Wright County Board Minutes

DECEMBER 2, 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 11-25-08 were corrected as follows: Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence should read, “Mattson moved to schedule a Transportation Committee Meeting on 12-15-08 at 10:30 A.M. for the purpose of opening sealed quotes for removal of the old CSAH 8 Bridge” (Mattson). Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mattson, carried unanimously.
On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Agenda as presented.
On a motion by Heeter, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: D. Chapman, Bldg. Maint.; R. Bastien, B. Doney, M. Koscianski,
B. Kothman, K. Lipelt, J. Winkelman, Sher./Corr.
2. Claim, Central MN Concrete Inc., $8,270.00 (Jail/LEC Project).
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. Mattson referenced a claim on Page 7, Dell Marketing LP ($6,281.37) for six laptops for the Sheriff Department. Mattson said discussion occurred a few years ago on laptops being more expensive than desktop computers. Mattson was wondering whether these were being purchased for the new Jail/LEC site. Hiivala said the claim reflects six laptops for District Offices. He will verify with the Sheriff Department whether this purchase should be funded by bond proceeds. Mattson referenced a claim on Page 9, Anoka County HSD ($1,410.00) for detention fees. Mattson said the claim was delayed at Human Services for some time prior to it being forwarded to the Court Services Department. On a motion by Mattson, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 11-26-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:
Peterson distributed a handout (see attached) delineating the items and services she has provided the County for the last 10.5 years. She plans to retire as a County employee of 23 years at the end of December and proposes to continue providing her Parenting Through Divorce Program services on a contractual basis. She would commence her services under contract on 4-01-09. After review of the Parenting Through Divorce budget and participant fees, it was recommended that the County pay Peterson $4,500 in 2009, and $6,000 in 2010 ($500/month). Peterson is to collect the registration fees from the participants which are $75 - $100/person. On average, her annual salary to provide this service would be $26,300.00. As a contractor, she would pay her own health insurance, and income taxes, etc. Sawatzke noted that it would be up to Peterson to determine whether the fee she is collecting from the participants is enough to cover her expenses. However, the County would expect Peterson to charge a competitive fee since the County Board has agreed to subsidize the program at $500/month. Peterson requested whether she could take home the laser printer that was purchased with Parenting Through Divorce funds in 2005. Norman stated that because the printer is County property, she would not be able to take the printer home. Peterson, as a contractor, would be required to supply all of her own furniture, equipment, and supplies. Sawatzke asked Norman if Peterson would be allowed to keep any existing class materials as they are of no value to the County. Norman stated that Peterson could keep all paper files and computer information. Peterson asked if she could continue to use Conference Rooms 120A & B, custodial services, the PA system, and use of the locked metal cabinet in Conference Room 120A. Norman stated yes, as the County sponsors these classes. Norman stated that with the County Board’s authorization, he would draft up a contract for her review and signature. He requested that she leave an address or fax number for her New Zealand location for the purpose of forwarding the contract to her. RECOMMENDATION: Draft a contract for 2009 and 2010 services in the amount of $4,500 for 2009, and $6,000 in 2010. The 2009 contract would commence on 4-01-09.
Peterson stated that participants would be directed to participate in like programs through Sherburne, Anoka, and Stearns Counties during the months of January, February, and March.
(End of Personnel Committee Minutes and discussion)
Tracy Janikula, Wright County Planning & Zoning Feedlot Program Administrator, presented a contract with St. Michael to provide specific land use and zoning services for feedlots in the City of St. Michael. The City has asked for the County’s assistance as Janikula is qualified to oversee the feedlot program on the State level. They are requesting assistance with permitting, inspections, or any other issues that arise. Mary Anderson, St. Michael City Planner, said the City Council recently approved a Feedlot Ordinance as their districts differ from the County’s districts. The City’s Ordinance follows the County’s Feedlot Ordinance. The changes include the districts and a few minor revisions. The City felt that although Janikula was providing these services already, there should be an agreement between the two entities. There are not many feedlots within the City and they are not expecting a major increase in requests. The draft agreement has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the City’s Attorney, Brian Asleson (County Attorney’s Office), Tom Salkowski (County’s Planning & Zoning Administrator), and Janikula. Janikula said at this point, no fees are charged to the City. The State funds her position as part of a grant for certain sized feedlots, whether in a city or township. She will continue to provide the services she is already providing. Anderson said that the City asks for a site plan from an applicant and checks the site. This information is forwarded to Janikula if needed. Russek moved to authorize signatures on the Agreement with St. Michael to provide specified land use and zoning services for feedlots, seconded by Heeter. Mattson asked whether the DNR was notified of this arrangement. Janikula said they did not notify anyone else, that it is an agreement between the City and County. Sawatzke questioned whether the County’s Feedlot Ordinance was County wide or if it only applies to townships. Janikula stated the County’s Feedlot Ordinance does not include cities but provides the right for the County to give assistance. The motion carried 5-0.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, requested approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Mn/DOT for an existing piece of TH 24. Mn/DOT needs the MOU from Wright and Sherburne Counties to proceed with R/W acquisition relating to the I94/TH 10 Interregional Connection. This connection will cross the Mississippi River and connect I94 and TH 10 in the vicinity of the Cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake. The project is many years off due to the funding situation. Once the new connection is made, the requirement is that this roadway will be turned over to the local jurisdiction. The MOU reflects Wright County and Mn/DOT will enter into negotiations regarding the turn back of TH 24. The MOU states either Mn/DOT will replace the existing TH 24 bridge as part of a State highway project prior to turnback, or Mn/DOT will provide funding for a new bridge if the existing bridge is still in place at the time of the turnback. Heeter questioned why this action is needed at this time if this project is at least five years off and may or may not happen. Claudia Dumont, Mn/DOT Office-St. Cloud, stated Mn/DOT’s Office of Land Management initiated the MOU. They are the individuals who do R/W acquisition and turnbacks. It is a formality, but at some point in the future when the river crossing is built, Mn/DOT will negotiate with the County. R/W acquisitions are already occurring. Heeter said during one of the last meetings she attended, it was questionable whether this project will occur. Dumont said Mn/DOT has been asked to generate numerous lists of economic stimulus projects. Mattson said there were ten projects cut by Mn/DOT this past summer and he questioned how those fit in with this project. Dumont said the list of projects put on hold were expansion projects and the decision was made at the District level based on revenue projections. The other lists are being generated at the request of other various government entities that may have an effect on their long-term funding. While internally they have decided that based on their projections they cannot afford to build most of the expansion projects in the next 10-20 years, she said Legislators and Congress are saying that may change. Dumont said it has been confusing for them as each day they receive a request for a new list. Sawatzke questioned the process and whether it is mandatory that the County take TH 24 back. Dumont stated that in the past, typically counties have taken over trunk highways. However, Mn/DOT makes the trunk highway whole before the turnback, provides funds to reconstruct it, or brings it up to standards before the turnback is initiated. Heeter said TH 24 was recently redone but the bridge may be an issue. Sawatzke felt this would be the most significant bridge in the Wright County system. Fingalson said there is a bridge in Elk River that is on our system. Sawatzke felt the bridge on TH 24 would have more traffic. Russek asked who is responsible for the bridge over I94. Fingalson said everything south of I94 would remain with the State. Typically, a bridge has a 50-60 year life. The MOU reflects that the County and Mn/DOT would enter into negotiations. In the past, Mn/DOT has not forced anything that the County is uncomfortable with. Fingalson’s opinion is that if a new connection is built between I94 and TH 10, it would not make sense for the State to maintain the bridge on TH 24. Mattson questioned whether this has been presented to the ATP. Fingalson said he was unsure but it has been in Mn/DOT’s long range plan. He felt the ATP is familiar with this plan. Dumont said the project is not currently in the long range plan. However, the project may move up in priority based on the lists requested by Legislative and Congressional Delegates. Sawatzke moved to approve the MOU with Mn/DOT for existing TH 24, seconded by Russek. Heeter said she would vote in favor of the motion but she still is concerned whether the project is needed, based on meetings she has been to and concerns from constituents on environmental issues. She said that her voting in favor of this MOU does not mean that she feels the I94/TH 10 project is a worthwhile or necessary project. Sawatzke agreed, particularly since there is an access planned heading from the west to the east. He did not feel anyone would come from St. Cloud, pass Clearwater, and then use the exit off the freeway to head back the other way. Heeter said this was brought forth numerous times at some of the meetings. Sawatzke said Mn/DOT officials agree. He asked Fingalson to possibly negotiate out the exit going east bound. Mattson felt this project had been tabled due to the costs. He said the NFO Organization has a lot of land on TH 10 and they were told it has been tabled. Dumont referenced the reverse movement of the interchange. That movement has been mandated by the Federal Highway Administration, not by the District. She said the District is not in favor of it. Sawatzke encouraged Dumont to relay Wright County’s position on the reverse interchange and said that it could make a difference on whether an agreement is reached with the County. The motion carried 4-1 with Mattson casting the nay vote.
At 9:30 A.M., Eichelberg closed the bids for the TH 55/CSAH 12 Improvement Project. He stated any bids received after this time will not be accepted.
Fingalson brought forth discussion on the Hwy. 55 Official Map. He said it has been many months since this was discussed due to the time it took to get the County and District Surveyors together to complete the map. It is now complete. The County needs to set a date to consider adoption of the Ordinance, specifically for the TH 55 project and map. A public hearing was held one year ago and about 60 people attended. When this issue was last discussed by the Board, there were questions raised on the map. One of the questions related to the Lakedale Telephone property. Sawatzke said the concern is not specifically Lakedale Telephone but rather that there will be a great expense. He said it is one thing to acquire a home but another to acquire a business with a phone system. He is concerned with the economics of acquiring properties. Another concern Sawatzke had was placing residents in the corridor in a position whether they will need to obtain a variance to complete an addition (such as a garage) because the road may be expanded in the future. He did not feel residents should have to pay an application fee to present their request to the Board of Adjustment. Asleson provided information on the process that will be used. His understanding is that once the map is adopted and someone proposes to build within the corridor, that if their application is denied by Planning and Zoning, the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. He was unsure whether there will be fees built into the Ordinance itself or possibly built into the Planning & Zoning Fee Schedule. He said this is an official control, an official map. When the public hearing was previously held, all cities and townships within the County were notified. Landowners within 1/4 mile of the corridor were also notified. The Board has the option to reopen the public hearing but he did not feel this was necessary. He suggested that notice should be provided again to the cities and townships, and that a notice should be published in the legal newspaper. Because some townships may not meet in the next few weeks, he asked that the adoption of the Ordinance and Map be considered in about 30 days. Fingalson said although it has been conveyed that this would be adopted in 2008, he did not see a problem with the timeline. Mattson asked whether land can be sold within the corridor or whether the County has to purchase it. Asleson said there may be situations where something can be negotiated between the landowner and Mn/DOT. The process in the generic mapping ordinance reflects that if someone applies to build in the corridor and is denied, they can appeal to the Board of Adjustment. If the Board of Adjustment approves the application, there is a 60-day window where Mn/DOT is given the opportunity to purchase the land rather than having a building constructed in the corridor. This process allows the road authority to bring eminent domain or negotiate a sale. Russek said although the County has not adopted the Official Map, there has been success with those developing along the corridor to voluntarily set back buildings so they don’t have to tear them down in 10-15 years. Sawatzke felt the Planning Commission has worked well with those building on bare land. However, he had concern for those that have homes and farms close to the road that may want to remodel. The process in this scenario would be to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Sawatzke questioned whose decision it is that is being appealed. Asleson explained that if someone applies for a building permit for an addition, it would be an administrative decision by Planning & Zoning to deny the application. Based on the way the Mapping Ordinance reads, the permit would be denied because of being within the corridor. Sawatzke felt some things may need more consideration. Sawatzke questioned whether the corridor goes to the City limits of Annandale. Dumont responded that it is either the westerly limits or to TH 24, but felt it was probably TH 24. Sawatzke questioned whether any cities have put anything relating to this into their ordinances. Dumont said she did not have knowledge of Annandale doing anything specifically. The project will be started at Rockford and move west. It will be into the future before the Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake are affected. Sawatzke asked for the status in Hennepin County. Dumont explained that Hennepin County lies within the Metro District and they are currently going through the EAW process. They are working with their own jurisdictions. The Legislature dictated that an official map be done on the Wright County piece based on those in office at that time. Hennepin County was not mandated to do so. The environmental process they completed is basically doing the same thing. The funding has to start on the Hennepin County side prior to it progressing to Wright County. Sawatzke asked whether this was an all or nothing approach and whether everything had to be completed at once. Dumont stated that the way the Legislation is worded, the official map for the whole corridor must be completed at one time but the construction is staged from east to west. Russek moved to set final action on the Map and Ordinance for 1-13-09 at 9:30 A.M. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.
The bid opening occurred for the TH 55/CSAH 12 improvement project which includes a traffic signal and related geometric improvements. The project involves funding from the Highway 55 Corridor Coalition, Mn/DOT, and the County (using State Aid money). Federal funding is involved so this will not be awarded today. He anticipates doing so on 12-16-08 when confirmation has been received from the State. There are no addendums with the project. The Engineer’s estimate is $688,000.00. Fingalson opened the bids and asked that they be laid over until they hear from Mn/DOT. Sawatzke moved to lay the bids over to a future date, seconded by Russek. Heeter questioned the funding sources compared to the Engineer’s estimate and bids. Fingalson felt the funding should be okay. The design and estimate were completed by Mn/DOT. The total project cost is $1 million. The Railroad crossing is not part of the contract and involves a separate agreement between the County and the Railroad. That cost is estimated around $300,000. The motion carried 5-0. The bids follow:
Bidder; Bid Bond; Amount
Knife River Corp. (Sauk Rapids); Yes; $786,486.52
Duininck Bros., Inc. (Prinsburg); Yes; $1,142,733.63
Hardrives, Inc. (Rogers); Yes; $99,630.11
There will be an Owner’s Committee Meeting today at 1:00 P.M.
Bills Approved
Albertville Body Shop. $4,458.30
Allina Health Systems 117.10
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 3,832.14
Allina Medical Laboratories 179.30
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 276.91
AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 2,130.00
Ancom Technical Center 666.35
Annandale Rock Products 1,717.62
Anoka County HSC 1,410.00
Anoka Co. Juvenile Center 290.00
Aramark Correctional Serv. 11,635.98
Joe Backes 175.50
Paul Baertschi 115.00
Robert Benedict 188.09
Bonestroo 932.19
Boyer Truck Parts 573.27
BP Amoco 1,773.67
Michael Brandenburg 142.35
Darnell Brethorst 370.31
Buffalo Dry Cleaners 134.67
Buffalo Hospital 882.29
Business Ware Solutions 357.84
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 21,244.08
Climate Air 465.40
Consulting Radiologists Ltd. 253.20
Creative Forms & Concepts 397.03
Crow River Tools 304.39
Dell Marketing LP 6,281.37
Karen Determan 112.91
Carter Diers 519.48
E Central Regional Juvenile 15,323.00
Election Systems & Software 11,444.51
Energy Sales Inc. 380.21
EPA Audio Visual Inc. 391.58
Expert Towing Inc. 207.68
Force America Inc. 907.93
Gould Towing 266.25
Grainger 128.49
Great River Energy 1,660.50
Hennepin Faculty Associates 893.88
Holiday 14,304.37
HSBC Business Solutions 1,037.86
Neal Huemoeller 486.14
Idexx Laboratories Inc. 836.08
International Right of Way Assoc 226.00
Knowledgelake 3,185.60
Doug Kotila 125.00
Greg Kramber 143.91
Patrick Lambert Appraisal 3,500.00
LaPlant Demo Inc. 534.36
Michael Laurent 256.20
Law Enforcement Technology Gr 330.15
Loberg Electric 186.69
M-R Sign Company inc. 406.04
Marco Inc. 2,557.32
Martin Marietta Aggregates 131.09
Nathan Miller 466.69
Minnesota Green Expo 279.00
MN Assn. of Assessing Officers 150.00
MN Chemical Company 345.52
MN Counties Computer Coop 2,431.55
National Recration & Park Ass 135.00
Nextel Communications 151.29
North American Salt Co. 47,251.31
Office Depot 2,024.81
Onsite Medical Service Inc. 771.00
Corey Paulson 125.00
Powerplan OIB 1,533.35
Frank Ramaciotti 300.00
Reed Business Information 189.54
Royal Tire Inc. 7,470.43
RS Eden 1,534.05
Russell Security Resource Inc. 1,254.85
Pat Sawatzke 289.37
Sherry Schliesing 690.30
Shell Fleet Plus 168.12
Sherburne Co. Probation Dep 200.00
Sherburne County Sheriff 18,742.37
Software House International 903.64
Sprint 4,047.27
St. Cloud Times 233.78
St. Joseph Equipment-Mpls. 915.81
State of MN-Office Enterprise 965.00
Streichers 663.42
Tractor Supply Credit Plan 374.14
TW Vending Inc. 1,213.10
Verizon Wireless 900.12
Walmart Store 01-1577 913.33
Westside Wholesale Tire 1,466.05
Wright County Highway Dept. 5,770.85
Wright Henn.Coop.Elec.Assn. 3,587.72
Xcel Energy 1,345.36
Xiotech 2,284.06
27 Payments less than $100 1.221.58
Final total $235,096.36
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Jan. 5, 2009.

Return to Wright County Menu | Return to Government Table of Contents

Herald Journal
Stories | Columns | Obituaries | Classifieds
Guides | Sitemap | Search | Home Page