Wright County Board Minutes

FEBRUARY 9, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek, Thelen, and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 2-02-10 were corrected as follows: Page 1, 5th paragraph, 3rd sentence should read, “In the past, projects have been in the southern part of the Crow Watershed” (Russek). Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Thelen, carried unanimously.
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Agenda as presented.
On a motion by Thelen, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: S. Deringer, R. Halverson, M. Olson, B. Petersen, P. Standafer, Sher./Corr.; J. Kurth, M. Pooler, Surv.
2. Claim, Frank Madden & Associates, $4,189.45 (December 2009 Services).
3. Authorize AMC Delegation To Attend 2010 Legislative Conference, March 24-25, St. Paul.
4. Approve/Authorize Signatures On Law Enforcement Contract With Silver Creek Township.
5. Authorize The County Board Chair To Sign The Minnesota Cities Participation Program (First Time Homebuyer) Application & Authorize Payment Of $18,469.50 To The MN Housing Finance Agency.
1. Appoint Scott Peterson (District 2), Tim VanBeusekom (District 3), & Kim Johanson (District 4), To The Wright County Extension Committee, Eff. 1-01-10 To 12-31-12.
1. Parks Department 2009 Annual Report.
Denise McCalla, Property Tax Administrator/Chief Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, presented the Auditor/Treasurer Agenda items. A request was received from Chris Kruse, Edward Jones Investments, to meet with the Deferred Compensation Committee. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said Kruse appeared before the Deferred Compensation Committee some time ago and was informed of the process to become a Deferred Compensation provider for Wright County. The process involves obtaining a minimum number of new enrollees in the plan. Norman noted that the open enrollment process for employees has ended for the next plan year. McCalla said the purpose of the meeting was for Kruse to provide an update to the Committee. Sawatzke moved to set a Deferred Compensation Committee Meeting for 2-16-10 at 10:30 A.M. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0. If it is determined by the Auditor/Treasurer and Administration Departments that a meeting is not needed, the Deferred Compensation Committee meeting will be cancelled at the 2-16-10 Board Meeting.
The Auditor/Treasurer’s Office received a request from Roy Marschall for a total clean out of County Ditch 10, focusing on the area east of County Road 6 SW and County Road 30 SW to Lake Ann. Mattson referenced the economy and felt the clean out would be very expensive. Russek moved to lay this request over to the first part of May, as the current snow depth would prevent adequate review of the Ditch. The Auditor/Treasurer’s Office should notify Marschall of this action. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 5-0.
On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Fred Bengtson, DNR Area Wildlife Manager, requested County Board approval of a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) on Pelican Lake (City of St. Michael). The proposal includes purchasing 148 acres in Section 17, T120N, R24W for the purpose of establishing this as a State WMA. Because State funds will be used, the DNR is required to obtain County Board approval. The proposed purchase will become an addition to the Pelican Lake WMA and will be open for public use (hunting, trapping, and hiking). Bengtson stated that between the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the DNR, about 1,200 acres of shoreline have been acquired around Pelican Lake. Both organizations are working to add additional parcels in the future. Water management efforts continue. The City of St. Michael is working on a wetland restoration project on CR 35. Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #10-09, seconded by Thelen. Mattson questioned whether the DNR is working to control water levels on the NE side of Pelican Lake. Bengtson stated this is a controversial issue because of fishing. The lake level has been reduced by 2’ since 2006. The water level did rise in the fall but it was still below the high water mark of 2006. The goal of the DNR is to manage the water levels to 2’ below what they are now. The motion to adopt Resolution #10-09 carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
A Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 1-26-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0:
Norman provided a summary of the minutes and actions of the 9-08-09 Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting and the subsequent 9-15-09 County Board Meeting. He stated that Lee Kelly, Special Projects Administrator, presented options to the County Board Members on how to deal with strategic planning and space needs. The options were: do nothing, address space needs on a case by case basis, develop a strategic plan, move toward developing a building plan. Norman stated that Russek has stated that as part of the CIP/Finance Committee, he would like some direction on how to address departmental space needs. It was determined that further discussion could be laid over until today’s Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting.
Mattson stated that he does not believe that the Nation has seen the bottom of its economic hardship. Mattson stated that it is his opinion that the County does not have a large need for expansion. The County’s population has leveled out. He stated that he would stress that the County facilities “stay as they are”.
Russek stated that he and Commissioner Thelen sit on the CIP/Finance Committee. He stated that they see requests for expansion from Department Heads. He stated that the County cannot keep “band aiding” its space issues. Using a band aide approach is throwing money out the window. He stated that the Assessor’s office has an immediate need for expansion. He stated that if the Assessor’s Department has outgrown its space, then building into the hallway would be a waste of money. He would like the County Board to provide some direction.
Sawatzke stated that the County has not added additional staff. He stated that the County is in the same situation as it was when this topic was addressed at the 9-15-09 County Board Meeting. He stated that Russek has a valid concern about throwing taxpayers money out the window. He agreed that the County does not want to spend money on a construction project only to redo it later. He stated that he would be in favor of constructing space in the hallway for the Assessor’s Office as an immediate fix. The space in the corridor would add value to the space no matter who occupies the space. He stated that the Government Center has a lot of space available for expansion. He stated that he is in favor of making small incremental improvements to address Departmental space issues. He stated that the County is not ready for big ideas. He stated that he does not agree with planning for year 2015 in 2010. Plans become obsolete.
Eichelberg stated that he agrees with Russek. The County will grow again sometime in the future. He stated that as part of the planning process, a study or a discussion should take place regarding how Departments should be grouped together. The Public Works Building currently houses the Highway, Parks, and Survey Departments. Russek asked if it is logical to keep the GIS division as part of the Survey Department or if they could better serve the County if it were located within the Government Center.
Mattson stated that the County’s growth is stagnant. No new roads will be constructed this year. The Government Center has vacant space. He stated that he is comfortable leaving the building the way it is during this economic state. He stated that his fear is that a consultant would tell the County Board they need to build and spend money to accommodate space issues.
Thelen stated that she agrees that there is a lot of economic hardship out there; however, she does not believe that the answer is to shut down government. She stated that it makes sense to provide ways to make County employees more effective. She stated that she does not believe that the answer is to just put money into bricks and mortar. She stated that if the County Board decides to move forward with space planning, it should evaluate all options. She stated that she would like to know more: measure the need within each department, evaluate technology, and to investigate all pertinent factors. Mattson stated that it is his opinion that county government has not “shut down”. He stated that the County’s technology is as good as any other Minnesota county.
Jobe stated that it is his understanding that Thelen would like more information. He stated that as Department Heads, they are to submit their ideas to the CIP/Finance Committee. He is only aware of his Departmental needs and is unfamiliar with the needs of other Department Heads. He asked if L. Kelly could give a brief overview of the space needs for each Department. Jobe commented that there are space issues at the Public Works Building. He stated that today’s meeting is a good discussion and a comprehensive study/discussion would be beneficial.
Norman responded to Jobe’s request of L. Kelly providing an overview of departmental space needs. He stated that all known requests have been accumulated into the CIP Plan, which is a 50+ page document. He stated that he would advocate that the County Board determine the direction or types of recommendations the CIP/Finance Committee can make. Norman stated that the CIP is a specific Plan. Without a long range plan as a reference, it is difficult to make decisions regarding the short term. He stated that hiring a consultant is far short of actually constructing a building.
Russek stated that Wright County’s government is a service oriented organization. He stated that it is his opinion that the County needs a plan; giving thought toward the best configuration of the County facilities and its Departments for the next 10-20 years. Having a plan can help avoid throwing money at temporary solutions that would need to be redone in 1-3 years. Jobe commented that with a plan in place, the smaller projects would fit into the larger plan.
Thelen asked Russek if he is in favor of a consultant. Russek stated that it is his opinion that the Committee needs help determining the needs and direction of the County for the next 15-20 years. He stated that now is not the time to spend money toward a major construction project. He is not in favor of loading the County down with more debt.
Sawatzke stated that the County would not be adding positions in the next few years. The County will simply be replacing vacated positions on an as-needed basis. He stated that he does not know what a consultant could do for the County. He stated that it is his opinion that the Department Heads and Commissioners should know more than a consultant about the County’s needs. Jobe stated that he would like to stress the importance of the Departments Heads working collaboratively with the Commissioners.
Kramber stated that it is his opinion that collectively, short and long term goals should be identified. His office is seeing an increased work load. A consultant may be needed for long term planning, however, in the short term, he would simply suggest expanding into the corridor to accommodate immediate space needs.
Swing stated that he would advocate considering technology as part of any short and long term plans. He stated that bricks and mortar cannot be discussed without considering how technology could alleviatestorage and service needs. He stated that his Department is located in an area of the building that receives a high level of traffic. Ideally, the I.T. Department should be located on a sublevel or out of the main trafficked area of a building. He stated that if I.T. were to move, it should be partnered with a records management center and training room. Norman asked how long he anticipates the lifespan of the AS400 server to be and whether this would influence a move of his Department. Swing stated that the server has become portable. His entire Department has become more portable throughout the years. He stated that the I Series AS400 Server would have a minimum shelf life of three years, especially with the Manatron system on the horizon.
Mattson asked if it would be an extensive rewiring project to accommodate moving the I.T. Department. Swing stated that it would not be cheap to move his Department. The wiring, fiber, raised floor, etc. would all be a consideration. Sawatzke commented that there is a break room and a conference room located on either side of the I.T. Department. Swing stated that from a security standpoint, the location of the I.T. Department is not ideal. He clarified that he is not pushing for a move of his Department. Sawatzke noted that there is some logic for why some Departments are located where they are. The Government Center was designed with a plan. He stated that it is his opinion that it does not make sense to move the I.T. Department with all of its wires and cables.
Fingalson stated that at a Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting in July, 2007, three Departments met with the Commissioners to discuss the Public Works Building. It was noted that they have space needs. He stated that he is in favor of having a plan or facilitating a consultant. He stated that it is his opinion that the County needs someone to assist the discussion. He promoted speaking with neighboring counties that have undergone this same type of project. He stated that the County is lacking a long term plan. He stated that he is in favor of utilizing a template for future decision making. He asked that the County Board not forget about the Public Works Building and their space needs.
G. Miller reminded the Commissioners that a working group met for a year prior to hiring a consultant for the Jail/LEC project. He stated that it took ten years of planning prior to the building of the Jail/LEC. He stated that his Department utilizes a group that discusses short and long term planning on how best to conduct business. The group identifies one, three, and five year plans. He stated that during the past eight years, his Department has developed efficiencies that have brought his Department under budget every year. Through the help of the group, they have been able to improve customer service, save money, and do business more efficiently. He stated that he would not necessarily recommend pursuing a consultant’s services, but would recommend a working group to look at space needs and efficiencies. He stated that having some plan in place is good. Russek replied that the planning process for the development and building of the Jail/LEC was extensive. He stated that since the completion of the project, he has not heard any complaints about the building or its related costs. He stated that it is his opinion that nobody has complained because it was carefully planned. Miller stated that he has yet to hear any complaints about the building. The building is serving the public better as a result of long range planning.
Thelen asked G. Miller if he could see where a consultant may be able to best assist in the long range planning for Departments. G. Miller stated that he is not sure at what point a consultant is needed. He stated that in the planning discussions for the Jail, it came to a point that it became obvious. The County Board decided it was time to bring in a consultant. G. Miller stated that the group needs to determine what the issues are and perhaps create a standing committee to address the issues.
Sawatzke stated that the Jail/LEC project was a good project and was a great collaboration between the Sheriff, I.T., and Administration Departments. He stated that it is his opinion that the Jail was overbuilt for what is currently going on in the jail population. In 1999, there were approximately 130 inmates. A study indicated that the County could expect 200+ inmates by 2010. He stated that currently, the County has 105 inmates. He stated that the further one plans into the future, the higher the chance the plan can bewrong. G. Miller stated that nobody has a crystal ball. The decision to build the Jail/LEC was made five years ago. G. Miller commented that he is not advocating a 20-year plan. He stated that planning is a difficult process, but it has great benefits. Sawatzke stated that he is not critical of the decision process taken to build the Jail/LEC. Sawatzke stated that he is as guilty as anybody else who voted for the construction of the Jail/LEC. In retrospect, it was built bigger than what is needed. Russek contended that in two years, the Jail might be too small for the needs of the County. The County may end up housing State prisoners.
Thelen stated that as part of the overall picture, technology and remote offices should be considered when developing a functionality plan for the Government Center. Gentels stated that there are a lot of projects that the Courts are working on that may or may not affect the Courts request for additional space. She stated that electronic filing of documents is changing and is affecting how other agencies access information. A brief discussion occurred regarding remote hearings.
Salkowski stated that he would agree with G. Miller’s viewpoint that planning is a pain staking process. He stated that this is a heavy topic as the Nation is in the middle of a recession. The subject matter involves a discussion about money, and involves many different personalities. He stated that he would encourage the County Commissioners to take advantage of the Department Heads’ years of experience. Many of the Department Heads could retire within five years. He stated that he thinks it is important to assemble a plan prior to new staff joining the County. Salkowski commented that it is difficult to do a lot of centralized planning without a facilitator. He commented that this reoccurring discussion has not been productive. He stated that he has experience with land use planning. He commented that it is nice to have a plan that is partly self-fulfilling. A plan gives direction from which decisions are made. Norman asked Salkowski if he would be willing to be the facilitator for this project. Salkowski stated that he is not a facilities planner, which is a lot different than land use planning.
Mleziva stated that the HSC and Government Center has been working for his Department, however, with some planning, he is sure that his Department could provide more customer contact and response. He stated that his Department occupies the largest amount of square footage and has the largest number of personnel. He stated that nearly 2/3rds of his staff work intensely in the field. They do not require live-in space within a building in order to do their jobs effectively. He stated that the County has technology that supports this type of workforce. He stated that his Department could operate in pods. He stated that he agrees with Mattson’s viewpoint that the current building situation is working well. He stated that in addressing long range planning, technology could alleviate bricks and mortar spending.
Russek stated that as a service oriented organization, it is important to address short and long term needs. He stated that he does not have the answers and believes that they need help in coming up with the answers and achieving some direction. Thelen asked Russek if he believes a consultant is a good idea. Russek stated that he does not know the answer to this question.
T. Kelly stated that he too sits on the CIP/Finance Committee. He stated that if the Committee were to meet tomorrow, he would not be able to vote on anything without some sort of direction coming from the County Board. The Committee did not get the job duty of conducting the overall planning. He stated that the reason today’s meeting has been called is because of the issue raised by Russek.
Thelen asked Russek if he is suggesting that the CIP/Finance Committee meet with each of the Department Heads. Russek stated that he does not know the answer; however, he would hesitate making a recommendation to spend money when the County Board won’t agree to spend the necessary dollars. Sawatzke stated that since this topic was brought to the Committee of the Whole, it cannot go back to a Committee consisting of two members. He stated that with this topic, there is too much at stake; too many people with strong opinions.
Mattson stated that it is his opinion that if this Committee were to meet again, nothing would get accomplished. He stated that he has no problem operating within tight quarters: more space does not improve the quality of one’s work. Thelen asked Mattson if he would agree that the County needs a plan. Mattson proposed that this Committee meet again to address a “top ten” of Departmental needs. Russek stated that the CIP document contains this type of information.
Chur stated that she hears that everybody here cares deeply about this issue. She stated that today’s discussion is not necessarily about the bricks and mortar. Many Departments have space issues. She stated that she is hearing that there is a need for a process. She stated that it is just as much about the process as it is about the result. She stated that the Committee members cannot see into the future, however, engaging in the process allows the group to be proactive. She stated that she believes the Department Heads are very eager to engage in the planning process and can provide a lot of experience. She stated that a consultant may not be needed, but somebody needs to be designated as the leader. Ultimately, the County Board makes the decision.
Mleziva inquired as to whether AMC may be a resource in acquiring feedback from other counties that have gone through the same growing pains.
MacMillan stated that he does not know what the plan should be, however the fourth floor was projected to reach full capacity within 6-7 years. He stated that they are at that point now. It is his understanding that the CIP is to fund small projects. He stated that he would be disappointed if the County were to hire a consultant. He stated that he would be in favor of a facilitator. The Department Heads, in cooperation with the County Board, have the expertise to develop a plan. He stated that there is a need for a plan. Each Department has different issues. He stated that he does not think that they need a consultant to tell them where to go. The Committee has over 200 years of cooperative experience at its fingertips.
Norman stated that the Extension Department does a lot of facilitating. He proposed bringing this topic to the Spring Retreat. Thelen asked Chur if she could recommend a facilitator for the Spring Retreat. Eichelberg stated that he is in favor of this idea as it would move the Committee closer to a solution. Mattson asked Chur to work with Norman’s office in coordinating the event.
Sawatzke proposed that Planning & Zoning could assist the Assessor’s Office in their expansion plans by drafting a plan and providing a cost estimate for the work. Salkowski stated that his Department has offered assistance to the Assessor’s Office.
RECOMMENDATION: Chur and Norman to coordinate finding a facilitator for the Spring Retreat. (End of 1-26-10 Building Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, requested approval of a condemnation resolution for unsigned parcels of right of way on CSAH 12 between the south City limits of the City of Buffalo and 0.9 miles south of County Road 108 (SAP 86-612-17). As of 2-03-10, about 2/3 of the parcels have been acquired with additional acquisition meetings continuing. The resolution is recommended for approval as it will allow the County Attorney’s Office to begin Eminent Domain proceedings using the 90-day quick-take procedures and allow timely access to the properties during the 2010 construction season. Mark Johnson, Wright County Right Of Way Agent, anticipated they would be able to resolve all but 3-4 of the outstanding parcels. Mattson questioned the process used to value the land. Johnson stated that a certified appraiser reviews the parcels individually. A distinction is made on the acreage based on such things as wetlands, trees, and parcel size. Each parcel is treated differently but the value has a lot to do with size. Appraisals were completed in late December and offers were mailed thereafter. Landowners were provided a couple of weeks to review the offers and meetings were scheduled with them. Sawatzke questioned to what extent the need for right of way is based upon the bike path versus the road. Johnson said that in 100% of the cases on that side of the road, right of way would have been acquired anyway for the road project. The path involves acquiring an additional 10’ of right of way. The vast majority of commentsreceived relate to a desire for a paved path. Mattson said he does not favor condemning personal property and with the adoption of the resolution, the process can start whether or not a property owner agrees to the offer. Johnson said that is the case if approval is gained through the Court System. That has not been done yet. Discussion led to project funding. Fingalson understands that Federal funding will be used for acquisition of the additional 10’ of land. Sawatzke questioned whether Federal funding could be used for condemnation. Fingalson recalled this issue relating to the CSAH 17 project. Although Federal dollars are involved for both projects, he understands this grant funding has different parameters. He will consult with Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, on the funding. He did not feel that this information needed to be obtained prior to moving forward with the condemnation resolution. The project will move forward either way and right of way will be needed. Funding issues will have to be addressed as they arise. The City of Buffalo is in charge of the project within City limits. Fingalson met with the City about timing of the project and anticipated some challenges in that regard. Mattson felt a base price should be established when compensating landowners and negotiations could occur above that. He questioned the prices offered for land in his District versus land in Buffalo. Johnson stated that there has been disparity in this project. The certified appraiser is to look at comparables in the County where land sold over the past 1.5 years and how the property compares. In previous years, a flat fee was offered per square foot. Johnson said that would not hold up in Court today. Russek said everyone has the right to obtain their own appraisal and to appeal. Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #10-10, approving the Condemnation Resolution for the unsigned parcels of right of way on CSAH 12 (SAP 86-612-17). The motion was seconded by Russek. Mattson felt there should be a way to settle with landowners without condemning property. Thelen asked again whether the Board should delay adopting the resolution until Fingalson consults with Mattice on the parameters of Federal funding for the project. Fingalson said the worst case scenario is that the County will have to pay the costs for obtaining the right of way that is secured through condemnation. He felt funding could be worked out through the two departments involved. The motion carried 4-1 with Mattson casting the nay vote.
Norman said Request For Proposals (RFP’s) for a Classification Study were due in the Administration Office by 4:00 P.M. on 2-05-10. After consulting with the Board Chair on the process for handling the RFP’s, Norman opened the RFP’s yesterday. This is considered a professional service the County is contracting for and differs from opening bids for such things as road projects.
The following RFP’s were received:
1. The Archer Company Chicago IL
2. Bjorklund Compensation Consulting Eden Prairie MN
3. Wayne Brede St. Paul MN
4. Condrey & Associates Athens GA
5. Employers Association Plymouth MN
6. Fox Lawson & Associates St. Paul MN
7. Gallup Consulting Minneapolis MN
8. Springsted Inc. St. Paul MN
Norman said the economy has taken its toll on a couple of consulting firms, including the one Rod Kelsey was part of. That firm is no longer in existence. Kelsey worked with the County previously on review of job classifications. Norman said the process recommended is to have the Administration staff develop a matrix to quantify the proposals submitted. Members of the Administration staff and the County Board will then receive copies of the matrix and each will then individually rank the RFP’s. Norman suggested the Board schedule a Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting to discuss each individual’s ranking of the proposals and select firms to interview (3-4 firms). Sawatzke moved to schedule a Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 3-16-10 at 10:30 A.M., seconded by Russek. Norman said that the Administration Department will check references and consult with Frank Madden, the County’s Labor Law Attorney, for his perspective. The motion carried 5-0.
Bills Approved
American Messaging. $629.45
American Tower Corporation 3,480.00
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 244.86
AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. 2,378.87
Ancom Communications Inc. 256.50
Anoka County Sheriff 9,083.83
Aramark Services 6,504.40
B & B Products - Rigs and Squ 280.87
Beaudry Propane Inc. 1,665.97
Bergquist/Douglas 14,437.00
Buffalo Hospital 1,224.90
Buffalo, City of 76,166.28
Cameron, Tim 150.00
Center Point Energy 129.37
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 48,982.07
CenturyLink 201.95
Climate Air 2,344.65
Corinna Township 775.40
Country Chevrolet 148.00
Crystal Welding Inc. 695.79
Deatons Mailing Systems Inc 318.49
Elk River Ford 263,658.32
Emergency Physicians Prof. 432.00
Glunz, Raymond 120.00
Greenview Inc. 444.44
Gutknecht, Julie 154.00
Hardings Towing Inc. 267.19
Herc-U-Lift 2,540.94
Highway 55 Trailer Sales 112.22
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 2,586.65
Indentix Incorporated 462.37
Institute of Police Technology 650.00
Jans, Brian 108.00
Jobe, Steven 237.54
Kaplan Professional Schools 1,700.00
Katris, Keith T. 4,300.00
Kramber, Greg 144.23
L-3 Communications Mobile Vis 130.29
Laurent, Michael 143.28
Loberg Electric 2,393.05
M-R Sign Company Inc. 1,798.17
Marco Inc. 2,779.35
Matzke, Brian 1,100.00
Menards - Buffalo 137.26
Meyer, Steve 125.00
Mid-States Organized Crime Info 300.00
Midland Corporate Benefits Svc 997.75
MN Assn. of Co. Administrators 445.00
MN City-County Mngmnt Assn. 110.00
MN CLE Inc. 195.00
MN Deputy Registrar Assoc. 414.00
MN Viewers Association 125.00
MTI Distributing Inc. 210.25
Museum Products 103.25
Nada Appraisal Guidees 154.00
Neopost Inc. 543.95
Northland Business Systems 2,268.00
Oak, Danette M. 335.00
Office Depot 1,236.17
Pakor Inc. 1,020.66
Prairie Country RC&D 8,353.00
RS Eden 16,622.70
Russek, John 183.35
Salkowski, Thomas M. 110.00
Schmidt Inc./FH 5,000.00
Seton Identification Products 600.65
Sim Tek Inc. 365.79
Spectrum Solutions 853.50
St. Cloud, City of 2,089.54
Total Printing 428.94
Verizon Wireless 126.98
Washington County Accoun 1,500.00
Waste Management-TC West 238.92
Watchguard Elect. Home Mon. 102.50
Wright Co. Auditor Treasurer 100.00
Wright County Journal Press 416.19
28 Payments less than $100 1,321.28
Final total $503,494.32
The meeting adjourned at 9:44 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal March 1, 2010.

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

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