sawatzke questioned why PCO #’s 14 – 19 had not been presented to the Owner’s Committee. Blotske stated that PCOs are “potential change orders” and are not presented to the Owner’s Committee until she has a chance to secure pricing, address open issues, and have it reviewed by KKE. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed and approve PCO #020, Change Issue: BP#3, 1 1/2” rigid Insulation at Parapet Wall.
Norman asked if Blotske maintained a running tally of the contingency amount. Blotske stated that the budget for contingencies is $1,095,029.79 and the total of the approved change orders is $15,340.00 (this amount does not include PCOs). The change order total amount includes two large credits.
Buikema stated that he would like to forewarn the Committee that there would be a similar PCO for insulation in the near future. He described the PCO as an oversight as the drawings indicated insulation beneath the first floor heat piping. Torfin clarified that the drawings and specifications showed the insulation at the time of the concrete bids, which was bid out early. However, the information was not presented later in the bid package for building insulation.
Hayes asked if the in-floor heating is a zoned system with controls and a manifold. Buikema stated yes. Hayes asked if there is a boiler and if the geo-thermal system would be maintaining the in-floor heating. Buikema stated yes. Hayes asked if there is a supplemental system (i.e. radiators) for the cold days. Buikema explained that the floor and the air would be providing the cooling and heating. The in-floor heat would be placed as a ten foot strip around the interior perimeter of the building. Heeter asked for clarification on whether the entire main floor area would not be heated. Blotske stated that she could bring a set of drawings that would show how the in-floor heating would be laid out. She clarified that the entire garage floor would be heated.
Blotske alerted the Committee that a potential credit of approximately $7,000 would be presented to the Committee at a future Owner’s Meeting. Buikema explained that KKE’s engineers redesigned the penthouse over the direct supervision housing to ease the duct work routing. With the help of A&P, it was determined that by moving the penthouse to the outside wall and lowering it a bit, installation of the duct work would be easier, fewer fire dampers would be needed, and the amount of siding would be less on the smaller sized penthouse.
KKE ARCHITECTS.
A. PROJECT UPDATE: KKE ARCHITECTS. Buikema stated that KKE is working on shop drawings, and reviewing the hardware. Hoffman and Torfin will review the information. KKE is working on the windows and will be looking at the dimensions. KKE is also working on a Proposal Request, which was discussed by Randy Lindemann at the 12-11-07 Owner’s Committee. The second tier of cells is not able to support the weight of the stairs. Apparently, the balcony is not strong enough and the stairs will need to be reconfigured. Heeter asked if the modification would be a significant cost. Buikema stated that the total cost at this time is unknown. Buikema alerted the Committee of an issue with the underground storm sewer system. He explained that the State is not in agreement with how the system was built. There is an issue with the seals between the piping that comes into the catch basin. He stated that the work was approved by the City. The State has changed their interpretation of the code. KKE is developing its argument against the interpretation. Blotske added that the State, as of 7-01-07, determined that they now want a rubber boot (gasket seal) to be installed throughout the storm sewers. This boot is to prevent runoff from the parking lot to run directly into the ground. Blotske stated that currently the system is designed to take the runoff into a holding pond. Buikema stated that the State has never enforced a boot prior to 7-01-07. They determined that they needed to start enforcing their code a month after KKE submitted the plans for review. If the State stands fast on their determination, approximately sixteen manholes would have to be dug up and redone. KKE is attempting to resolve this before the project reaches the point of landscaping and parking lot pavement. Heeter asked Buikema when he anticipates this to be resolved. Buikema stated that he foresees a meeting to take place within a month. Sawatzke asked if KKE had designed the system in a way that was inconsistent with State code. Buikema stated that it is not as simple as that. The problem lies in the State’s interpretation of its code. Buikema explained that KKE’s engineers have designed all of its other systems just as this project had been designed. The boot product has only recently been designed. Norman asked Buikema for clarification on the timing of the code in relation to submitting the plans. Buikema stated that KKE submitted the sewer system plan to the State Plumbing Inspection Department. Blotske stated that A&P received a letter, with comments, from the State six weeks later. The project was completed and the City had approved the installation. Blotske further explained that when Annandale Contracting called their supplier about the boot, their supplier had not heard of the boot product and was unaware it was a requirement of the State. Buikema added that Annandale Contracting has never built a sewer system using the boot product. Heeter requested that Buikema keep the Committee abreast of further developments. Heeter also asked if there is anything that the Board could do. Blotske stated that A&P has a letter from the City that states that this should be absolved by City requirements. The State never inspects its sewer projects and leaves it to the local jurisdiction. Sawatzke stated that he does not see the County being liable for this situation. The County has hired enough professionals to design the project appropriately. It should have been designed, installed, and inspected correctly.
B. CLAIM, CITY OF BUFFALO, $53,671.58. Buikema stated that Lenox Browne, EDI, had explained to the Committee on 10-16-07 that the City of Buffalo was requesting that the County share the installation costs of the electrical service and transformer. Buikema presented a claim for $53,671.58 for the County’s portion. Sawatzke asked if this cost was carried in the construction budget. Blotske stated that she had not included this as part of the construction costs. Buikema explained that the original estimate was for $47,693.95. Due to the relocation of the building further down the hill to save gravel, additional cabling was required. In addition, the City had to take the utility across the street to a power pole. The City’s portion of the utility cost was $42,429.58. The County also asked for installation of data cabling, which is not a City cost. Hayes asked if the City formally owns the transformer. He questioned whether the City would be responsible for replacing the transformer if it were to go out. Buikema stated that he was not sure of the answer. He stated that the transformer only services the County’s project. Hayes expressed concern on who would be responsible for servicing the transformer, as the cost of the transformer alone was $37,133.36. RECOMMENDATION: Approval to pay claim from City of Buffalo for $53,671.58.
Hayes stated that Intereum has completed the drawings for the physical layouts of the modular furniture. The Sheriff’s department is currently reviewing the drawings. Intereum will then be putting together the cost estimate once they have a chance to inventory the County’s current product. A&P has requested the layouts so that they can report on the electrical conduits; the wiring will be brought in through the floor. Norman asked if bringing the wiring up through the floors would take away the ability to move furniture and equipment around. Hayes stated that he believes that there would be some constraint with moving equipment significantly. Buikema stated that KKE would be roughing out the electrical. He confirmed that the County would be limited to change the equipment layout. However, a pole for electric could be installed without much difficulty. Norman asked if the proposed layout matches what the County currently has within its office spaces. Sawatzke stated that three options were presented to the Committee. The Committee approved one layout that is similar to what the County currently uses.
Heeter presented the claim from Phasor Electric Co. that was approved pending Owner’s Committee review at the 1-08-08 Board Meeting. The claim is for $110,200.00. Sawatzke stated that it appeared that the claim was suitable for payment. Norman clarified that the County Board approved the claim contingent on the Owner’s Committee recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Approval to pay claim for Phasor Electric Co. for $110,200.00. (End of Owner’s Committee Minutes)
Greg Kramber, Assessor, requested the dates be set for the 2008 County Board of Appeal and Equalization. State law reflects that the meetings can be held on any ten consecutive meeting dates in June, after the second Friday in June. The County Board of Appeal and Equalization cannot exceed the maximum length of ten consecutive meeting days but can adjourn if the work is completed in a shorter time frame. Russek moved to establish the 2008 County Board of Equalization Meetings to commence on 6-16-08 @ 9:00 A.M., seconded by Heeter. The motion and second were amended to include the alternate date of 6-18-08 @ 9:00 A.M. The motion carried 5-0.
Lt. Greg Howell, Sheriff Department, presented a request to increase the mileage reimbursement fee for the Civil Process Division. The rate is currently set at $.40 and is charged back when people are served. Norman suggested that the fee be set at the Federal reimbursement rate of $.505/mile. Norman consulted with Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, who indicated that the fee change does not require a public hearing as the Sheriff is authorized to set certain fees. Russek made a motion for the Mileage Reimbursement Fee for the Civil Process Division follow the reimbursement rate set by the County which follows the Federal reimbursement rate. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson had concern that government raises the reimbursement rate to protect themselves while others may not have protection within contracts. Sawatzke responded that the IRS rules apply to private businesses as well. The motion carried 5-0.
Charles Marohn, Community Growth Institute, was scheduled on the Agenda to discuss Corinna Township’s procedures for administering land use regulations. Peter Tiede, Attorney at Law from Murnane Brandt, said he was representing Corinna Township and asked to speak today. Townships doing their own zoning can be an emotional and difficult subject. He has addressed this issue with a number of counties and now is assisting Corinna Township. Tiede explained that Corinna Township wants to approach the issue in a cooperative way but wants to exercise their authority to do planning and zoning inside and outside of shoreland areas. Tiede did not feel there was any debate that the Township has the authority to do planning and zoning per Chapters 394 and 462 of State Statutes. Also, the Township has slightly different authority and perhaps elevated authority with regard to dual permitting per DNR Shoreland Rules. Tiede said coordinating this and getting this going has been difficult. His experience is that battling over the issue doesn’t benefit either side. Lawsuits are expensive, slow, and don’t serve any purpose, particularly in this case where there is not a legal dispute or not one that he was aware of. Double permitting is not a great situation as it slows the process down and is more costly to residents. As explained to other townships and is the situation in this case, there will be a relationship between Wright County and Corinna Township. No one is going anywhere so the goal would be to keep that a good relationship and avoid the fight which it seems to be steering toward. He did not feel there was any debate that the Township can do what it intends to do, but the Township feels they are getting resistance to that concept. Tiede said there are two planes upon which this issue gets debated. There is the political question - should the Township do this, why do they want to do this, and is it a good idea to do this? Tiede said the County has been asking these questions and they are legitimate questions. He encouraged the County to keep asking questions if those are the concerns. The other question is whether the Township can do this. At this point the Township has decided to do so. Tiede was present to ask for acknowledgement from the Board that the Township can do this. He was not asking the Board to not try to talk the Township out of it. He felt this was a very fair debate to have. The Township wants some type of instruction from the County Board to the staff to try and work this out as the Township intends to do this. The process can move forward in a cooperative way which has been done elsewhere in the State, or everyone can go forward in a less cooperative way which is a lot more expensive. The taxpayers are the ones stuck with paying the lawyers bills along with those seeking permits who get caught up in the middle of who has the authority. Tiede was present to provide the Board with information on where the Township is coming from and to diffuse the rising tension. He hoped that the Board would set a direction that is cooperative with the Township and acknowledge that the Township has the power to go forward. Tiede said there are other towns in the County that are doing similar things and Corinna intends to as well. Specific requests are set forth in the letter from Mr. Marohn dated 1-11-08. The more general thing is to set up a cooperative arrangement. That may have been a little bit derailed but he wanted that to get back on track. If this is not done, the only thing that will come out ahead will be the legal fees.
Russek asked whether Tiede was aware of the comments made by Mr. Marohn at the Township Officer’s Meeting held last week in front of about 50 Town Board members. Tiede affirmed that he has heard the tape. Russek said the County Board has always intended to work with Corinna Township to improve relations. The County realizes the Township has the ability to do their own planning and zoning and there was no attempt to stop them. The County needs to make sure this is done right so the Township and County can work together in harmony without going to court. Russek referenced the speech given by Marohn at the Township Officer’s Meeting, which was very demeaning to the County’s Planning & Zoning. In conversations with commissioners from other counties, he understands that Wright County’s system is admired. He felt Marohn’s comments did not help the situation and were unfair. To settle the issue, Russek proposed removing everyone from the picture but the County Board and Township Supervisors and they can work it out. He did not like the Township and County having to pay attorneys. He felt this could be resolved working with the Township Board. The County has been doing Planning & Zoning for years and can assist the Township on what is needed. The County needs to make sure the Township’s planning is completed in a fashion compatible with the County’s Plan, per State Statutes. Russek said when someone has animosity against the County like the speech indicated last week, it does not improve matters. Many other township supervisors attended the Township Officer’s Meeting last week and came out of the meeting questioning what was going on. Russek restated that the Township Board and the County Board should get together to settle this issue.
Tiede said he respected Russek’s comments. One of the reasons he was speaking today was to push the issue to a different track. Tiede spoke with Mr. Marohn and did not feel his intention was to cause trouble. However, if that was the result they needed to get past that. He would need to speak with the Township Board but felt they would sit down as Russek suggested. He felt it was a great idea for the County Board and Township Board to meet and remove all of the consultants and lawyers from the room. He felt the policy makers should set policy. He felt this was a no nonsense way to cut to the chase and get something done.
Russek said the County needs proof that the Township will meet State Statutes and that what they do is compatible with the County’s Plan. He felt Commissioner Heeter was in an awkward position, representing Corinna Township and also being a member of the County Board. Russek stated that this will be worked out with Corinna Township, if the Town Board can just get together with the County Board. Tiede said all Board members are in that position because all taxpayers are funding the lawyers.
Sawatzke questioned whether Tiede had a chance to review the correspondence between Wright County and Corinna Township. Tiede felt he had seen all of it. Sawatzke asked him to explain why the County’s repeated efforts to obtain public data have not been fulfilled. Tiede’s understanding was that the Township feels they have sent everything that has been requested. He knew the County has indicated they have not received everything requested. That is the type of thing that should not be in this discussion. There should not be a problem with obtaining public data. Sawatzke concurred and said when people and organizations want data, it should be provided. Tiede agreed and said if there are things the County feels they have not received, copies can be provided. The Township also requested data in the recent past and the County’s response is that it will not be sent. Those are things that need to be worked out. If there are things that the County has requested that are public data, copies should be provided. Similarly, he felt the Township should obtain the data requested. Sawatzke asked what data was being requested. As he did not have the letter outlining the request, Tiede was unsure. However, he felt it related to certain information on the County history of permits. Admittedly, it was a lot of information. Sawatzke said the request by the Township related to things that would take thousands of man hours to retrieve. The County is requesting copies of things which, to a great extent, should be readily available. Tiede said if there are public document requests that the County has not received, copies should be provided. The Township offered to send someone over to copy the documents they requested and has received resistance. Those are the types of things that are not efficient in trying to work this out. Tiede referenced Russek’s suggestion to meet, without lawyers, in an effort to get something done. Mattson was unable to attend the Township Officers Meeting held last week but said he was looking forward to reading the minutes of the meeting.
John Baker has been hired by the County as legal counsel. Today, Baker referenced the 1-11-08 letter from Marohn which reflects the Township is seeking two things. The first states, “we will be seeking an acknowledgement from you that Corinna Township has the right to assume local zoning control, at least within the shoreland areas, that is completely autonomous, free from threats of double permitting.” Baker said there are two aspects, one involves the general authority of the Township. In cases of conflict, which has been established in Olmstead County, the County has supremacy under those circumstances. The only new twist is the shoreland areas and whether they are autonomous. What the regulation says is that the County has a special role as to what can be done. Rule 6120.3900, subpart 4, says the Township must demonstrate to the County Board that their proposed ordinance and their administration are at least as restrictive as the Counties prior to final adoption by the Township. It further states that the Township must provide for administration and enforcement of shoreland management controls as least as effective as the County provides. To help shed light on what that means, the DNR (who manages shoreland regulations) provides interpretive advice. County staff asked the DNR whether this would give the Township autonomy within the shoreland areas. The County received response back from the DNR. Dale Homuth, DNR, said it was not the intent of MN Rules 6120.3900, subpart 4, to give the Township the right to override any more restrictive requirements in the County Zoning Ordinance including those requirements that are not shoreland related. They attached a SONAR (Statement Of Needs And Reasonableness) for the 1989 Shoreland Rules. The SONAR is something an agency drafts when they are promulgating regulations and has two purposes. One purpose is to assist judges who are looking at the rules and are trying to determine whether or not they should go into effect. They can make a determination of what the rules are trying to accomplish and whether what is in the regulations is a reasonable way of getting there. The second purpose is to explain the objectives behind these regulations so that later when people are trying to figure out whether to interpret one way or another, there is some insight.
Baker referenced information which was distributed on Shoreland Management by Townships. On page 72, bottom of the page, there is an explanation by the DNR of the purpose of the regulation. What is nice is that it explains the background on why County approval is required first and it also sets forth the test that could be applied before making a determination whether the Township has satisfied its responsibility. It says, “Townships have exerted their authority to zone in a number of instances, some with a great deal of success and others with very little success when measured against the purposes of the shoreland program. The problem with the zoning authority of townships is a issue of capability and accountability. The shoreland program is not a small undertaking for a local unit of government when you consider all components of the program.” On page 73 it further states, “In most instances, rural townships do not have the financial capability to administer an ordinance meeting statewide standards.” In terms of explanation for what the test is Baker cited, “The rule reasonably proposes to establish accountability for the future administration of the program. The rule would require a township to demonstrate to the county that the township ordinance is at least as restrictive as the county’s and that the township has equal or greater capability, staffing expertise and financial capability, to administer the program.” Baker said it is far from simply adopting the County’s ordinance, they must demonstrate to the County their capabilities and not just that they have capabilities, but that they are equal or greater than those of the County. He felt the appropriate next step would be to have Salkowski address the comparative capabilities of what the County has to offer with regard to these areas versus what the County’s understanding is from the Township’s description of what they would plan to do if the Board would give them what they have asked for today.
Tom Salkowski, County Planning & Zoning Administrator, did not feel it was possible to have a complete debate and discussion particularly because of what happened at the Township Officer’s Meeting last week. He extended thanks to all of the township officers he has heard from since last Wednesday and said it is nice to know the County has their support and encouragement. He felt it showed today how well Marohn’s call to arms went over with the Township Officers Association. Salkowski said he would not spend a lot of time comparing and contrasting Wright County and Mr. Marohn, as he does not know Marohn’s operation other than what they have been told.
Salkowski wanted to address the second request from the Township requesting the County Board to form a committee comprised of two Commissioners and County staff. Also submitted was a proposed agenda for a series of meetings lasting at least 12 hours. Salkowski said in regard to the second request in Mr. Marohn’s January 11 letter, we must recommend that the County Board not spend any more County resources on the series of meetings with the agenda proposed by Mr. Marohn, for the following reasons. Despite the claim by Mr. Marohn that they are prepared to cooperate with the County in good faith and honesty, those of you who witnessed the degrading assault on the County Board and your staff launched at the meeting last Wednesday night obviously know better. If last Wednesday night was any indication of what Mr. Marohn and the township consider good faith and honest cooperation, Wright County does not need any more of it. Wright County operates a local, “one-stop” permitting and information facility for all Township residents in those townships who choose to partner with the County for planning services. Being located in the Courthouse is vitally important for immediate access to all property records. We have qualified staff for building inspection, sewer inspection, planning, zoning, feedlot regulation and other services available to work with people face to face during normal business hours. Our building inspection office regularly sponsors educational seminars for local builders which assists them with maintaining their State contractor’s licenses. All of our employees regularly work directly with County residents on a wide variety of important issues, on a personal level and with success. The County Board believes that the provision of these services is an important factor in maintaining the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of all County residents. DNR regulations require the County Board to determine that a township which aspires to administer shoreland rules provide these services at a level at or superior to the County. So far, Mr. Marohn and the township have failed to make any case that they approach our standards. The County made a very generous offer to act in partnership with the Township for zoning and building administration almost a year ago at the end of March. We believe that the proposal would save the taxpayers significant funds, provide a clearly needed system of checks and balances, and also provide the Town Board with the maximum amount of decision-making authority allowed by State law. We do not know if Mr. Marohn has ever properly and completely explained this proposal to the Town Board, but we do know that we have never had a direct response. If the Town Board wants to discuss the implementation of that proposal, further meetings may be worthwhile. If not, the County’s position is in writing and it is very clear. It is up to Mr. Marohn and the Township to provide an adequate and appropriate response. So far, the response received is what was seen at the Township Officer’s Meeting last week. He apologized as a planner that the Board had to sit through that.
Tiede said he did not take issue with any of Baker’s comments. He felt Baker provided a nice legal presentation and that the Township is trying to live within exactly those parameters. With regard to Salkowski’s comments, he did not feel it helped to debate the ins and outs of that any further. Salkowski acknowledged he did not know Marohn’s operation so Tiede felt it was premature to decide whether it is possible to do it as well or not. He will strongly recommend to the Township to take Commissioner Russek up on the offer to set up a meeting (that doesn’t feature anyone that has talked today or Mr. Marohn) and let the decision makers make the call. He said it is a policy recommendation at the end of the day. There are legal questions and policy questions. If the County Board sets the policy and the Township Board sets the policy, the remainder of those involved can figure out how to make it work legally within the broad parameters so that everyone understands.
Russek said he made the offer for the County Board and Township Board to meet. The County Board could lay out clearly what is needed in order for them to do their own planning and zoning. He did not have opposition to the request but felt it needed to be done right so it works in harmony and no one is sued at a later date for improper procedures. Sawatzke did not oppose the idea but said the County has already provided to them to a great extent what they can hope to accomplish. They would be given all the authority that Statutes provide with the County keeping the authority that Statute allows as well. There has been no response to that offer and he felt there should be one. Russek felt the way to obtain a response would be to sit down and discuss this with the Township Board. Information was requested from the Township that has not been received. If the Township wants to meet with the County, Russek said the County was willing to do so. Sawatzke said the County has been asked to make a decision on shoreland, as to whether or not the County would turn that over. He wanted to know if that was correct, are there deadlines for response, and what the County’s requirements were. He felt they outlined well what was needed to be determined (whether the Township has equal or greater capability, staffing, expertise, and financial capability to administer the program). Sawatzke stated that it seemed as though the Township attorney agreed this is something that the County has to conclude. This was quite a tall order considering what the County has for services, staffing, and professional expertise. He was unsure whether the Township could meet that. Based on the information the County has been provided, he did not feel they had that capability. He would need more information to think otherwise. Baker felt this was correct. He said the County has been asked by the Township to acknowledge something that the County can’t legally bless unless there has been a certain kind of showing. That showing has not been made and without this, it was Baker’s view that what they are asking for is something the County cannot give, consistent with regulations and particularly as explained in the SONAR. Under those circumstances, the Township has implicitly answered the question for the County. That acknowledgement, both from a legal and factual basis, is not something the County can grant on this record. Sawatzke asked whether the County should respond with a “no” or whether the item should be laid over until there is more information. Baker responded that this is within the County’s discretion. Until there is an attempt to make a showing, it is not really right to put the question before the Board.
Tiede referenced the 1-11-08 letter from Marohn. The Township hasn’t asked the County to rescind its shoreline ordinance, to approve the town going forward, or state they have met the criteria. All the letter states is an acknowledgement that the Township has the right or power. That is all that has been requested. Whether they choose to make a motion or not today would be up to the Board. He wanted to point out that the letter doesn’t say, “Please approve our shoreland and not do it yourselves.” It just says the Township would like some baseline to go forward with the idea that they can do this. Baker said it may make sense to not act one way or another on that particular request because the legally required showing, in order for what they want the County to acknowledge to be true, hasn’t been made. He suggested the County take that under advisement to await an attempt to make that showing. If they decide to do so, the issue could ripen. Until then, it isn’t really ripe. Eichelberg said if the two Boards agree to meet, they could find out some of those aspects to see whether they agree or not. Baker said this could shed light on it. He felt ultimately the particular finding that is required would need to be made by the County Board because the way the regulations are written, it is really up to this Board. It is possible that a meeting like that could shed light on what they would be doing. Norman said that unless he hears differently from the Attorney’s Office, he would assume any joint meeting of the County Board and Township Board would have to meet the requirements of the Open Meeting Law (agenda posted and minutes taken). Assistant County Attorney Tom Zins said that was correct.
Sawatzke asked whether there was a second question. Eichelberg said Salkowski answered that, the meeting with two Commissioners and two of their representatives. Russek’s suggestion was that a meeting be held between the two Boards. Salkowski did not think there was any action required of the Board today. He felt Russek put it best saying the ball was in the Township’s court and that the County would await to hear from them. They are waiting for response to past requests. He did not feel the Board needed to take action today. Sawatzke asked Baker whether it would be appropriate to make a motion to lay the issue over or whether there should be no action at all. Baker responded there should be no action at all and to table the request. There are no action items the Board is required to take so the Board doesn’t need to do anything more than what has been done. To make the record and minutes clear, it would help to indicate that no action was being taken to await further submissions or input by the Township. Russek said he made the suggestion to meet with them and there were no other suggestions from the County Board. They will wait to hear from the Township on whether they would like to meet. The Township could propose a couple of dates and provide the County adequate time for posting. Russek restated he was willing to meet as he does not want to proceed to court. He felt they could work it out. The consensus is that the Board agrees with Baker’s comments and would take no action at this time based on that rationale, but the invitation is open.
The meeting recessed at 10:00 A.M. and reconvened at 10:15 A.M.
Joe Jacobs, SWCD, presented a request to reappoint the following members to the Water Management Task Force (WMTF): Gloria Grant Wynnemer (Citizen-At-Large, Howard Lake); Mark McNamara (SWCD Representative, Monticello); and Rose Thelen (Township Representative, Clearwater). Their terms expire 12-31-07. In addition, Alan Moy from the Sportsman’s Federation does not wish to serve on the WMTF any longer and has requested the appointment of Bob Peterson (Pheasants Forever Representative) in his place. Moy’s term would be through 12-31-09. Jacobs explained that he has requested a letter from the Sportsman’s Federation officially requesting Peterson as the replacement. Heeter moved to reappoint Gloria Grant Wynnemer, Mark McNamara, and Rose Thelen to the WMTF. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0. Upon notification from the Sportsman’s Club of their appointment, Jacobs was authorized to place the appointment on a future Consent Agenda.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, presented a request from the City of Delano for the Board to consider changing the funding policy relating to a proposed traffic signal on TH 12 as part of the State’s bridge project in Delano. Representatives from the City were not present at today’s meeting. The $15 million project will replace the bridge on TH 12 and result in a significant number of changes to the road. There will no longer be a connection to CSAH 17 just east of the bridge. In December, Mn/DOT forwarded the agreements between the City, County and Mn/DOT. There has been a long-standing policy that whatever the Federal and State government doesn’t cover on a project, the City and County split 50/50. This has been challenged on occasion, most recently when the City of Hanover requested the County pay most if not all costs associated with a project. Today, the request by the City of Delano is for the City not to pay anything toward the signalized intersection. The cost for the City/County portion of the traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 30 and TH 12 is approximately $85,000 ($42,500 each). Fingalson provided an overview of the current road layout. The change is for CSAH 16 to run along the SW side of the Dairy Queen and connect with CSAH 30. CSAH 30 will connect with TH 12 at another location which is the location of the proposed stoplight. Russek represents Delano and supports the traffic signal. However, the County has upheld the funding policy with other requests and it must be followed in this situation as well. Sawatzke agreed and felt each Commissioner had situations where cities have made similar requests and the Board has not approved the request. Sawatzke expressed concern that if the project were delayed, the cost may increase. He did not feel the County should have to expend more in the future due to a delay in a decision by the City. Fingalson said based on cost information received from the Project Development Engineer for Mn/DOT, it appears that the project would cost more at a later date. This information was conveyed to the City. Russek asked whether the same situation will occur with the stoplight proposed next year near the Legion Club in Delano. Fingalson said the County will not be involved with that improvement as CSAH 30 was given to the City and no County legs are involved. Fingalson said the City is frustrated that the County does not have to fund anything on that signal as there is County traffic on that road. Mattson suggested that the wiring for the signal be placed during the bridge project to avoid associated costs at such a time the signal is put in. Fingalson said this would probably be done anyway but the large cost is the poles and the signal system. Sawatzke made a motion for Fingalson to notify the City of Delano that the County will not pay an increased cost if the project is delayed due to Delano’s unwillingness to proceed and a higher cost is negotiated for a signal later on. To clarify, the County will not pay more than half of the estimated $84,069.63 cost. The project will be bid within the next month and that is why Mn/DOT has a deadline for advertising. Work on the bridge was going to be completed after road restrictions were lifted but is now on a fast track due to the condition of the bridge. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0.
There is another lower cost project in Delano on County Line Road requiring $6,000 in County funding. Fingalson spoke with Mn/DOT today and if the funding is not resolved between the City and County, Mn/DOT implied they would fund the City’s share of that intersection. It was the consensus of the County Board that the County will be responsible for their portion of this intersection and Mn/DOT can determine whether to fund the City’s portion. This message will be conveyed to the City by Fingalson.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 1-09-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0:
HIGHWAY ACCOUNTANT POSITION. Norman introduced the topic by stating that Hay Consultants evaluated the Highway Accountant Position per Fingalson’s request. Through evaluation of the job description, the position received 15 additional points. Norman stated that he recommended to the Board keeping the position in the same pay class, Class H. Following Board action, Fingalson requested that this topic be referred to the Personnel Committee. Fingalson presented the attached memo, dated 1-09-08, illustrating his reasoning for why he believes the Highway Accountant Position should be granted a move to pay Class G. He noted that the memo should be corrected to reflect the 15 point increase versus the 12 points referenced in the memo. The correction would then bring the point total to 1997, versus 1994. He explained that he feels it is simply common sense, based on the total point values in Class H and Class G, that the Highway Accountant position should receive a move into Class G. Norman explained that he was reluctant to send the job description to Hay due to a decision made by the Board to consolidate all accounting positions under the Auditor/Treasurer Department. He stated that all accounting positions would be under the supervision of an Assistant Finance Director. Fingalson stated that Nila Ellis, Highway Accountant, has been performing the duties of this position for over two years and feels that it is only fair to compensate her for the work. He continued to state that the plan to consolidate accounting positions is a separate issue from today’s request. He stated that the consolidation has been a long time discussion, lacking in action. He stated that he feels it is only right to compensate Ellis for the work she has been doing. He insisted that granting the small pay increase and upgrading the pay class would go a long way to improving employee morale. He expressed his frustration regarding the length of time it took to get the job description audited by Hay Consultants. Sawatzke questioned whether Ellis would work under Fingalson if the consolidation would occur. Norman replied that Ellis would report directly to the Assistant Finance Director. He added that Wright County is one of the few counties that does not have a consolidated accounting system. Sawatzke asked if there is a comparable position in the Auditor/Treasurer Department. Fingalson responded that Ellis’s position is unique in that she performs cost accounting. Norman replied that the cost accounting portion is secondary to the County’s accounting reporting system. It was noted that Ellis has a two year degree in business and she supervises a senior clerk. Eichelberg asked what the anticipated time schedule is for the consolidation to occur. Norman stated that he has given Hiivala a deadline of 3-01-08 to provide a job description for the Assistant Finance Director. The transitioning would occur once the employee is hired. Fingalson stated that Hiivala has not discussed the consolidation with him. He stated that he would like to be included in future discussions regarding the consolidation. Norman clarified that it was Hiivala’s and his position to consolidate all accounting positions. The Board approved their proposal. Fingalson requested that the Committee consider his request separate from the consolidation issue. Eichelberg stated that he could understand the rational in granting the request. Sawatzke stated that he could support the request with the understanding that upon consolidation, this position will be classified under the Auditor/Treasurer Department. Recommendation: Approve the request to change the Highway Accountant position from Class H to Class G to take effect on the first day of the first full pay period following Board approval. (End of Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Planning Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 1-04-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter said Mark Campa will be the appointment from the Clearwater River Watershed District. Sawatzke will bring forth two appointments from Monticello Township in the near future. Meetings are projected to start after the Open Houses have been held. Mattson moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:
Northwest Quadrant Progress Report. Salkowski provided a status report on the update to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northwest Quadrant of the County. Informal, informational meetings have been held with all township boards except Corinna Township. Open Houses will provide maps, displays and summaries of the current status and the projected update to the Plan. Notice will be provided to cities, townships, lake associations, newspapers, and will also be posted on the County website. The Open House schedule follows:
January 28th @ 7:00 P.M. Annandale High School (focusing on French Lake Township, Southside Township, Corinna Township, City of Annandale, & City of South Haven)
February 6th @ 7:00 P.M. Maple Lake High School (focusing on Albion Township, Chatham Township, Maple Lake Township, & Maple Lake City)
February 7th @ 7:00 P.M. Silver Creek Township Hall (focusing on Silver Creek Township, Clearwater Township, & City of Clearwater)
Advisory Committees. Salkowski said information was mailed to cities, townships, lake associations, watershed districts, and newspapers seeking volunteers for the Northwest Quadrant Committees. A summary was provided of those who responded, as well as correspondence from Salkowski reflecting potential Committees makeup. The suggested makeup was based on the preference of those expressing interest and knowledge of their experience. In the case of transition areas, Salkowski felt a township board or city council member should serve on the Committee. Planning Commission members are invited to attend meetings and will serve as the guiding body for review of the progress of the Committees. The Committees will serve in an advisory capacity and will not be voting bodies. Corinna Township did not respond to the request for volunteers. There are several volunteers from that area. Maple Lake Township did not respond. This may be because the Township has an Orderly Annexation Agreement with the City of Maple Lake. Of those who volunteered, there is no representation from the City of Clearwater, Maple Lake Township, or Chatham Township. There is one representative each from French Lake Township, Albion Township, and the City of Maple Lake. The Maple Lake Township Board will appoint a member to serve on the Maple Lake Transition Area Committee. Heeter inquired whether the City of Clearwater should be asked to appoint someone based on her recent conversation with the Mayor. Salkowski responded that there is an Orderly Annexation Agreement with the City of Clearwater and Clearwater Township. They would be encouraged to attend meetings. Salkowski said a task force is not being formed for the Northwest Quadrant, which was done with the Northeast Quadrant. After discussion with the County Board and the Planning Commission, it was decided that the Planning Commission should serve in this capacity and would hold public hearings and complete planning. In hindsight, the Planning Commission was left out of the process during the Northeast Quadrant project. Eichelberg questioned the proposed membership of the Aggregate Protection/Mining Committee, noting that the suggestion is to appoint two members from Monticello Township. He questioned whether one of the members should be from Buffalo Township. Salkowski said Monticello Township was told they would be involved with future discussions on aggregate protection and mining. The majority of the aggregate is in Monticello Township. Mattson requested that Thomas Thompson from Lake John be added to the Aggregate Protection/Mining Committee. He is a summer resident on Lake John. Thompson worked for the City of Minneapolis and his background includes many years of planning. Salkowski said committees will meet separately with staff to assist in developing and refining what is placed into the proposed Plan. Meetings will be open to the public and presentations will be made by organizations such as the SWCD. The Planning Commission will be responsible to hold the public hearings on the Plan. Recommendation: The Committee recommends adding Thomas Thompson of Lake John to the Aggregate Protection/Mining Committee to replace Charlie Nuernberg, Lake John Association & Southside resident. The Committee further recommends presenting the Advisory Committee list, as revised, to the County Board for approval at their next meeting. Heeter will seek a representative from the Clearwater River Watershed District to be added to the listing. The consensus is Committee membership may be revised as needed. (End of Planning Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 1-09-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:
CROPLAND RENTAL CONTRACT. Fingalson stated that the Rassat site is in the midst of its two year rental agreement. The Stemper site was under a one year rental agreement in 2007 for $65/acre. The County granted the one year contract due to the uncertainty of the available cropland during the construction of the new Jail/LEC site. It was determined that 19.44 acres would be available for rent in 2007. The Gapinski’s have contacted the Highway Department indicating that they are interested in renting the cropland again this year. This will need discussion as the amount of available cropland for rent is an unknown. Sawatzke asked if Gapinski’s paid the 2007 crop rental. He stated that there was a concern that the Gapinski’s would demand a refund when the crop they had planted was destroyed due to the Jail/LEC construction. Attempts had been made with the Gapinski’s to meet and stake out areas that should be left clear of farming in anticipation of construction. The requests to meet, made by Richard Marquette, former Engineering Assistant, were ignored. Fingalson stated that the Gapinksi’s had paid their 2007 rent and had inquired about the availability of the Stemper site for 2008. Sawatzke stated that he is in favor of renting to the Gapinksi’s again. Norman referred Fingalson to the project architect. Fingalson asked if the Owner’s Committee should pursue this discussion. Mattson stated that the objective of renting out the cropland is to keep the weeds down. Sawatzke told Fingalson that he could inform the Gapinski’s that the land will be available for rent again in 2008 for no more than $65/acre. The amount of land available for rent will be determined following discussions with the project architect at an Owner’s Committee Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Refer discussion to the Owner’s Committee to determine the available rentable cropland. (End of Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
An Owner’s Committee Meeting will be held at 1:00 P.M. today.
On a motion by Russek, second by Heeter, all voted to schedule a Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 1-29-08 at 10:30 A.M.
Russek moved to adopt Resolution #08-04, Charitable Gambling Application Form LG200R, Annandale Lions Club, Lake Center Bar, 10480 State Hwy. 24, Annandale MN (Corinna Twp.).
Bills Approved
Albertville Body Shop Inc.. $746.61
Allina Medical 382.26
American Institutional Supply 954.45
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 437.64
Annandale Advocate Inc. 166.05
Anoka Co. Corrections 2,873.00
Aramark Correctional Services 16,227.39
Assn. of MN Emergency Mngrs. 235.00
Auto Glass Center Inc. 240.61
B & B Products-Rigs & Squa. 1,508.16
Bob Barker Co. 122.75
Linda Bartusch 6,677.00
Black Box Resale Services 3,190.00
Dwayne Bruns 932.40
Bureau of Crim. Apprehension 180.00
Business Ware Solutions 335.45
Center Point Energy 20,695.72
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 61,667.65
Dakota Co. Financial Services 452.00
Dept. of Public Safety 240.00
Dept. of Corrections 17,903.00
Diane Devries 12,836.00
Joseph Dick 8,382.00
Ecolab 165.58
Emergency Physicians PA 1,040.25
Fastenal Company 488.19
Tom Feddema 107.67
Gateway Companies Inc. 867.98
GCS Service Inc. 396.22
Globalstar USA 221.71
Greene Espel PLLP 1,993.70
Greenview Inc. 252.40
H & H Sport Shop Inc. 119.00
Hardings Towing Inc. 170.40
Hennepin Co. IT Dept. 1,800.00
Herald Journal Publishing Inc. 2,619.07
Alan Hoekstra 902.16
Holiday 15,272.44
Scott Kintner 7,576.00
Lake Region Coop Oil 852.21
Lakedale Communications 435.09
LaPlant Demo Inc. 1,005.03
Angela Liljedahl 105.20
Little Falls Machine 527.13
Loberg Electric 1,857.83
Loffler Companies Inc. 1,783.62
Leonard Ludescher Trustees 53,843.00
MACPZA 205.00
Maple Lake Messenger 148.50
Marco 934.37
Douglas McNamara 86,480.35
MN Assn. of Assessing Officers 825.00
MN Assn. of Co. Administrators 260.00
MN City-County Mngmnt. Assn. 105.00
MN Counties Computer Co-op 7,699.03
MN Co. Attorneys Association 176.26
MN Dept. of Health 263.75
MN Deputy Registrar Assoc. 414.00
MN Sheriffs Association 5,104.00
MN Society of Prof. Surveyors 170.00
MN State Assn. of Narcotics Inv. 200.00
MN State Bar Association 245.00
Monticello Times Inc. 295.80
Morries Parts & Service Group 659.84
Mumford Sanitation 129.87
National Camera Exchange 271.91
Nextel Communications 907.63
N Suburban Towing Inc. 170.64
Office Depot 1,103.97
Office of the Sec. of State 120.00
Kelly Peterson 8,563.00
Photo 1 282.45
Positron Public Safety Sys. 2,628.87
Public Safety Equip. Co. 170.25
Quartermaster Inc. 303.65
Qwest 136.09
Ryan Chevrolet 1,284.75
Shell Fleet Plus 676.03
Sherburne Co. Sheriff 22,169.89
Society for Human Resource Mgt. 758.18
Software House International 422.81
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc. 130.09
St. Cloud Times 184.60
St. Joseph Equipment-Mpls. 725.58
Star West 150.00
Super Express 204.48
Lori Thingvold 163.45
Total Printing 625.95
Trans Union Corporation 135.30
Truck Bodies & Equip. Intl. Inc. 608.95
United Rentals Hwy. Techn. 2,183.51
University of Minnesota 272.95
Judy Vanderlinde 1,230.96
Voss Lighting 151.76
Mitchell Wadman 10,446.00
C. Walker Trucking 3,245.00
Ryan Walker 7,168.00
Waste Management TC W 1,242.43
West ABE Consortium 1,500.00
West Payment Center 336.00
Paul Wild 245.00
Woodland Township 889.40
Wright Co. Journal Press 365.98
34 Payments less than $100 1,546.63
Final total $429,824.93
The meeting adjourned at 10:54 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Feb. 18, 2008.