Wright County Board Minutes

APRIL 6, 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 3-23-10 County Board Minutes, seconded by Thelen, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Aud./Treas. Item #2, “Property Tax Information” (Hiivala); Item For Consid. #2, “NACO Discussion” (Mattson). On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Agenda as amended.
On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: E. Liberato, Atty.; B. Aanerud, Aud./Treas.; K. Johnson, E. Ross, Hwy.; C. Mueller, R. Thompson, P&Z; J. Bean, N. Borrett, C. Fisher, J. Hall, K. Kramer, T. Pippo, M. Treichler, Sheriff.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 3-05-10 & 3-19-10.
3. Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Church Of St. Mary of Czestochowa, 1867 95th St. SE, Delano MN 55328 & Waive 30-Day Waiting Period.
4. Claim, Anoka County Sheriff, Regional Crime Lab, $8,797.60.
5. Claim, Frank Madden & Assoc., $3,026.80, Feb. 2010 Service.
1. Approve Abatement, PID #208-200-164100, Marvin Debough (Franklin Twp.).
2. Approve Abatement, PID #118-265-001020 & 118-265-001030, Jeanette Carron (City of Otsego).
1. Authorize Virgil Hawkins To Be Reimbursed With Airfare Cost For His Driving Trip To NACE Conference.
1. Authorize Signatures On 2010 Boat & Water Safety Agreement.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said property tax statements have been mailed. The due date for property taxes was extended because May 15th falls on a Saturday this year. The following announcement will be posted on Wright County’s Internet site reflecting that taxes will be due May 17th:
The first half of the 2010 real estate property tax is due and payable on May 17, 2010. This is the last day to pay without penalty. If you mail your tax payment, it must be postmarked by the post office, not a private postage meter machine, no later than May 17th in order to avoid penalties. Penalty rate information is shown on the reverse side of the tax statements. Taxes can be paid in person at the Auditor/Treasurer Department located on the second floor of the Wright County Government Center. Offices are open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Taxes can also be paid online by accessing Property Tax/Payments, entering the parcel number and clicking the Pay Taxes button. If you have any questions, please call the Auditor/Treasurer’s Department at 763-682-7572 or 763-684-4540.
The claims listing was reviewed. Mattson referenced a claim on Page 21, Midwest Protection Agency ($1,643.52) to be funded from Professional Services under Sheriff-Corrections. Hiivala stated the claim is for guarding of an inmate for three days. Mattson questioned whether Professional Services was the correct line item. Hiivala said it would depend on how the Department budgeted for this type of expenditure. He offered to verify this with the Department but Mattson said that was not necessary. Russek said a claim he submitted for mileage and parking was incorrectly coded to the Assessor’s budget and should be funded from the Commissioner’s budget. Hiivala will correct this. On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, said that notice was received on 3-31-10 that an additional $250,000 in Metro Greenways grant funding is available to the County and the City of Monticello for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park Project. The grant funding would extend the purchase area proposed for the June, 2010 acquisition. The funds became available due to forfeiture from another agency whose willing seller backed out on their agreement. Due to the limited time frame for the grant funds to be expended, Metro Greenways is offering the funds to Wright County and the City of Monticello because of the ability to respond quickly and meet deadlines. The original proposal for the entire project includes a 54% local match, while the remaining 46% would come from grants and other funding sources. The granting agency would accept a revision to the original proposal for a 50/50 cost share. The County and the City of Monticello have agreed to match the original $299,628 grant with a total contribution of $333,336 ($166,668 each). If the County Board agrees to accept the additional funds, the match would need to be increased by $216,292 total (or $108,146 from each partner). If approved the revised project funding for the June, 2010 acquisition would be:
$549,628 Grant funds
$274,814 County Match ($166,668
$274,814 City of Monticello Match
$1,099,256 Total for Phase 2
Mattice said the suggestion is for the additional match to be funded from the CIP Levy Stabilization Fund 34. Mattice clarified that this has nothing to do with the grants which were recently submitted. Notification on acceptance of those grants will not be known until June, 2010. Russek said that soon all turn back dollars in the CIP Fund will be used for park land. He was concerned with that. Mattson said in addition, the match just keeps increasing. He said this is taxpayer money. Mattice said the Bertram Chain Of Lakes Advisory Committee met last Friday. The Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from the City Council and County, and from citizen appointments. The Advisory Committee was provided a funding update including this opportunity. Mattice said the Advisory Committee and Monticello City Council are very supportive of this additional grant funding. The group questioned how the funding could be turned down if they were going to move forward with the project, as it is providing a discount from the original proposal. Mattice felt confident that the City of Monticello would accept the additional grant funding. Sawatzke said the original cost share was 27% County, 27% City, and 46% State. The new offer would include a cost share of 25% County, 25% City, and 50% State. Hiivala said the Levy Stabilization Fund has a balance of a little over $2 million. The following are encumbrances against the Fund: 1) Balance of Energy Efficiency Grant, $263,000; 2) Potter Payment, $32,000; 3) CSAH 12 Project, approximately $50,000. Hiivala said with these encumbrances, the balance of the Fund would be about $1,650,000. If the $274,814 were approved for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Project, the balance would be reduced to approximately $1,475,000. The Levy Stabilization Fund balance conveyed by Hiivala does not include $330,000 the City of Monticello is scheduled to pay the County in 2011. Sawatzke moved to accept the $250,000 Metro Greenways Grant from the State with the revised matching proposal bringing a 25% match to the County, with approval contingent upon the City of Monticello meeting their share. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Thelen questioned whether the grant funding was offered to anyone else. Mattice explained that other projects that applied for grant funding could have had the grant funding opportunity. However, this project was offered the grant funding because of the status (where the project is at, the County’s/City’s response times, new acquisitions planned, and the ability to meet the deadlines). Russek felt it is another $108,000 the County does not have. Sawatzke said the money in the Capital Improvement Account is for capital improvement acquisitions (i.e., land, construction, etc.) that the County may not otherwise be able to fund without specifically including them in the Levy. Sawatzke said the County is basically quadrupling the $108,000 with the City’s match and the State’s grant. Mattson said the price of land is not reduced and this still involves taxpayer money. Sawatzke said the money from the State is dedicated for this type of purpose and the funding is from lottery dollars. If the acquisition is not made by Wright County, it will occur somewhere else in the State. This does not impact anyone’s State taxes. The motion carried 3-2 with Mattson and Russek casting the nay votes. Sawatzke said the reason the State continues to look to this project is because of Mattice’s efforts. He extended appreciation to Mattice. Russek said the State keeps offering the grant funding because the County keeps meeting the match. Russek felt the State realizes this should be a Regional or State Park because of its proximity to the metro area. He feels the State is willing to do their part to see that it gets purchased. He felt that is why they keep offering the grant funding along with the efforts by Mattice.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, said the Fair Board has requested the County Board help them financially with their road construction project this year. In 2009, the County Board authorized the Highway Department to haul and place gravel material. The Fair Board paid for the County cost of the gravel and crushing. Fingalson has not been provided with the volume of material the Fair Board requires this year. Crushing is occurring now but they can probably wait until next Tuesday for a decision. Russek moved to lay discussion on this issue over for one week, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0. Russek will contact Dennis Beise to inform him that the County needs an estimate of yardage.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 3-22-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said action on replacement of the Lead Clerk Supervisor position in the Sheriff’s Department was taken two weeks ago. The motion today includes formalizing the minutes. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0:
Norman stated that the Administration Department did receive a job description for the upcoming vacated position in the Sheriffs Department. Brown stated that she forwarded her recommendations and the Sheriff responded. She stated that most of her recommendations referred to the minimum qualifications. Sawatzke asked if one job description would encompass the two positions currently filled by Doerr and Lange. Norman stated yes. G. Miller stated that he agrees that it was time to rewrite the job description as the position has changed over the last 13 years. Norman stated that his Department was looking for an organizational chart that delineates how the two Lead Clerk Supervisors function and who they supervise. Brown stated that the Sheriffs Department submitted a flowchart that the Administration Department is not used to. It merely contains position names, and no incumbents. Brown asked who the two Lead Clerk Supervisors supervise. D. Miller stated that they supervise 18 employees, including two Evidence Techs, the Equipment Supply Specialist, and two part-time Jail Clerks. They oversee auction proceeds, property sheets, transcription, clerical, filing of Deputy log forms, filing reports and timecards, and forwarding booking information to the County Attorney’s office. The duties for each position are fluid and dependent on the workflow that day. G. Miller confirmed that these two individuals supervise all of the clerks. G. Miller stated that part of the problem is that the Administration Department’s perception of a flow chart is different than the Sheriffs Department. He explained that the Administration Department is looking for a mechanical organization flowchart and the Sheriffs Department operates under an organic organizational model. This type of organic supervision is used throughout the Sheriff Department’s organization. The supervisory roles are fluid, and work flow differs day-to-day. He stated that it is proven that this type of flowchart is well adapted to how the Sheriff Department operates. He stated that an employee could have two supervisors on any given day. One supervisor may designate the work load, and another supervisor may be the disciplinarian. G. Miller stated that if desired, the Sheriffs Department would supply a very detailed organic flowchart for the employees at all levels. It would show that there is a cross flow of duties. These duties can be performed outside of the given job description and as a result would call for a different supervisor. D. Miller stated that clerks might be transcriptionists for half a day, then file reports, then move into records, and then be a receptionist at the front counter. Depending on the chair they sit in will determine who their supervisor is that day. Eichelberg stated that he can see both sides and understands that the Administration Department expects to see the supervisors involved in the performance review process. G. Miller stated that conducting performance reviews is an extensive process. All sergeants provide input, the lieutenants draft the reviews, and the reviews are sometimes signed by the Captain or Sheriff. D. Miller stated that there is a large filtering process in completing a review process. G. Miller stated that today’s discussion is not about the Sheriff Department’s operations. He stated that if the Administration Department requires a clear definition of who does the reviews, they will provide that. G. Miller stated that this isn’t the first time that the Sheriffs Department and the Administration Department have disagreed over this process. He noted that there was a disagreement during the process of writing the job description for the lieutenants. Norman stated that an employee ought to know who their primary supervisor is. That supervisor is responsible for giving general direction to that employee. Administration was looking for a specific type of organizational flowchart that lists the names of the employees under each Lead Clerk Supervisor and the Sheriff Department supplied a very basic flowchart. Brown explained that organizational flowcharts will be required as part of the upcoming classification study. The mechanical styled flowcharts are what the Administration Department is used to working with. Eichelberg asked if the flowcharts could change dependent on the classification study. Brown stated yes, and the job descriptions may also change. Sawatzke stated that the formula of how the job descriptions are evaluated might also change as a result of the study. Brown explained that as part of the classification study, individual employees may be asked to complete questionnaires about their day-to-day duties. The supervisors will have an opportunity to respond. If there is a difference in opinion, the company may perform a physical audit to clearly designate what duties an employee entails in their position. Sawatzke stated that it is his understanding that within the Sheriffs Department, two separate persons could supervise an employee in one day. D. Miller stated yes, and this is the same for the Deputy position. They too could have two supervisors within any given shift. Hagerty stated that it is this type of management style that keeps the organization healthy. He stated that there is a disciplinary measure in place for “shopping supervisors”. He described this process as an employee going to another supervisor if they do not like the response they receive from another supervisor. D. Miller stated that this type of organizational workflow works well when a supervisor is gone. An employee isn’t “handcuffed” to their supervisor if they are not in the office. Brown stated that the Administration Department understands that there is a crossover of duties. She stated that it is her opinion that every person should come to work knowing who their supervisor is. G. Miller stated that what the Administration Department wants and the way the Sheriff Department operates does not match. However, this organic workflow works for the Sheriffs Department. He stated that the submitted organizational flowchart is as accurate as it is going to get. Sawatzke asked if the job description changed enough to be evaluated by The Hay Group. Norman stated no. Hagerty asked Brown whether the Administration Department would be satisfied if both Lead Clerk Supervisors fulfill the role as an evaluator in the performance evaluation process. Brown stated yes, it should be a primary duty of the position. Otherwise, based on the job description it is not truly a Lead Clerk Supervisory position. G. Miller stated that this is a non-union position and questioned the necessity of a seven-day posting period as stated in the 3-10-10 Personnel Committee Minutes. He stated that they would prefer a five-day posting period. Norman stated that it would be a seven-day posting period. Brown stated that upon the County Board’s approval at the 3-23-10 County Board Meeting, the position could be posted internally on the same day. The position would be posted on the bulletin boards and on the intranet. A completed application would be required. Brown stated that they should determine what they want to use for screening criteria. G. Miller asked if he would be required to come before the Committee to seek approval for the backfill position if the intent is to fill it internally. Brown stated yes. Norman stated that the advertisement of the backfill position must be open and competitive. Brown stated that the posting could be done for a short period because the number of applications can be overwhelming. G. Miller acknowledged that that they would come before the Personnel Committee at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Using the new job description, the Personnel Committee recommends filling the position of the Lead Clerk Supervisor following the County Board’s approval at the 3-23-10 County Board Meeting.
(End of 3-22-10 Personnel Committee Minutes)
Mattson requested that a Committee Of The Whole Meeting be scheduled on an upcoming Committee day (Wednesday) to discuss the County’s membership with the National Association of Counties (NACo). He said the County has been with NACo for quite a few years but it feels as though the larger counties are running NACo. Sawatzke moved to schedule a Committee Of The Whole Meeting to discuss the County’s membership in NACo. The meeting should be held on a Wednesday Committee meeting day. The Administration Office should send a memorandum to Department Heads seeking input on the value NACo has to their departments. The Department Heads should indicate whether they receive value or no value from membership with NACo (they should indicate what the value is). The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
At 9:30 A.M., Mattson closed the bid process for the 2010 Overlay Contract #10-01 (SAP 86-606-16; SAP 86-621-03; CP 86-1-102; CP 86-30-102; CP 86-153-102). Fingalson said this contract includes approximately 28 miles of roadway improvements. The funding is a combination of Levy and State Aid dollars. The Engineer’s Estimate is $4,655,922. The total included in the budget is $4,852,000 (for all the projects, not including the alternates). Three alternates were included in the bid process:
Alternate; Location; Engineer’s Estimate
1; NE County Shop Lot; $22,940
2; French Lake Shop Lot; $25,927
3; Mud Lake Park; $23,460
Fingalson opened the bids received. Russek moved to acknowledge the bids and lay the award over to the next meeting after review by the Highway Department. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Sawatzke requested that Fingalson bring to next week’s meeting a breakdown of where the savings are being realized (State vs. Local Levy). The motion carried 5-0:
Bidder; Bid Bond; Acknowledge Addendum; Alternates; Total of 3 Alternates; Total Base Bid
Central Specialties, Inc., Alexandria, MN; Yes; Yes; 1. $24,551.00, 2. $30,597.50, 3. $29,937.50; $85,086.00; $4,999,536.09
Knife River Corporation, Sauk Rapids, MN; Yes; Yes; 1. $23,458.66, 2. $23,627.47, 3. $25,426.97; $72,513.10; $4,755,311.73
Duininck, Inc., Prinsburg, MN; Yes; Yes; 1. $25,768.73, 2. 28,015.91, 3. $24,736.66; $78,521.30; $5m,181.061.79
Hardrives, Inc.; Yes; Yes; 1. $21,947.41 2. $20,049.01, 3. $20,941.46; $62,937.88; $4,273,717.95
(End of bids received for Overlay Contract)
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, brought forth discussion on the Noxious Weed Appeal Committee. He referenced County Board Minutes from 4-06-93 reflecting that the County established the Committee with Russek and Mattson serving as the Commission/Landowner members. Asleson said that Ken Johnson, Ag Inspector, works with landowners on noxious weeds in an attempt to eradicate when possible. However, there may be a situation where the formal eradication route may have to be followed this year. Per Statute, once the landowner receives the formal eradication notice, they may file an appeal. The Appeal Committee must be made up of one County Board member and one landowner. Those two people look at the land and provide a report to the Ag Inspector and landowner on whether they agree or disagree with the notice or whether they feel modifications should be made to the notice. Statute allows this process to be delegated to the Board of Adjustment. Asleson said he was unsure whether the County Board would want to do this and whether the Board of Adjustment would have expertise in noxious weeds. Asleson said the purpose of placing this issue on the Agenda is so that the County is in the position to respond quickly if an appeal is filed. Statute requires action in five days. Ken Johnson, Ag Inspector, said the current situation involves an organic farm. The landowner has made promises to eradicate the weeds but does not follow through. Last fall, the landowner declined entering into a cooperative agreement. The landowner has since provided a plan and Johnson will continue to monitor the situation closely so that everything is completed correctly. Johnson will work with the landowner to try to resolve this short of the legal route. The appeal process is large and may be high profile. Russek said noxious weeds need to be controlled whether organics are involved or not. Asleson said the 1993 Board Minutes reflect Sawatzke questioning whether the Committee could have two Commissioner members, one serving as landowner and one as Commissioner. At that time, the former County Attorney did not have a problem with that. Asleson said he did not either. The Noxious Weed Appeal Committee has a minimum of two members but can have more. Asleson said that the process involves notifying the landowner that something must be done with the noxious weeds. If they do not take care of them, the County takes care of eradication and the landowner is charged with the cost. The landowner can then appeal to the County Board. If they do not agree with the County Board’s decision, they can appeal to the Court. However, the first step is for the Committee to look at the property. Russek said he and Mattson have been the appointments to the Noxious Weed Appeal Committee since it was formed and have never been called. The current situation involves a long-standing problem with noxious weeds. The landowner makes promises and does not follow through. Asleson suggested the Board make appointments to the Noxious Weed Appeal Committee today. He asked that the appointments to this Committee be renewed annually when the County Board approves the Committee schedule. Eichelberg moved to appoint Mattson and Russek to the Noxious Weed Appeal Committee, seconded by Thelen, carried 5-0.
Bills Approved
Albertville/City of. $ 2,005.00
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 32,244.52
Allina Medical 940.47
Allina Medical Laboratories 247.00
Allina Medical Transportation 500.00
American Planning Assoc. 560.00
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 518.26
Ancom Communications Inc. 267.19
Annandale/City of 1,054.00
Aramark Correctional Serv 13,377.29
Asleson/Brian J. 135.00
B & B Products - Rigs and Sq 13,004.80
Bachman Printing 433.77
Barker Co/Bob 1,094.08
Bauman/Lawrence R. 288.00
Beaudry Propane Inc. 971.81
Bersie/Bruce 497.00
Boyer Truck Parts 1,441.53
Bryan Rock Products 533.21
Buffalo Floral & Landscaping 200.00
Carlson/Maynard N. 12,816.00
Caterpillar Paving Product 400.00
Cenex Fleetcard 320.97
Center Point Energy 3,386.19
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 43,372.03
CenturyLink 256.27
Citrix Systems, Inc. 3,035.27
Climate Air 5,054.24
Commissioner of Transpor 19,577.94
Concept Seating Inc. 530.00
Corrections Products Co 135.87
Crow River News 106.00
Crow River Tools 428.87
Crowne Plaza St. Paul Riveri 295.42
Cub Pharmacy 4,257.29
Dustcoating Inc. 5,314.68
Dynamic Imaging Systems Inc. 2,260.41
Eaton/Julie 438.00
Election Systems & Software 1,204.25
Elk River Ford 21,952.36
Elk River Municipal Utilities 106.74
Erickson/Mark 101.50
Ernst/Debbie 113.00
Federal Signal Corporation 106.41
Fedor/Thomas 125.00
Fehn Gravel & Excavating/De 3,503.35
Felger Ramos LLC/Maria 145.00
Franz Reprographics 628.96
GCS Service Inc. 155.21
Globalstar USA 116.24
Government Training Service 199.00
Grainger 388.35
Granite Electronics 1,576.55
H&R Const. Co. 2,992.49
Hardings Towing Inc. 614.54
Hecksel Machine Inc. 115.00
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 6,2126.93
Howard/Jolanta 100.00
Impact Proven Solutions 5,119.30
Interstate Automotive 160.31
Interstate Battery Systems 281.89
Intoximeters Inc. 120.50
Jackpot Junction Casino Ho 154.38
Jerrys Towing & Repair 133.60
Kopff/Nancy 270.00
LaPlant Demo Inc. 2,351.44
Macmillan/Michael 478.00
Maple Lake Lumber Company 177.40
Marco 325.00
Marco Inc. 7,323.75
Marietta Aggregates/Martin 648.48
Maximus 6,175.00
McCalla/Denise 135.00
McNamara Inc./B 17,505.06
Menards - Buffalo 858.57
Midway Iron & Metal Co. Inc. 291.27
Midwest Protection Agency 1,643.52
Minneapolis/City of 4,950.00
MN Assn. of Assessing Ofcrs 430.00
MN Community Corrections 750.00
MN Counties Computer Coop 14,731.76
MN Juvenile Officers Associ 290.00
Monticello Auto Body Inc. 149.63
Morries Parts & Service Gro 1,365.27
Motorola Inc. 39,232.05
MTI Distributing Inc. 225.17
Multi Health Systems Inc. 242.00
Mumford Sanitation 129.87
Municipal Software 15,051.00
Office Depot 3,293.77
Pearson Education 195.48
PMI Computer Supplies 436.90
Precision Prints of Wright Co. 415.74
Qwest 1,079.36
Ramacciotti/Frank 600.00
Reds Auto Electric 176.18
Redwood Biotech Inc. 187.46
Reed Business Information 568.26
Royal Tire Inc. 383.75
RS Eden 841.80
Russek/John 201.50
Russell Security Resource 130.94
Safelite Fulfillment Inc. 478.75
Schmidt/Donald M. 262.00
Schneider Corporation 4,215.00
Segner/James W. 46,157.10
SHI International Corp 213.75
Sprint 3,162.16
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc. 130.35
St. Cloud Times 247.85
State of MN-Office Enterprise 261.14
Streichers 1,264.08
Total Printing 1,192.84
Trophies Plus LLC 163.36
Verizon Wireless 395.42
Victor Township 574.80
Wagner/H David 294.00
Walmart Community BRC 173.50
Walmart Store 01-1577 807.83
Webb/Janelle 113.00
Wisecup Law Office LLC 300.00
Wright Co. Ag Society 240.00
Wright Co. Auditor Trea 3,567.19
Wright Hennepin Coop Electric 252.17
Wright Hennepin Electric 232.37
Xcel Energy 1,475.26
Zack’s Inc. 1,005.72
Zep Sales & Services 321.08
47 Payments less than $100 2,487.12
Final total $412,957.46
The meeting adjourned at 9:53 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal April 26, 2010.

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

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