Wright County Board Minutes

MARCH 16, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek, Thelen, and Eichelberg present.
Russek moved to approve the 3-09-10 County Board Minutes, seconded by Thelen, carried unanimously.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Auditor/Treasurer Item #3, “Update, Joint Ditch 3” (Hiivala); Item For Consid. #3, “Pipeline Safety Meeting” (Russek). Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda, seconded by Thelen, carried 5-0.
The Consent Agenda was discussed. Sawatzke requested that Item D1 be removed for discussion. Sawatzke made a motion to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda (not including Item D1). The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 5-0:
1. Performance Appraisals: M. Pramann, Ct. Svcs.; B. Severson, Hwy.; K. Hayes, IT; C. Graham, J. Hermansen, K. LaFromboise, M. Williamson, Sher.
2. Set 4-20-10 As Boy/Girl Day.
1. Approve Planning & Zoning Change Fund, $100.
1. Authorize One (1) Additional Analog Phone Line In The Public Works Building For Traffic Signal Communications System.
Item D1, SURVEYOR, “Authorize County Surveyor To Attend The National Surveyors Conference In Phoenix, Arizona, April 24-28, 2010” was discussed. Sawatzke said the attendance at the Conference was included in the Surveyor’s 2010 Budget. He referenced a recent Board Meeting when the request was presented for the Highway Engineer and Assistant Highway Engineer to attend an out-of-state conference in Texas. Sawatzke did not feel authorizing travel to conferences for Department Heads was sending the best message to the public, in light of current budget constraints. Eichelberg supported the request to attend, as it is included in the Surveyor’s Budget and because the request for the Highway Engineer and Assistant Highway Engineer was approved. Russek said Department Heads are allowed travel to one out-of-state conference per year. However, he questioned whether this was the right time to be sending staff out of State. The Assistant Highway Engineer has been nominated and may receive an award during the conference in Texas. He felt that was a special circumstance. Thelen felt National conferences pay for themselves due to networking possibilities and new information that can be obtained. She supports sending Department Heads to conferences, as they obtain information that can enhance our lives. The request was also included in the 2010 budget. She did not support saving money in a piecemeal fashion as things are brought forth. Russek suggested that Department Heads/staff be required to provide an update to the Board on their conference attendance and associated benefits. Russek said he would not vote in favor of just allowing someone to attend. Mattson felt Fingalson and Jobe should provide a report upon their return. In this way, the County will know in upcoming years whether attendance is justified. Mattson said he would support the request from the Surveyor given it was discussed during Budget sessions. Eichelberg made a motion to authorize attendance and to request that Fingalson and Jobe provide a report back to the Board on the outcome of the Conferences, (i.e., what information they obtained that will be helpful to the County). The motion was seconded by Thelen. Mattson said he is normally cautious with how money is spent, but the County must allow Departments to do some things to gain knowledge. The motion carried 3-2 with Sawatzke and Russek casting the nay votes.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented a MCCC 2009 Shared Meeting bill for $426.39. Wright County has been removed from the Shared Meeting expenses for 2010 and from the BETA and Enhancement Funds. The bill being presented is for 2009 expenses which Wright County agreed to cost-share. A portion of the 2009 expenses has already been paid. Hiivala consulted with Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, whose opinion is that Wright County is responsible for the bill. If approved, Hiivala will present the claim as part of next week’s claims listing. Hiivala said Wright County is holding back on 2010 costs at this point. There are discussions being held with the user group that reports to MCCC. Sawatzke said the bill being considered today is a small one. However, when it comes to the claims for 2010, substantial dollars may be involved and he did not want this to be the first payment in a series where each one is debated. Hiivala said there will be a point in time where the County will have to decide what to do with the 2010 claims. In the meantime, the 11 counties involved are looking at holding back on the Manatron System. Wright County is not the only County that has not paid their 2010 support. All other counties have paid their 2009 bills for shared meeting expenses. Hiivala felt this was the last bill for 2009. Eichelberg moved to pay the 2009 Shared Meeting bill for $426.39, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0. Hiivala stated there are no interest costs involved.
The claims listing was reviewed. Hiivala highlighted a claim on Page 27 to Motorola, $218,145.80, for 800 MHz Infrastructure. The claim is being paid from Fund 34. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Hiivala provided an update on Joint Ditch 3. Meeker County has requested attendance from Wright County during a conference call today at 11:30 A.M. Russek and Mattson will attend the conference call. The purpose is to discuss a variance request by MinnCam to cross the ditch at a shallower depth than what is required. An opinion has been obtained from Kurt Deter. Hiivala said there is also an opinion from Kerry Saxton, who has discussed this with the Highway Engineer at Meeker County. Today’s conference call is a formality for the Commissioners to express their approval/disapproval for the variance request. This was provided as an informational item.
Lee Kelly, Special Projects Administrator, presented an update on the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Project update:
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) was awarded in the amount of $471,200. Proposed projects were quoted at $475,482, and approved by County Board on 6-9-09, requiring a County contribution of $4,282. This number is expected to be offset by energy efficiency rebates offered by the utility companies.
1. Install Variable Speed Drives (VSD) at Government Center air handling units. Proposal from Climate Air 4/29/2009. $64,079 with a simple payback of 1.8 yrs in energy savings.
I have asked Scott at Climate Air to review the proposal prior to beginning as three of the proposed VSD’s are on air handling units for the jail which are now turned off at least 50% of the time. Nine of the twelve VSD’s proposed will be installed later this spring.
2. Replace dampers on the penthouse at Government Center. Proposal from Climate Air 4/29/2009. $7,473 with a simple payback of 2.79 yrs.
Work was done in late 2009 to repair and seal up the penthouse structure. This work was not funded under the EECBG grant. The dampers will be installed by Climate Air in the spring when the weather gets warmer.
3. Replace Kewanee Boiler at the Government Center. Proposal from Climate Air 4/30/2009. $131,480 with a simple payback of 6 yrs. This updates an old boiler and provides back up options.
The boiler has to be removed after heating season as there is no backup option for this area of the building. This project is scheduled to be completed later this spring.
4. Replace the 17 old heat pumps on the third floor Annex. $153,470, This would take the pumps from an 5.4 EER rating to a 17.8 rating and add them to the digital control system.
This project was begun in December 2009. The 17th heat pump was installed on the evening of 3/4. Wiring still needs to be completed to put these heat pumps on the building control system. An additional electrical disconnect will be installed as it was discovered that one heat pump did not have one. Thus far we have paid two installments totaling $137,280 for this project. The final installment should be arriving soon.
5. Update Lobby and additional light fixtures. Approximately $34,000, this would yield a 20% savings over the old lamps.
Lighting upgrades to the main lobby area were completed in December. We have been billed $16,762.41 for these upgrades. Lighting upgrades in the 1st and 2nd floor Annex hallways have been completed. The cost to complete these additional lighting upgrades has been quoted to be around $16,000, including the work on the third floor of the annex. The lighting in the 3rd floor hallways has been installed, and the offices should be completed in the week of 3/15.
6. Remove one steam boiler and replace with 1 Fulton pulse QT high efficiency Hot water heating boiler $84,980.
The old steam boiler was removed and a new concrete base was installed for the new boiler. The new boiler was put in place the last week of February. Plumbing work to tie it into the system still must be completed. We have received the first installment of this for this project in the amount of $55,000.
• Rebates
- A rebate of $664 was received for completing the lighting upgrades to the Government Center Lobby
- Additional rebates from Buffalo Electric are expected relating to the lighting retrofits in the Annex. In my research it appears that the rebate will be approximately $12 per fixture.
- The rebate for the heat pump retrofit is estimated to be over $1000 from Centerpont energy.
- The two boiler projects will also be eligible for rebates through Centerpoint energy. Research indicates a rebate of approximately $3000 per boiler installed.
• Budget
- $262,237.59 in EECBG funds are included in the Levy Stabilization Fund balance. Of the $471,200 we were awarded, $208,962.41 has been spent as of 3/11/2010.
- See attached budget sheet.
Mattson asked about the County’s expense associated with recycling bulbs. Kelly understands that there is an agreement with Green Lights (Blaine Minnesota) to handle recycling of the bulbs and did not feel there was any additional cost. Thelen moved to accept the report on the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Program, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Laid over from the 2-16-10 County Board Meeting, the Board discussed the request to replace a Family Based Services Provider position in Public Health. Mary Nesseth, Public Health Nurse Supervisor, distributed information on the request. Sawatzke said the request first went to the Personnel Committee and then was discussed by the County Board. Concern was raised on replacement of the position due to the recent State budget forecast and possible cuts in funding for Human Services programs. For that reason, the request was laid over to obtain clarification from staff as to any impact which may be realized from State budget cuts. Nesseth said the reductions are being realized in the Jobs and Training areas. The funding programs listed in the handout (C&TC, FHVG, MCH, and PMAPS) will not be affected. Thelen moved to authorize replacement of the Family Based Services Provider position in Public Health. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. In response to a question by Mattson, Nesseth said there are currently four people on a waiting list for services. Discussion led to how much the County pays per year for the position. Carol Schefers, Public Health Director, estimated the County spends at the most $45,000/year with benefits, possibly less. Sawatzke noted that in the past, the position brought in $35,000 in billings for a 6-month period. Nesseth stated research shows the program may reduce the need for further government services for a person. Mattson requested that Public Health provide a report to the Human Services Board in about 6 months on whether hiring for the position has resulted in a reduction of people on a waiting list for assistance. The motion carried 5-0.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, said at the 3-02-10 Committee Of The Whole Meeting, the Parks Administrator indicated additional Metro Greenways Grant funding may be available to Wright County and the City of Monticello for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Project. Notice was received 3-09-10 that an additional $49,628 could be added to the $250,000 grant. The funds must be expended prior to 6-30-10. This would increase the County contribution by $27,605.50 for a total contribution in 2010 of $166,668. Mattice requested the Board approve acceptance of the additional funding and match contribution. Sawatzke moved to accept the additional grant funding from the State in the amount of $49,628, seconded by Thelen. Mattice said the funding is from Lottery dollars that are specifically for the environment. Mattice said funding is pending the LCCMR’s approval of the amendment. Sawatzke asked whether Mattice had been in contact with the YMCA since the $49,628 in funding became available. Mattice said he had been in contact with the YMCA but had indicated to them that acceptance was pending County Board approval. Sawatzke said the purchase would involve the acquisition of eastern lakeshore of Long Lake in Monticello Township. Mattson questioned whether private lawn maintenance contractors could be hired for parks maintenance instead of interns. There are taxpayers who could provide this service who may need the work. Mattice felt this option could be looked at in the future when additional staff is requested for the Parks Department. Sawatzke said the feasibility of this option would depend on the hourly rate paid for seasonal staff. Mattson felt the County should look at ways to keep taxpayers employed. Sawatzke felt this discussion would be more appropriate at a Personnel Committee Meeting. The motion carried 5-0.
At the last County Board Meeting, Mattice presented two government sponsored resolutions for Regional Park & Legacy Grant Applications for the Bertram Chain of Lakes project. At that meeting, the motion failed to adopt the resolutions on a 2-2 vote. The County Board instructed Mattice to bring this issue forth at today’s meeting as Commissioner Eichelberg was absent from the last meeting. Mattice clarified that one resolution relates to the Park Legacy Grant Application and the other is for the Regional Park Grant Application. The funding for the Regional Park Grant is from Land & Conservation Fund money. The funding for the Park Legacy Grant is from the 3/8ths of 1% tax that was voted on in November, 2008 by Minnesota residents. Eichelberg said if the County makes an effort to obtain grant funding, it shows the YMCA that the County is attempting to gain funding toward purchase of land even though economic times are not good. Eichelberg hopes the economy will turn around in the next couple of years. Grant funding will provide a better chance to fund park land. For that reason, Eichelberg said he would support trying to obtain grant funding for the Bertram Chain of Lakes project. Russek said he voted against the resolutions last week due to the local match required. He is unsure how the County will fund the match and felt the County cannot continue to raise property taxes. Mattson thought the Bertram land was appraised too high and asked whether a local appraiser was used. Mattice stated that Paul Bakken appraised the land. Bakken has been contracted by the County for other appraisals. Sawatzke referenced land values in the area of the Bertram Chain of Lakes. He said bare farm land was sold in years past for 2-3 times what the County has signed purchase agreements for in park land. He did recognize the market was different at that time and land values were higher. He said that land was at least twice as much per acre as it is being sold for now and it is prime lakeshore property. He did not know of four undeveloped lakes in Minnesota in private ownership with this proximity to the metro area. Sawatzke feels the property is worth the purchase price. Mattice said that an appraisal is required each time land is acquired. The grant will not pay more than the appraised value. Sawatzke said although these are not the best economic times, the County will not need to increase the levy because of this. The County has $2.4 million in the Capital Improvement Account to use for special projects so the County does not have to levy for them. The County is applying for $411,000 and the County’s match is probably around $225,000. Sawatzke said this purchase might be competing with other County projects in the Capital Improvement Account. He did not necessarily think the County would have to raise taxes this year or next year because of this project. Mattson referenced Wright County’s lakes and the tax revenue generated from properties on these lakes. The Bertram Chain of Lakes property will not provide tax revenue and it will not improve the quality of Wright County. Mattson said he has not changed his mind. He wanted it understood there is a lot of revenue from the lakes in Wright County. Mattice said that once a park is established, studies indicate that properties within 1/4 mile of the park usually realize an increase in value. Sawatzke agreed that there are valuable lake properties in Wright County. The lakes on the Bertram property are smaller and may not be able to sustain that type of development. Sawatzke felt more expensive homes might be built adjacent to or on the perimeter of the park. Currently, the land is in the hands of a non-profit organization. The land is already off the tax base by virtue of this ownership. The County is therefore not losing tax revenue by purchasing the land. Mattson said most of this property was a tax shelter, and he felt the land should have been donated to Wright County. Thelen said there would be an opportunity to see the park this summer. She compared it to the boundary waters and feels it will bring in tourists. It will provide recreation that Wright County does not currently offer. Many people are eager to be able to utilize the land. She did not want to see the land surrounded by million dollar properties. Thelen made a motion to adopt Resolution #10-14, adopting the local government sponsor resolution for the Park Legacy Grant Application. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke said Wright County has many parks that share residential areas and it works well. Wright County has 29 parks, but he thought this would be a park that is unique and different.
He said the County Board all recognized that when the process of acquiring the land started a couple of years ago. Mattson referenced Thelen’s comment about visiting the Park this summer and noted that he has been out to the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. The motion carried 3-2 with Mattson and Russek casting the nay votes. Sawatzke moved to adopt Resolution #10-15, adopting the local government sponsor resolution for the Regional Park Grant Application. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 3-2 with Russek and Mattson casting the nay votes.
A Labor Management Health Insurance Committee Meeting was held on 3-10-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. It was noted that there was no recommendation from the Committee. Another meeting is scheduled for 4-28-10. The Committee hopes to have responses from the unions by that date. The motion carried 5-0:
Paul Coglitoree, B & C Consulting, referenced the Experience Report which is received monthly from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (BCBS). This Report points out how Wright County’s benefit plans are being utilized throughout the year. In addition, the Report provides information used during the bidding process (see handout). Coglitore explained that several large claims were submitted resulting in a high loss ratio for Wright County. In July, 2009 the Claim Cost was at $438.23. In August, 2009 the Claim Cost jumped to $605.56 per month. Coglitore stated that it is not uncommon for hospitals to hold claims until patients are near discharge; so even though claims are building up, they are not submitted to the insurance carrier. In November, 2009 the Claims Cost spiked to $651.09. The total for Income (PMPM) was at $475.21 and the Claim Cost (PMPM) was at $472.72. He continued that premiums only cover claim costs and do not factor in taxes, administrative costs, and pooling point charges. Wright County as a group is running over a 100% loss ratio. Based on Wright County’s most recent 12 months of claims, Jeff Berg, B & C Consulting, stated the following: Medical loss ratio is at 97.8%; Total loss ratio is at 109.8%; and the Ongoing Claims percentage is 16.3%. Berg explained that a majority of the high level claims have been submitted to the insurance company which should result in the ongoing claims being at a lower level (see handout). Additional high level claims could change this scenario. Discussion took place regarding factors that influence the underwriters’ decisions. Berg stated that underwriters are aware that the number of claims will always be higher based on a group of Wright County’s size. He continued that the average increase over the last 5 years is 22% – 24% and that B & C Consulting has been able to negotiate 9.9%. Coglitore stated that in 2010 the proposed renewal rates were at 14%; however, the rates were negotiated down to 9.6%. He recommends submitting and discussing renewals with insurance carries between September and October, 2010. This would allow enough time to provide the underwriters with accurate information regarding the on-going claims. Discussion whether switching plans would lower premiums took place. Berg stated that carriers with the best plans and rates are reviewed regularly and currently include Medica, Health Partners, Preferred, and BCBS. Lorrie Adams, Child Support Officer, questioned how the outstanding claims affect the costs of switching to another provider. Berg replied that there is enough information being reported on the large claims that if Wright County switched to another provider, there would be a significant increase in premiums. Coglitore stated that carriers have to be informed about claims to avoid hidden surprises. In addition, it is felt that the majority of the big claims have been submitted and going forward will level off. Berg added that there is always a risk of new claims appearing.
Coglitore reported that Wright County had good participation in both plans (see handout). Delta Dental Comprehensive Dental had 63 single and 16 family enrollments. This shows that 11.75% of Wright County employees are currently enrolled. Delta required only 10 participants versus other carriers requiring 10% - 25% enrollment. Coglitore reported that Eye Med is under a 4 year rate lock and that Wright County had 53 single, 18 1+1 enrollees, and 20 families enroll (see handout). Employee ID cards and an outline of services will be distributed to all enrolled employees.
A. Discussion Regarding Changing Benefit Plan Design Of Health Insurance Plans.
Coglitore distributed information outlining standard plans for BCBS, Medica, and Health Partners (see handout). Topics include costs associated with copays, deductibles, out of pocket maximums, and cost of prescription drugs. He stated that Wright County currently offers $10.00 copays and 100% in-network coverage, which no other plan offers. Norman stated that this year the Labor/Management Health Insurance Committee will have to be proactive in preparing for the bidding process. He suggested that each representative take the provided information back to union members and employees to obtain input on changes employees would like to see. The handouts should be used as a guide when looking into different carriers and plans. According to a survey completed Wright County currently offers an exceptional plan. He continued that a lot of work has to be completed in order to gather adequate information to be presented to carriers and underwriters. Pat O’Malley, Assistant Jail Administrator, questioned if information could be received on Health Savings Accounts (HSA). Coglitore agreed and stated that there are several different plans available to review. Currently, a majority of Wright County employees are on Plan 1 offered by BCBS and that HSA’s do not offer the same benefits and have large deductibles. Current plan costs are decreased considerably by Wright County’s contribution to the total costs. Coglitore stated with HSA’s, employees receive a certain amount of money paid in increments over the year. The money goes into an account set up in the employees’ name. Employees have to pay out of pocket if there is not enough money in there HSA. The employee is reimbursed as payments are made by their employer into their HSA. In addition, if an employee terminates employment, the money goes with the employee. The account is owned by the employee and employees have the ability to take the money and spend it on non-health care expenditures. Berg added that the current trend does not include HSA’s and that a renewal strategy should include long term versus short term benefits. Berg stated that an HSA could be one of the options offered; however, Berg did not feel it would be a good change across the board. Discussion took place regarding the effects on premium costs if revised plans are offered or if Wright County switches to another insurance carrier. Berg stated that switching plans and having a big gap between high and low options will affect the cost of premiums. In addition, making small changes to current plans will hopefully change the way people think about going to the doctor. For example, increasing the cost of office copays could decrease the overall cost of health premiums. Sean Riley, Assistant Environmental Health Specialist, stated that a majority of Wright County employees utilize individual health coverage. He continued that family coverage is very expensive and employees would like to see alternative plans. Opting out of mandatory health plans was also suggested. Surveying employees would be a good option; however, accurate information would not be obtainable in such a short time frame for review. Norman stated that all representatives will need to contact business agents to set up union meetings to discuss the information provided. He continued that Wright County does not want employees to opt out, as it could lead to adverse selection. Coglitore stated that the benefits offered by Wright County are different than the private sector. In the private sector, the lowest plan is funded and employees have the option to buy up. He suggested possibly modifying Plan 1 and making changes to the other two plans. This makes it more affordable to all employees and their families. Norman added that unions need to meet to discuss plan redesigns and employees need to provide feedback to assist in the final decisions. Any changes that are made will require formal approval of the Unions and the non-union employee group. O’Malley questioned what Wright County is currently looking at for an increase in premiums, based off current and outstanding claims. Berg replied that the average is 22% over the last 5 years. Coglitore added that when Wright County first moved to BCBS, Medica was purposing a 30% increase and Wright County has remained lower that that. BCBS originally purposed 25% and through negotiations it was brought down to 9%, including a two year rate guarantee. He continued that there are options to decrease cost. For example, pursing cost sharing on non prescription drug plans results in incremental savings. Discussion took place regarding additional ways to save costs.
One question is to possibly pool benefits with surrounding counties. Coglitore stated that association with other counties may work against Wright County. Other counties might be utilizing benefits more than others; however, costs would be distributed equally among each county. Russek commented that any changes would have to be negotiated with the Unions. Adams asked what tools can be utilized to help explain the many different options to the employees. Coglitore stated they could use the documentation distributed, as well as employees referencing BCBS’s website. Information showing Wright County’s increase in contributions over the last several years was requested. Brown stated that information will be provided to representatives so that information can be relayed to the Unions as well as employees. This information will include actually premium rates.
B. Timetable.
Norman suggest meeting in April, 2010 to review employee responses. It was decided to meet on April 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioner’s Board Room.
C. Union Involvement.
All changes will have to be submitted and approved by the Unions.
(End of Labor/Management Health Insurance Committee Minutes)
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 3-10-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, the following changes were made to the minutes: Page 2, Parks Item, 2nd paragraph, sentence should read, “After much discussion, the Committee established the 2010 wages for returning and vacated positions” (Sawatzke); Page 3, Parks Item, Recommendation should read, “Authorize Parks to advertise for three open seasonal positions with a cap of $50,000” (Sawatzke). The minutes follow along with discussion that occurred at today’s County Board Meeting (in italics):
Pawelk added “Surveyor” under Agenda Item 1A. Position Opening, Seasonal/Interns.
Norman stated that the Personnel Committee has never discussed whether to fill seasonal or intern positions. In light of the economic situation, he felt it prudent to discuss whether the positions should be filled and their salary/budget implications.
A. Seasonal/Interns.
Neaton stated that Extension is asking for a ten-week and a five-week internship position. The positions would cease the week after the County Fair. These positions primarily assist in coordinating County Fair programs as well as various non-Fair programming, and day camp activities. These hands-on positions would pay $10/hour and are 40 hr/week positions. He stated that the hourly wage has not increased. He noted that for events involving youth, there should be an adult to child ratio of 1:10. Interns help facilitate this chaperone ratio. Extension typically hires college students and an evaluation is completed at the end of the internship to ensure that the program continually succeeds. He stated that Extension has $6,500 budgeted in its line item for temporary staff. He calculated that both positions would reach a gross salary of $6,000. Sawatzke stated that Extension used to facilitate one annual internship position. He noted that in recent years, Extension has increased that to two positions. He questioned why this change occurred. Neaton stated that this was before his time, however he understands that there was a maternity leave that caused the need for an additional position. Since that time, there has been in increase in County and non-Fair programming. Extension is now able to offer more day camps. Thelen stated that since Extension has budgeted for two positions, she is in favor of the positions. Sawatzke stated that once the County receives its cut from the State, cuts would need to be made to the budget. He stated that he would be in favor of granting the 10 week position and holding off on the 5 week position. Neaton responded that he has already received calls regarding the intern positions. He stated that college students want to plan their summer. Sawatzke stated that the County would not stop operating if these interns aren’t hired. He stated that the County Board has to balance all competing interests. Thelen stated that she does not want to quibble over $2,000. The internships are good for the kids, good for the economy, and good for the County. It is a win-win situation. Brown asked Neaton how these extra hours would impact Extension’s ability to get what needs to be done for the County Fair. Neaton stated that he has not been employed with Extension through the Fair process. He stated that the County and State Fairs will go on and will be great no matter what. He stated that the 10 week position assists with summer-wide programming. The 5 week position concentrates on the Fair. He commented that if Extension was authorized for only the 10 week position, that position would shift their focus to the Fair and programming would be cut back. The Fair season is Extension’s main priority. Sawatzke stated that Extension’s request is not unreasonable, however, with the current economic situation, the County Board has to weigh all requests. He commended Extension on its conservativeness. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Extension to advertise for a 10 week internship position. The Committee was undecided on the 5 week internship.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that there was not a clear recommendation from the Committee on the 5 week internship for the Extension Service.
Mattice distributed the attached spreadsheet, “2010 Parks Department Seasonal Positions”. He stated that Parks hires nine seasonal staff. He stated that during the 2009 summer season, hours were reduced in an effort to maximize savings. He stated that the spreadsheet shows the employees that are coming back for the 2010 season. His Department has received applications for the 2010 vacant seasonal positions. The budget for the 2009 season was $56,000. The budget actual was $53,091.50. The budget for 2010 is $55,406. After much discussion, the Committee established the 2010 wages for returning and vacated positions:
JW: $10.25
SI: $12.00
MB: $9.50
AB: $9.75
AM: $10.25
EM: $9.50
And the three open positions would start at $9.25.
Sawatzke asked Mattice to cap his seasonal staff expenditures at $50,000. Mattice stated that Parks spent $53,091 in 2009 which included a decrease in hours. Sawatzke asked if Mattice could cut hours again for the 2010 season. Mattice stated that he would like the Committee to consider using $53,000 as the cap amount for 2010. Thelen stated that she is uncomfortable with this process. She stated that Mattice expended $53,091.50 last year by cutting hours. She stated that she would be happy to cap this year’s seasonal expenditure amount to match last year’s actual figure. She stated that Parks has a need and therefore has a difficult time proposing further cuts. During these economic times, people need to work. Norman stated that by reducing the 2010 wages, Mattice has realized a potential savings. Sawatzke stated that he appreciates Parks, however, the average taxpayer does not care how often park grass is mowed. He stated that the average taxpayer is more concerned whether a park is open. Mattice stated that he would have to go back to his office to see where he could cut his hours in order to meet the $50,000 expenditure cap. Sawatzke commended Mattice’s efforts in clearly laying out the 2010 seasonal help budget. Mattice asked if the County Board has to authorize him to send out the return-to-work letters to the Campground Managers. Norman stated that these are union positions, so no action is required by the County Board. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Parks to advertise for three open seasonal positions with a cap of $50,000.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the wages proposed by the Parks Administrator would provide a $.25/hour increase, as has been done in the past. Sawatzke said the Parks Department is fully staffed. He said the Department has not taken any cuts in staffing like many of the other departments.
Fingalson stated that the Highway Department has four positions in two categories: Sign Crew and Engineering Program. The sign maintenance positions start at $9.25/hour. The engineering internships require students who are enrolled in an engineering or survey school. These positions start at $10.25/hour. Returning positions receive a $.25/hour increase. He stated that they like to be competitive with the neighboring counties. Fingalson noted that Highway has $21,500 in its 2010 budget for these positions. The Department had a 2009 budget of $23,000 and exceeded it by 1%. He explained that two sign crews (one seasonal staff paired with a FT Sign Tech and truck) are needed to meet the requirements established by the Federal Highway Administration. The County has 15,000 signs that all need to be replaced or maintained. 400 signs need to be installed this year since they were not installed last year due to a cut in hours. The Committee established the 2010 wages by determining that the returning positions would receive the same compensation they earned during the 2009 season. The open sign crew position would start at $9.25. Sawatzke asked if Highway could cap its 2010 seasonal/intern expenditures at $20,000. Fingalson stated that the sign crew hours could be capped, however, the engineering positions are dictated by the contractors schedules. The contractors’ schedules can dictate Saturday schedules and overtime hours. To cut the engineering interns’ hours, would result in having to hire a consultant to fill in as needed. Sawatzke stated that he can agree with Thelen that this is an awkward approach in determining whether to hire intern and seasonal staff. He stated that there are probably some counties who are not hiring seasonal help. Fingalson stated that he would be surprised if that was the case. Norman asked if any of the interns receive overtime pay. Hawkins stated that during construction season, the engineering interns could accumulate overtime based on a contractor’s schedule. Fingalson confirmed that the sign crew seasonal staff does not receive overtime. The sign crew works four 10 hour days. Fingalson stated that his Department would do its best to meet the $20,000 cap for seasonal/intern expenditures. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Highway to advertise for one open Sign Crew seasonal position.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that the recommendation does not reflect the cap of $20,000 but that was the intent. Sawatzke said the Highway Department is fully staffed. The Committee felt that in light of the pending fiscal situation at the State that cutting back on some of these positions was a prudent idea.
Information Technology
Swing stated that the internship program has been an integral part of the I.T. Department for 15 years. Swing stated that he has $3,000 budgeted for the intern expenditures, which has not changed from the 2009 budget. He stated that they would reduce the intern wage from $10/hour to $8/hour to leverage the $3,000 budget. He stated that many of I.T.’s employees have come from St. Cloud Tech School. The County has a good relationship with the school. The interns are given straight forward tasks. The interns are typically eager and generally work well. The students do get some sort of credit toward their internship. Swing stated that his Department still has one open position, so the intern position is very helpful. He stated that he did go over his temp budget line item in 2008 prior to the Network Analyst joining the Department. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize I.T. to advertise for one internship position at $8/hour and cap the temporary help expenditures at $3,000.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that the IT Department is down by one staff person. The IT Director indicated at the meeting that they could find a capable student for $8/hour instead of $10/hour. In this way, the will be able to get more time from the intern because of the reduced rate of pay.
Jobe stated that his Department has $5,000 set aside for seasonal, special project, and intern positions. He stated that he has not increased this line item during his five years of employment with the County. Typically, the Survey Department hires one three-month position to work with the crew chiefs on a field crew. This position starts at $10.25 for non-returning employees. Jobe stated that he went over his budget last year by approximately $2,000, and explained that it was an oversight. He stated that his Department draws assistance from the STS crew for some seasonal duties. Jobe stated that the temporary employee comes from a civil engineering or surveying program. The students know CAD and have industry related technical skills. He stated that some students receive internship credit and some do not. Sawatzke asked how the intern position would compare to the engineering intern position in the Highway Department. Jobe stated that the positions are similar as far as background and skills. They have some of the same classes and often attend the same schools. Sawatzke asked Jobe if his Department has any vacancies. Jobe stated that his Department is authorized for eight positions, one of which is vacant. Jobe commented that he is running his Department as tight as he can. Sawatzke stated that he assumes that Jobe will not go over his $5,000 cap for the 2010 season. Jobe stated yes. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Surveyor to advertise for one position at $10.25/hour and cap the temporary help expenditures at $5,000.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Survey Department is short one field worker. The intern will work with the field worker and perform the same work as the position that is vacant.
B. Social Worker, Children’s Mental Health Unit.
Cyr stated that Lori Achman recently filled a position vacated by Ed Hance in the DD Unit. Achman filled an FTE social worker position in Children’s Services which now has a vacancy. Cyr distributed a handout (see attached) describing the reasons why the vacancy needs to be filled. She stated that the County Board signed a contract with STARS in August 2008 to provide $65,000 to Wright County to cover the expense of additional staff and will provide $67,600 from 9-30-10 through 9-29-11. This funding will only be provided if the County maintains 10 FTEs in Children’s Services. Currently, there are 9 FTEs. Sawatzke questioned whether STARS would withdraw its funding. Cyr stated that STARS tracks the County’s FTEs. STARS knows what Wright County started with and if the position isn’t filled, they will not pay the County. She stated that the Wraparound Approach, which has been very successful for the County and its children, is all about having sufficient staff. She restated that STARS has made it clear that if the County does not maintain 10 FTEs, its funding will be cut. She stated that the Wraparound Approach was meant to be sustainable. The Agency’s desire is to maintain the integrity of this management program in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize filling the vacant Social Worker position in the Children’s Mental Health Unit.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said there was a good presentation previously to the Board on the wrap around approach. This is a more intense approach, but some substantial dividends have been realized in keeping kids in school and out of out-of-home placements. Some families have very serious issues. The Committee recommends filling the position to maintain the grant.
C. Office Services Supervisor, Human Services
DeMars stated that he would like authorization to fill the position that Dorothy Schillewaert will be vacating on 5-28-10. He stated that he was Schillewaert’s supervisor. A discussion of Schillewaert’s job duties took place and how it has changed during her career in Human Services. She directly supervises some clerical staff. Sawatzke asked DeMars if now is the time to consider revising the Office Services Supervisor job description. He proposed that perhaps this would be a good time to change the role of the soon-to-be vacated position. DeMars agreed that the position should be reviewed. Brown stated that she would recommend looking at the job description since the clerical pool has decentralized. Schillewaert’s position has changed a lot over the years. DeMars agreed with Brown. Sawatzke asked DeMars if he still saw the position as a supervisory position. DeMars stated that the position supervises a small pool of clerical staff. The position maintains data records. There are two million records in imaging.
Thelen asked what the starting salary would be for this position. DeMars stated that the approximate cost of the position would be $59,500 which includes benefits. The position would start at Step 1. Sawatzke stated that this appears to be the right opportunity to review the position. He noted that perhaps the position does not need to be at the supervisory level. DeMars stated that he agrees it is time to review the job description. He asked whether the Administration Department could assure him that this process would be expedited as Schillewaert’s last day of employment is 5-28-10. Norman stated that DeMars would have to look at the job description. If the job duties do not significantly change, it would not be forwarded for reevaluation. Sawatzke stated that this agenda item would be laid over until the job description can be reevaluated.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Committee felt it was a good time to look at the position to determine if any changes are required in the job description. This was laid over for this purpose.
D. Lead Clerk Supervisor, Sheriff Dept.
Hagerty stated that Sheriff Gary Miller was unable to attend today’s meeting but the request is to fill the position that will soon be vacated by Diane Lange. The request is specifically to backfill Lange’s position as a Lead Clerk Supervisor. Norman provided a history of Lange’s position. He stated that in 1998, Lange was the Administrative Confidential Secretary to the Sheriff. Reorganization took place and Teresa Doerr was promoted to Lead Clerk Supervisor. A job reclassification took place twice to meet pay equity reporting. The most recent reclassification took place on 12-29-00. The Lead Clerk Supervisor was reclassified from I to H. Sheriff Hozempa requested that the Personnel Committee Of The Whole consider changing Lange’s title of Administrative Confidential Secretary to Lead Clerk Supervisor. Although her title changed, her job description was never reviewed. This is an unusual circumstance. Sawatzke asked if Lange’s position is superior to Doerr’s. D. Miller responded that their positions are interchangeable. They never take vacation on the same day and yet they supervise different groups of people. Brown stated that it is her understanding that Lange does not fulfill normal supervisory duties. She is not involved with the performance reviews or hiring processes. She clarified that she does not want to advertise for a Lead Clerk Supervisor position if the position does not accurately reflect the job duties. Sawatzke likened this process to Schillewaert’s position which will also soon be vacated. Both employees have long employment histories with the County and perhaps this is the perfect time to review job descriptions to determine if they best fit the upcoming need. He stated that he assumed that Lange was the Administrative Confidential Secretary to the Sheriff. Hagerty briefly described Lange’s duties. She oversees three FT transcriptionists, forwards transcriptions to the Attorney’s office each morning, manages office operations, maintains city contracts, and acts as a lead contact for all clerical in the Sheriff and Jail Administration areas. He stated that her role changes as technology and staff changes. D. Miller stated that the Department is coming into the busy summer months, and the Department cannot afford to operate without this position. Brown proposed that the Department consider creating one generic job description that encompasses Lange’s and Doerr’s positions. Norman stated that there should not be two direct supervisors for the same people. Sawatzke echoed Norman’s comment by stating that there should not be co-supervisors. D. Miller clarified that Lange supervises the transcriptionists, and Doerr supervises the clerical staff. Norman stated that Doerr’s signed job description from 1996 stated that she supervised six employees and probably more now. D. Miller stated that both Lange’s and Doerr’s positions are equal, however they supervise different functions of the Department. Approximately 20 clerical staff in Jail Administration and Sheriff report to Doerr and Lange. Norman asked who the clerical staff would say their supervisor is. Hagerty stated that he does not know. Hagerty asked whether the Sheriff ultimately decides how each role is filled. Sawatzke asked who completes Lange’s performance review. Hagerty stated that the Sheriff does. Norman stated that Lange was a great employee and will be missed. He stated that today’s discussion is nothing against her performance. Thelen asked when Lange would complete her last day with the Sheriffs Department. Hagerty stated that Lange would retire on 3-26-10. Thelen asked whether there is enough time to get Lange’s job description reevaluated prior to that date. D. Miller stated that a vacancy would upset the flow of the office. Hagerty stated that the Sheriffs Department operates extremely well from an organizational standpoint. It is felt that the Department needs a Lead Clerk Supervisor to replace the upcoming vacated Lead Clerk Supervisory position. The entire clerical staff in the Sheriff and Jail Administration is a conglomerate that reports to both Lange and Doerr. Hagerty stated that even if her current job description is as an Administrative Confidential Secretary, the Department would still be looking to fulfill a Lead Clerk Supervisor position. Norman asked whether Hagerty could lay out the Departmental roles in an organizational flowchart for the Committee’s review at a future date. Hagerty stated that they have an existing flowchart for licensed staff. They could assemble a flowchart. D. Miller commented that the clerical division answers to a licensed lieutenant. D. Miller stated that he assisted Brown in rewriting the Lead Clerk job descriptions. He stated that he would be happy to rewrite a job description that represents both Doerr’s and Lange’s positions. He stated that this is going to disrupt the chain of command. Brown stated that she does not want to write an ad based on the job description because the incoming employee has the expectation that the job description is a true reflection of what is going on in the job. Norman asked that D. Miller look at the two job descriptions to generate a generic job description and an organizational flowchart. Brown commented that there is little concern of what the job is called. The important part of this project is to provide an accurate reflection of her duties. Hagerty stated that there is an urgency to fill Lange’s position as the Department is soon approaching the busy summer season. He stated that they do not want a gap between employments. Brown stated that in the interim, they could make an out-of-class appointment. Hagerty stated that by doing this, there would still be a vacancy. This is why there is a sense of urgency. Lange’s position is vital to the organization. D.Miller asked why other positions, as they were vacated, were not reviewed in the same manner (i.e. sergeant job description from 1994). Brown stated that licensed positions are different. Employees coming up through the ranks fill them. Retirement is a good time to look at job descriptions. Sawatzke asked whether the Department is considering filling the position from the inside. Hagerty stated yes. Brown stated that since this position is part of the Teamsters Union, the advertisement has to be posted County-wide. The union contract requires that the position be advertised for seven days. An interview process is facilitated via the Personnel office. D. Miller stated that he would rewrite Lange’s job description and produce a flowchart for Personnel’s review. Norman proposed that D. Miller seek Lange’s assistance in spelling out her job duties. Hagerty stated that Lange’s position is an authorized position and wondered whether this review & rewriting process would slow down the hiring process. Thelen echoed the concern and asked whether there is any way to move forward without holding up the process. Sawatzke stated that if D. Miller could get the rewritten job description and flow chart to Personnel by 3-11-10, it could possibly be reviewed at the 3-16-10 County Board Meeting. D. Miller asked whether the Sheriffs Department is to get direction from the Personnel Department regarding the rewriting of job descriptions. Brown stated that the entire organization should have a responsibility to rewrite job descriptions. RECOMMENDATION: The Sheriff Department is directed to rewrite the job description and submit it, along with an Organizational Chart, to Personnel for review. The Organizational Chart should include names. If they are acceptable, they can be presented to the County Board next Tuesday for review and approval.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Committee’s position is similar to that of the Office Services Supervisor position in Human Services. The Committee feels the job description should be reviewed to make sure it fits the work being performed. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said the revised job description has been forwarded by the Sheriff’s Office to the Administration Department. He will review it after it has been reviewed by Judy Brown, Personnel Representative. If it is determined that changes should be made to the job description, the job description will be sent back to the Sheriff’s Office. If the job description is in order, he will ask that the Personnel Committee review it. Norman said the next regularly scheduled Committee Meeting date is 3-24-10. However, Committee Meetings will not be held that day due to County Board attendance at the AMC Conference. The next regularly scheduled Committee Meeting date is 4-14-10. Norman said the Board could set a Personnel Committee Meeting on another date to expedite the process.
Sheriff Gary Miller said he was unable to attend the 3-10-10 Personnel Committee Meeting where the Lead Clerk position was discussed. It was his understanding the Committee’s focus would be on backfilling the Lead Clerk position. Because of the economy, departments have been directed to bring any hires to the Board to received approval for replacement. Miller said the focus apparently changed just prior to the meeting. He said this is one of the top positions in the administration of his organization and the position has been long standing. He felt the job description situation is a separate issue. The position is included in the Sheriff’s budget and that budget has been set for the year. If the position is going to be removed from his budget, he felt it should have been done at budget time so he would have had the opportunity to address it at that time. Sheriff Miller said the Administration Office was contacted 4-5 weeks ago to make sure they complied with past practice on selection. This is not a union position. Some direction was received. That has changed and the process has now moved to Committee. Sheriff Miller said he wants to proceed with the selection process. If the County wants to address this job description or others, as well as the backfill, there is an opportunity to do that. He felt it was well within the authority of his office to fill the position. This is a position that deals with the daily operations of his organization. If the Board wants to discuss changes, that is something that should be part of the budget process going forward. He did not see where they needed to delay the process. He said the position is vital to his day-to-day operations. Sawatzke said that the Committee did not discuss whether the position should be allowed to be filled. Everyone recognizes the position is budgeted and that the Sheriff’s Office is short five staff. He said the Sheriff’s Office has already pulled their share of the weight and beyond on budget circumstances. At the Committee Meeting, Personnel staff conveyed that it would not be appropriate to advertise a position for employment if the job description does not reflect the duties. If that is done, it undermines the process of having people apply for that position as the job description differs from the duties the person performs. Sheriff Miller said a job description has been submitted to the Personnel Office. Although the Personnel Office may write job descriptions for other offices, he felt the Sheriff is responsible for this job description. The job description submitted is an accurate reflection of the duties he wants completed by this position. Several years ago, the Sheriff’s Office looked at some job descriptions and combined them. Those were submitted and never returned for their review. Sheriff Miller felt there were some issues with job descriptions but he did not feel this should delay the selection process for this position. He believes the Sheriff determines the duties of that position. Sawatzke said it was not his desire to contest anything. He had been hopeful that perhaps by today there would be an agreement on the job description for the Lead Clerk position. Apparently, this has not happened. Sawatzke felt the Committee could meet in hopes of resolving the job description issue. Sheriff Miller said no one has discussed the job description with him. It was submitted within 24 hours to Administration as requested. Sheriff Miller said the meeting can be held. He personally felt that it was within his authority to post and proceed with the selection process. Sawatzke responded that he did not feel anyone was trying to assume the Sheriff’s authority in this matter. Sawatzke said Judy Brown, Personnel Representative, was one who felt strongly that if the County is going to advertise a job description, it should be accurate. Sawatzke agreed with Brown. He said the duties advertised and hired for should not be different. That is what needs clarification and the Committee could meet to accomplish that. Thelen requested clarification on whether the Personnel Office has any jurisdiction over this. She said Sheriff Miller is suggesting that the job descriptions are written by him and there is no process relative to review and approval. Sheriff Miller said he does not believe the duties are subject to approval by the Personnel Committee. The Sheriff’s Office has worked with the Coordinator’s Office, along with direction from the Board, to consolidate job descriptions. Sheriff Miller said he is comfortable that the job description will cover the duties for the remainder of his term. It also has the latitude for the future sheriff to assign duties under that job description. He wants to move forward with the promotion so there is a smooth transition. Sheriff Miller said he submitted job descriptions two years ago to Administration because there was some type of emergency. The descriptions were never sent back to him and he did not believe they were in place yet. He did not see that the job description for the Lead Clerk Supervisor position would have to be completed before the position is filled. He felt there were a number of situations to deal with pertaining to job descriptions, and this is just one of them. He did not see why this should delay having someone in that position when Lange retires, as someone needs to fill that role. Sawatzke moved to schedule a Personnel Committee Meeting on 3-22-10 at 9:00 A.M. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0.
Based on five Performance Reviews submitted the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Exceptional”.
At today’s Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Committee recommendation is unanimous on all but the Extension Office request for interns. That issue involves whether they hire a second intern or hold off to a later date. Sawatzke said in retrospect, he wished he had known that the IT Department was going to suggest hiring at $8/hour for interns. He felt that interns could possibly be compensated the same in other departments. The Board could authorize Extension to advertise for the 10 week internship as proposed and then advertise the 5 week internship at $8/hour. Mattson said this hourly wage could also apply to the Parks Department. Sawatzke said the Committee discussed this. The Committee felt the difference was that with IT positions, interns gain experience that can be reflected on their resumes. He did not feel that mowing lawn would necessarily build a resume’. Sawatzke moved to approve the Personnel Committee minutes as accurate and all of the recommendations reflected except for the Committee recommendation for the Extension Seasonal/Intern positions. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 5-0. Discussion moved to the Extension Seasonal/Intern positions. Sawatzke noted that the Extension Office has been relatively conservative with what has been brought forth to the Board. Russek said he has been a strong supporter of 4H and interns are a large part of the County Fair. The second intern position is important for coverage for the Fair. The Extension Service has $6,000 budgeted for two intern positions. Sawatzke suggested that since the IT Department cut the wage for interns from$10 to $8, he suggested that the wages for Extension interns be cut from $10 to $9. Russek made a motion to authorize Extension to advertise for the two internship positions to a maximum expenditure of $6,000. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 4-1 with Sawatzke casting the nay vote.
(End of 3-10-10 Personnel Committee Minutes & discussion)
Laid over from the 3-09-10 County Board Meeting, the Board addressed the request from Human Services to refer to the Building Committee the request to move a sink. Norman said that after the County Board Agenda was drafted, he received an email from Don Mleziva, Human Services Director, indicating that he is waiting for additional information from staff. Mleziva would like the issue laid over until this information is received.
Bills Approved
Albertville Body Shop Inc.. $1,298.90
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 156.63
American Office Products 216.68
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 108.67
Anoka County Corrections 9,911.20
AP Technology 750.00
Aramark Correctional Services 13,375.34
B & B Products - Rigs and Sq 12,291.30
Beaudry Propane Inc. 1,527.14
Black Moore Bumgardner Mag 200.00
Center Point Energy 1,101.00
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 26,147.63
Chamberlain Oil Co. 110.71
Computer Integration Technolo 137.87
Culligan of Buffalo 200.00
Dakota County Financial Serv. 496.00
Dingmann Marine & More LLC 405.78
Dynamic Imaging Systems Inc. 4,931.55
Eichelberg/Elmer 232.00
Elk River Chrysler Inc. 377.06
Emedco 113.51
Emerson Network Power 923.59
ESRI 506.80
Farm-Rite Equipment Inc. 10,738.11
Fastenal Company 144.05
Flyway Taxidermy 800.00
Grainger 140.96
Granite Electronics 2,025.00
Hach Company 144.29
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 5,981.84
Holiday 14,600.67
Howard/Jolanta 100.00
Hwy. Safety Zone 667.97
Idexx Laboratories Inc. 973.02
Juvenile Justice Coalition 220.00
Kimberlys Brokerage Inc. 1,174.32
Knife River 4,757.91
Kraemer Mining & Materials 581.38
Kris Engineering Inc. 909.45
Lakedale Communications 389.93
LaPlant Demo Inc. 1,065.83
Lawson Products Inc. 1,285.79
League of MN Cities 2,465.00
Loberg Electric 1,030.64
M-R Sign Company Inc. 499.50
Main/Fred T. 9,750.00
Marco 1,102.95
Marietta Aggregates/Martin 803.26
Marties Farm Service 106.00
Martin-Mcallisters Consulting 1,600.00
May/Roxanne 237.32
Menards - Buffalo 352.41
MN Alcohol Traffic Safety Assn 850.00
Morries Parts & Service Group 599.40
Motorola Inc. 218,145.80
Office Depot 2,871.12
Oryans Conoco 130.00
Planer/Norman G. 55,000.00
Powerplan Oib 600.05
Qwest 1,252.40
Ramacciotti/Frank 300.00
Reds Auto Electric 353.80
Royal Tire Inc. 4,786.52
Russek/John 203.00
Russell Security Resource Inc. 110.00
Sprint 204.78
St. Joseph Equipment Inc. 845.66
State of MN-Office Enterprise 1,335.00
State Supply Co. 143.37
Streichers 1,234.14
Tennant 308.16
Ultramax 2,885.00
Uniforms Unlimited 337.52
Waste Management - TC West 1,496.22
Weighing Systems & Services 915.00
West Abe Consortium 1,500.00
West Payment Center 864.82
Wright Hennepin Electric 1,328.14
Zep Sales & Services 141.16
Ziegler Inc. 11,405.00
33 Payments less than $100 1,425.92
Final total $451,738.94
The meeting adjourned at 10:29 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal April 5, 2010.

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

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