Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
MAY 18, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with Sawatzke, Thelen, Mattson, Russek, and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 5-11-10 were corrected as follows: Page 1, fifth paragraph, first and second lines, should read, “Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, stated that Kerry Saxton, SWCD, provided an update to Russek and Mattson on 5-03-10 On a motion by Russek, second by Thelen, all voted to revise the minutes of 5-11-10 with noted correction.
Norman asked to remove the 9:05 a.m. Agenda Item, “Acknowledgement Of Captain Gary Torfin’s Retirement.” He stated that this item would be placed on the County Board Agenda on 6-22-10. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Agenda as amended.
On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Thelen, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Performance Appraisals: N. Carlson, C. Davis, Hwy; S. Deckert, P&Z; G. Eldred, R. Erkens, M. Fox, K. Guinn, A. Lund, J. MacLeod, M. Meemken, M. Muehring-Paulson, K. Triplett, Sher./Corr.
2. Premises Permit Application Form LG214, Monticello Youth Hockey Program, Up The Creek Bar and Grill, Silver Creek Township.
3. Lease For Lawful Gambling Activity Form LG215, Monticello Youth Hockey Program, Up The Creek Bar and Grill, Silver Creek Township.
B. SHERIFF
1. Refer Jail Medical Services To Ways and Means Committee.
Sawatzke presented the 5-12-10 Personnel Committee minutes and recommendations. Discussion and action at today’s County Board Meeting is reflected in italics:
I. POSITION OPENINGS.
A. Social Worker, Family Assessment Unit. Request To Fill Vacancy With Social Worker III/Mental Health Professional, As Referred From Human Services Board Meeting.
Charbonneau distributed a handout (see attached) defining her request to reclassify the vacated Social Worker position to a Social Worker III position and advertise for hire. She also distributed a letter from Judge Mottl stating her support for the home skills workers and therapists. Both handouts demonstrate how these specialized services have decreased out-of home placements. Eichelberg asked if the County has always had in-home therapists or if they have been contracted out. Charbonneau stated that they first contracted this position out in October/November 2008. The transition then began and the first two therapists were hired in fall, 2008 and spring, 2009. Sawatzke asked what the hiring requirements consist of. Pawelk stated that a social worker position requires a four year degree in social work, or any degree and one year experience in social work. The therapist must have a master’s degree and two years post master’s degree experience, and needs to be certified as a Mental Health Professional to provide clinical supervision. Norman asked if the current social worker position that is being vacated is a reimbursable position. Charbonneau stated that all social workers have some potential to receive reimbursement for their work. Sawatzke questioned what the anticipated level of revenue is for the Social Worker in comparison to the Social Worker III position. Charbonneau stated that the County can bill for medical assistance at approximately $65/hour with preapproval from the insurance company. DeMars stated that the County may see 30-40% reimbursement for its skills workers if the position is not certified. Charbonneau stated that to get a higher percentage of reimbursement, the position would need to get certified. Sawatzke stated that although it may be difficult to determine the amount of reimbursement the County would realize with this position, there is a savings in not placing children in out-of-home placement. Charbonneau stated that the County’s out-of-home placements have dropped from 160 to approximately 104. Eichelberg asked if it is possible to hire this position at Step 1. Charbonneau stated that with the job market in the current state, she thinks it is possible to start the position at Step 1. Pawelk asked the Committee if they would authorize Human Services to fill the position with a Social Worker at the bachelor level position if they are unable to fill the Social Worker III position. Eichelberg and Sawatzke recommended the request. Pawelk explained that this would save Charbonneau from having to come back to the Personnel Committee and thus delaying the process another month. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Human Services to advertise and fill the Social Worker III/Mental Health Professional position.
B. Office Services Supervisor, Human Services.
DeMars stated that as recommended at the 3-1010 Personnel Committee Meeting, they went back and reviewed the job description for the Office Services Supervisor. DeMars stated that the job description did not change a lot. He noted that the position does not bring in any revenue. It directly supervises six staff members and indirectly supervises many clerical staff. He stated that the job duties consist of purchasing, data retention, building security, budgeting, front desk management, outgoing/incoming mail, supervisory duties, etc. Brown confirmed that the job description did not change much. Brown asked what the meaning of indirect supervision consists of. DeMars stated that monthly, a staff meeting of all the clerical staff from each unit meets to discuss filing, cases, how to set them up, front desk coverage, email, etc. Sawatzke asked whether there is a need for a supervisory role in this position. DeMars stated that the Director wishes this position to remain as a supervisory position. Eichelberg asked whether the position would be posted internally and externally. Petersen stated that she would recommend posting the position internally. DeMars stated that he thinks there will be a lot of internal interest. Brown stated that it would be easier to fill this position from the inside based on the amount of experience needed for this position. Eichelberg asked what the starting date would be. Pawelk stated that it would not be until the beginning of June. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Human Services to advertise and fill the Office Services Supervisor position.
C. Lead Clerk, Sheriff Department.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Sheriffs Department to advertise and fill the Lead Clerk position.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke stated that this position became available due to a recent promotion to a Lead Clerk Supervisor. He noted that the Sheriffs Department is down five staff persons from their approved budgeted staffing allotment.
ii. DISCUSS LEAD CLERK SUPERVISOR, STARTING PAY.
G. Miller stated that he is proposing that the newly filled Lead Clerk Supervisor come in at Step 7, $26.12. The purpose of this request is to compensate the position at a higher rate than those she would supervise. G. Miller stated that the employee is a 16-year employee and this action would be consistent with all other supervisory promotions within his Department. Norman clarified that this practice has been done for POST Board Certified Supervisory positions.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke clarified that this type of salary increase is given when promoting a sergeant to a lieutenant. Sergeants have an opportunity to earn overtime which can sometimes cause their take-home pay to be higher than their lieutenants. Lieutenants don’t get paid overtime, whereas sergeants do.
Norman distributed a report (see attached) “Wages of employees who report to Lead Clerk Supervisors”. The employee was being paid $19.47/hour as a Lead Clerk. Norman questioned whether the Property/Evidence Techs report to the Lead Clerk Supervisors when the performance reviews indicate that they report to the Narcotics Sergeant or Lieutenant. He noted that Lt. Hoffman completed the performance reviews of the Property/Evidence Techs. D. Miller stated that the Committee stated at the 3-10-10 Meeting that they wanted the Lead Clerk Supervisors to supervise staff. Since updating the job description, this position now does this. Brown stated that the Evidence Tech is a technical position and therefore the pay is higher. Brown stated that per County policy, in a promotion, the employee is moved into the next higher step. Sawatzke asked what the bottom step for a Lead Clerk Supervisor is. G. Miller and Norman stated that Step 1 for the non-union Lead Clerk Supervisor is $21/hour. G. Miller expressed that this position is a female dominated position and shouldn’t be treated any differently than the POST Board Certified Supervisory positions that are generally male dominated. Sawatzke stated that generally, he would agree that a supervisor should make more than those they supervise. Sawatzke stated that what is decided in these Committee Meetings affects everyone within the County organization. G. Miller stated that the County policy should be reviewed and updated to reflect that a supervisor should receive a step higher than those they are supervising. G. Miller stated that policies constantly change. He noted that what may have worked years ago, may not work best now. G. Miller stated that the County is already saving $8,000 this year with the replacement position. He stated that by denying this employee a Step 7 wage, the County Board would save approximately $11,000. Norman asked whether the newly promoted employee would return to her old position if the County Board only authorizes Step 1. G. Miller stated that he does not know what the employee would do. Eichelberg asked whether this position and its pay would be clarified in the classification study. Norman stated that he cannot speculate where any job would end up as a result of the classification study. Sawatzke questioned whether the two Property Evidence Techs should be supervised by a Lead Clerk Supervisor. D. Miller noted that Lt. Hoffman would supervise the evidence and logging of evidence; however the Lead Clerk Supervisors would supervise auctions, disbursements for towed vehicles, and the financials. A Property/Evidence Tech could report to 2-3 supervisors each day depending on the day. He clarified that the two Lead Clerk Supervisors will have input on all Lead Clerk performance evaluations, Norman stated that based on policy and practice, he would recommend that this newly promoted person be placed at Step 1. Sawatzke stated that both Norman and G. Miller have valid arguments. G. Miller stated that consistently throughout the public and private sector, a supervisor is paid more than those they supervise. He stated that in regard to today’s discussion, it is his opinion that the County Board should rule on what makes sense versus what has been done in the past. G. Miller than asked that the Committee consider recommending Step 6 as the starting wage. Sawatzke stated that this would be inconsistent with the County’s past practice. Norman stated that when the County Board met last year to discuss budget issues, his recommendation was that all positions start at Step 1. G. Miller stated that his office has been proactive in its budget for the last few years. He stated that in regard to budget crunching, his Department will continue to make cuts. He stated that today’s discussion is a fairness issue. Eichelberg stated that he wouldn’t argue with G. Miller’s point regarding fairness. He stated that the County Board has to determine whether it is going to follow its current policy. Sawatzke stated that he is going to support Norman’s recommendation, noting that G. Miller has a valid point. G. Miller stated that the County Board’s decision regarding this issue greatly impacts his Office. He stated that it is his opinion that their decision to start the newly promoted employee at Step 1 is ridiculous. He stated that he is for the idea of saving taxpayers money, however, this is not the way to do it. By starting this person at Step 7, she would be paid $8,000 less that the position she is replacing. He stated that he would urge the County Board to review its policies and bring it into line with what is fair. He stated that a supervisor should be paid more than those they supervise. Eichelberg stated that he would agree that the County does need to review its policies. G. Miller stated that they will present this to the employee and allow her to make the decision whether to accept the promotion and the Level 1 pay rate. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize starting the new Lead Clerk Supervisor at Step 1.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke stated that Sheriff Miller sent a letter to each of the Commissioners (dated 5-17-10) requesting a Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting. Sawatzke stated that from his perspective the letter didn’t provide any new information since the 5-12-10 Personnel Committee Meeting.
Ill. CLASSIFICATION STUDY, EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC (EA).
Gmach introduced Helmke who will be assisting EA in the classification study. Helmke stated that she is an attorney by profession. She is currently a non-practicing attorney, but works with the employee law group and trains clients on various aspects regarding employee law issues, benefits, and compensation. Gmach stated that she also works with organizations experiencing downsizing, development of policies pertaining to reduction in workforce, and discrimination issues.
A. Scope Of Project.
Norman explained that the Administration staff met a week ago and discussed EA’s proposal and scope of project. He stated that one of the goals the County has is to create all new job descriptions. The current job descriptions are lengthy and complex. Brown indicated that some job descriptions can range from 6-8 pages in length. Gmach referred to an example of a job description (Exhibit B of the Proposal). Gmach noted that in some organizations, a onepage job description suffices. He stated that the concept of job descriptions are not legally required, and are often for best practices. He stated that together, EA and the County will determine how much repetition is needed in the job descriptions and how the descriptions will be tied into the evaluation process. This will all provide a road map for pricing these jobs in the marketplace. He stated that job descriptions can simply provide a bulleted list of minimum qualifications and areas of major responsibilities. He also noted that the idea is to give a general sense of what share of the budget each Department has. Helmke stated that the standard language could be as detailed or as concise as pre-determined, however, it needs to be consistent. Lindberg stated that “boiler plate language” would be used in all like positions so that they can be evaluated similarly. Gmach explained that sometimes the wording within job descriptions can get inflated. This can be challenging because employees may want to see stronger language within their job descriptions. Norman stated that another goal for the County is to consolidate job classes. Petersen stated that the County has approximately 150 job classes for approximately 700 employees. Brown stated that there are seven unions, so for clerical staff, there are eight different pay schedules. Gmach stated that in some organizations, there are multiple levels of clerical staff. He stated that there may still be multiple classes within clerical to protect certain skill sets and levels of seniority. Norman stated that he likes the idea of tying essential job duties and physical requirements into EA’s matrix system. Sawatzke stated that he appreciated EA’s attention to managing expectations by conducting meetings with employee groups and their bargaining agents. He noted that in studies such as this, some employees make assumptions that because of the great work they do, they will receive an increase in their paycheck. Not all job descriptions will increase in their points. Some may stay the same, and some employees may be disappointed to find that their job description will decrease in points. Gmach explained that EA will schedule an entire day of orientation meetings so that employees within departments can alternate attendance while maintaining customer service levels in their departments. These meetings would describe the project, what employees can expect, their level of involvement, and discuss some of the reasonable expectations due to the outcome (i.e. “What happens if mine goes down?”, “It looks like I’m on the upper side of the pay scale.”). Gmach explained that in a lot of jurisdictions, if a job is red lined because of the evaluation results, instead of decreasing one’s pay rate, they may not receive an increase for a number of years. He noted that these types of decisions would have to be negotiated with the unions. Norman stated that past County philosophy has been that if a position is redlined, it won’t adversely impact an employee. However, if the employee leaves, and the position is advertised for employment, the wage is then changed and advertised reflecting the new wage range. Gmach stated that in some respect, those positions that come back redlined or their points come back low, the position may appear low on the pay scale, but the jurisdiction may still meet the requirements of the Minnesota Pay Equity Act. He stated that there is an objective, when resources are made available, to move a job closer to the recommended payline. Gmach stated that typically after the study, EA runs the pay equity test to determine where jobs fall and whether the jurisdiction is in compliance. This would give the County a baseline and a linear structure for future reference. Brown referred to EA’s guide charts and asked how EA pinpoints the appropriateness of the various related work experiences for each job. Gmach stated that EA looks at the duties of a job, and they try to determine a current and reasonable pathway to get that experience. He stated that this is sometimes dictated by statute or other external factors such as licensure requirements. He stated that EA may even recommend referring to the Merit System for informational purposes in determining specifications for a job. He stated that as one moves up within a job family, i.e. accounting, higher levels of education may be required. However, once an employee caps out with education, years of experience may also be required. Problem solving and communications may be tied into experience factors versus education. Gmach noted that EA has a “look-up” program that they run when drafting evaluations. He explained that they bring in all of the education and experience requirements, sort it into a table, and sort by job family to determine a consistent hierarchy. Some supervisory positions rely on more of the education piece, while others rely more on the experience. Pawelk asked Gmack if EA will review job minimums. Norman asked how EA determines minimum qualifications. Gmach stated that a lot of Department Head positions may have relatively weak experience requirements. As an organization grows, it becomes more complex, and the expectations of its leaders increase. It is realistic to require not only the educational aspect, but also the experience component. Gmach stated that EA’s rating scale provides for some equivalencies. Education can sometimes be substituted for years of experience. Brown asked Gmach if EA strictly relies on the guide charts or if they are open to feedback. Gmack stated that EA will obtain feedback from Department Heads and employees. He stated that EA will also test its assumptions by using the table. He stated that they do not want an inverse relationship. The goal is consistency. He noted that in some cases, there will be exceptions. Some Departments may be highly specialized. Norman noted that EA will gather its information via questionnaires (an optional tool) and conducting interviews. He asked whether EA would meet with each individual employee or certain representatives of each job class. He asked if the questionnaire is also distributed to every employee. Lindberg stated that they would rather see multiple incumbents or representatives who are knowledgeable about their jobs. She stated that she thinks each employee should have access to the forms, however, they’d like to only receive two or three completed questionnaires per job class. She commented that the same format would be desired for interviews. The interviews can take 30-45 minutes. Gmach stated that EA typically brings laptop computers and work with electronic versions of the job descriptions and make notes electronically. He noted that EA will not be writing the job descriptions during the interview process. EA will ask questions pertaining to specific working conditions, driving, percentage of time working indoors vs. outdoors, and whether the position is seasonal. EA will ask the employee whether their job description is current and accurately reflects what they are doing. He noted that it is not EA’s objective to write a standard operating procedure. EA wants to specifically pinpoint 3-7 duties within each job description. Brown asked how EA determines the complexity of the work a person does. Gmach stated that EA looks at a multitude of factors: complexity of programs, sets of rules, complexity of decision making, how difficult it is to interpret rules, the variety within a job, reporting requirements, difficulty of the reporting requirements, math computations, significant writing, and if there is a high level of skill needed. Brown asked Gmach whether there is a standard list of questions EA asks during the interview process. Gmach responded that they ask for clarifications regarding answers to the questionnaire, review the duties within a job description, and ask the employee to walk them through their day/week. Gmach stated that EA has to be able to think on their feet. The interviews could take off in different directions. The purpose of the interviews is to ask questions and flush out some of the comments made in the questionnaires. EA may even have to consult with supervisors to seek clarification on the true job duties within an employee’s job description. He noted that sometimes the supervisors may not even know how to answer these types of questions. Brown asked how many EA employees would be working on the interview process. Gmach stated that he, Linberg, and Helmke would be conducting the interviews. He stated that the schedules would be worked so that each Department would be started and completed in one step. He noted that they would work all the way through a department before moving to another. Norman stated that the initial orientation process would be voluntary; however, it would be mandatory for supervisors and Department Heads. Gmach stated that the orientation process is very flexible. It is designed so that employees within departments can alternate attendance. He stated that scheduling these orientations with the Highway and Sheriffs Departments may be tricky. The goal is to cover all shifts, so EA may propose meeting with employees early or late to intercept the change of shifts. Norman asked how many people EA would prefer in the room at a time. Gmach stated that there is no preference. Norman asked if there would be a review or an appeals committee. Sawatzke questioned who would be allowed to sit before the review or appeals committee. He questioned whether each employee would have this opportunity. Gmach stated that the understanding of the job description is what would be appealable. The appeal would have to go through the chain of command. However, this is where it can get tricky. Supervisors and Department Heads sometimes don’t like to be the gatekeepers and will allow an appeal to go through. This is where EA has to step in and become the gatekeeper. EA considers the Department Head’s wishes. He also noted that this can also be difficult when there is an issue within the Department with the Department Head. EA then relies on the input of the Committee. The Personnel Committee will hear appeals that reach the level of Board review. Norman stated that the hope in conducting this classification study is to produce a quality control mechanism. Gmach stated that in the job descriptions for the Department Heads, EA generally increases the qualification levels, and attempts to create consistent job descriptions across all of the departments. Gmach stated that in some situations, a manager or supervisor will have to tell an employee that they do not want them conducting certain job duties. Some employees are stuck on doing some duties and are doing them voluntarily. It will be the responsibility of the supervisors or Department Heads to tell their employees what they want them to do. EA will be going to the supervisors and Department Heads to assist them in this. Norman stated that L. Kelly would be the Project Lead, and Brown, Petersen, and Pawelk would also assist in scheduling, looking at samples of job descriptions, etc.
B. Timelines.
Norman asked what EA considers as their timeline in getting started with the process and scheduling orientations. Gmach stated that their goal would be the first half of June for the orientation meetings with Departments Heads and employees. County staff will schedule the employee orientations and provide electronic versions of current job descriptions and pay structures. Gmach explained that EA will prepare sample job descriptions for style, content, and format. Questionnaires and instructions will be distributed to prepare the employees for interviews. Gmach stated that for the interviews, EA will bring laptops and will set up in a conference room either located within a Department or near a Department. He explained that EA will work completely and thoroughly with a Department before moving onto another Department. Gmach stated that the largest time consuming component will be in drafting the new job descriptions. After the initial draft, EA will email the descriptions back to the County to seek further clarification and review. He stated that EA will recommend to Department Heads during the orientation that their employees have a chance to review their job descriptions so they can field any questions. Norman asked if EA is still looking to meet their deadline of 11-1-10 if they start their orientations in June; noting that their proposal indicates a 34 week timeline. Gmach stated that they do have some flex time in July and August. Norman noted that 12-1-10 would give EA 28 weeks to complete the project. Sawatzke stated that he believes this is a reasonable timetable; however, the County does not want to force the process. He noted that it is better to take an extra month in order to produce a good product. The County isn’t under any time constraints. Union negotiations will not begin until fall, 2011. Gmach stated that he believes this will work for EA’s schedule as well. Currently, they are working with Mille Lacs County and the City of Fargo to meet their budget cycles. EA will be busy completing these projects during the next few weeks. Gmach explained that the job descriptions will be emailed in Word format with the word change activated to show changes. Department Heads/Supervisors will make their changes and return to EA. If EA missed details, or if the job descriptions come back with major changes, then EA would consult with Personnel for clarification. Norman stated that the concern is format and redundancy.
C. Contract.
Sawatzke noted that EA has proposed a not-to-exceed figure of $48,370.00. Gmach confirmed Sawatzke’s statement and stated that extra fees would be incurred if the County chose to pursue a market study. EA will complete the work as noted in its proposal and RFP. Other additional services would be billed at an hourly rate. Norman asked if EA has a contract document. Gmach stated that they do have a few contracts that have been used in the public sector and have been reviewed by attorneys. He stated that EA can produce a fairly standard contract. He referred to page 20 of the proposal which outlines hourly rates and miscellaneous costs. Sawatzke noted an error with the cost to meet with employees, managers, or committees. Gmach stated that the figure should have been $2,240 instead of $2,800. Gmach stated that it is generally EA’s practice to limit daily billing to eight hours even on the days that meetings will run late. Sawatzke asked Gmach again whether the $48,370.00 is a not-to-exceed contract amount. Gmach stated yes, adding that EA will more than likely end up eating some of its time. Sawatzke stated that there isn’t much expectation that EA would come in under budget, however, the County can be reassured that EA won’t exceed its contract amount. Gmach stated that it is fairly standard in the public sector for the County to hold a reserve at the end of the project. Sawatzke asked how much it would cost for EA to evaluate job descriptions in the future. Norman stated that he assumes the County may want to consider requests for reclassification in a few years. Gmach stated that it depends on the process the County uses. If the County does a bench audit, EA would review the job description, make changes, and write an opinion letter. This would consist of one hour of billable time. Gmach stated that the County could also elect to do an annual process where employees may “throw their hat in the ring” for reconsideration. Typically, there can be 4-10 job classes that are requested to be reviewed. EA would go onsite, sit with the Personnel Committee, listen to presentations, make a recommendation and send an official recommendation. This could take 2-3 hours per job. He noted that if EA has to conduct a follow-up interview, this could possibly be done by phone. This would all be billed on an hourly basis. He noted that Chisago and lsanti Counties do this each summer. Norman explained that typically, an employee would follow the chain of command, and if a significant change is warranted, the job description is sent to Personnel and reviewed by Brown. The County then takes a hands-off approach by sending the revised job description to the consultant. Gmach stated that this sounds reasonable. He cautioned that the Department Head doesn’t often like to be the gate keeper and will pass through job descriptions that are in question. Then EA becomes the gatekeeper. Norman asked that EA forward a draft contract document to him for his review. He will forward it to Eichelberg and Sawatzke for their review. Eichelberg stated that this all seems straight forward. Norman stated that upon completion of the Study and any immediate appeals, the County could anticipate that it would not have to do any reevaluations for a considerable period of time. Gmach stated that generally speaking, EA would conduct maintenance. He stated that it has been his observation that those that don’t do consistent maintenance, a “re-do” of the classification study generally takes place every ten years. Without maintenance, things are allowed to slide and all of a sudden someone gets a pay increase and a leapfrog effect begins. Brown asked if EA would like to see organizational charts prior to the interviews. Gmach stated yes, as well as a copy of the budget. He noted that typically EA can find this on the internet since it is typically public information.
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke asked Norman if he wanted to add any comment regarding the meeting with EA, Inc. Norman stated that it is his opinion that everybody come away with an understanding of the scope of the project. The consultant will draft a contract for the County’s review. Sawcitzke noted that there is a not-to-exceed contract amount of $48,370.00 and the length of the project would be 28-32 weeks. Sawatzke asked Norman to determine whether the contract needed the Committee’s review or could be directly submitted to the County Boardfor authorization of signatures. Norman stated that the consultant is looking to start employee orientation meetings in June, so the contract review process will need to be expedited.
Sawatzke made a motion to approve the minutes and recommendations made by the Personnel Committee. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Mattson stated that the County Board acknowledges receipt of Sheriff Miller’s letter. He asked Sawatzke if the County Board would consider Miller’s request for a Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting. Sawatzke stated that he and Eichelberg made a motion to approve the minutes and recommendations, meaning that they don’t see a need to schedule a Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting since there is no new information to consider. Thelen stated that she would like to honor the Sheriffs request for a meeting. She noted that the letter indicates that he’d like to bring in the County Labor Law Attorney. Thelen stated that the letter indicates that Miller has a strong sense of urgency. She stated that in reading the minutes, it looks as if all parties hod good arguments and each validated each other’s concerns. She stated that it is her opinion that the County Board owes Miller the courtesy of a meeting. Thelen stated that she would move to approve all the recommendations and set another meeting to discuss the issue at the request of Miller. Russek stated that he cannot see any benefit in another meeting. He stated that the purpose of committees are to forward recommendations to the County Board. He stated that he will honor the Committee’s recommendation. Thelen stated that in the minutes, she read that Eichelberg expressed some desire to have this position looked at by the classification study consultant, and to have the policy reviewed. She asked Eichelberg if he had any additional comments. Eichelberg stated that he looked at Miller’s letter and Miller made some valid arguments, however, he is sticking with the procedures that have been followed by the Administration Department. He stated that he feels this is the route the County should go. Sowatzke noted that Eichelberg seconded the motion to approve the minutes and recommendations made by the Personnel Committee. Motion carried 4-1 (Thelen).
(End of 5-12-10 Personnel Committee Minutes and discussion.)
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, distributed copies of the April Revenues/Expenditures Guidelines Report. Hiivala stated that the Guidelines were emailed to the Commissioners. He noted that they did distribute the salary transfers. This is shown in the General Fund. He informed the County Board that they are only 33% of the way through the budget year. He announced that the County is under budget on its expenditures for all departments with the exception of the unallocated appropriations. Sawatzke acknowledged that the County Board received the Guidelines via email. He asked whether the Auditor/Treasurer could email the reports to each Commissioner, and leave one hard copy on the table in the Commissioner’s Meeting room. He stated that some Commissioners would prefer to reference a paper copy. He then asked that the Auditor/Treasurer Department supply paper copies of the June and July reports. Russek stated that during budget considerations, it would be nice for each of the Commissioners to have their own copy. Hiivala stated that the Commissioners will receive emailed copies of the reports through May. Starting in June, each of the Commissioners will receive a hard copy and a PDF of the report unless notified otherwise. Mattson asked whether Hiivala would be able to flag, or highlight, areas of concern within the PDF version. Hiivala stated yes. Mattson stated that he would appreciate that. Eichelberg moved to approve the April Revenues/Expenditures Report, seconded by Sawatzke. The motion carried 5-0.
Hiivala asked to refer a discussion regarding election storage to the Building Committee. He stated that election materials are supposed to be retained for 22 months. However, in light of the 2008 contested election, the materials have to be retained for an additional period causing a doubling of quantity of election materials. He stated that he would like a space to store this information other than in his conference room. Sawatzke moved to approve referring the discussion of storage of election materials to the 5-26-10 Building Committee, seconded by Russek. The motion carried 5-0.
Hiivala submitted the claims listing for approval. Mattson referenced a claim for veterinary services, (page 17, $760.16). He asked Joe Hagerty, Chief Deputy, if the County is under contract with St. Michael Veterinary Clinic for K9 services. Hagerty stated that the Sheriffs Department has utilized the Clinic’s services since 1990. This particular claim was for routine maintenance and shots for a Deputy K9. Mattson stated that he thinks there are other vet clinics that offer more reasonable prices. On a motion by Russek, second by Thelen, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
A Board Action Request Form was submitted by Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, as part of the County Board Agenda Packet seeking a date for a Transportation Committee of the Whole Meeting. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Russek, all voted to set the Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 6-04-10 at 1:00 p.m.
The meeting was recessed at 9:21 a.m. and reconvened at 9:30 a.m.
At 9:30 a.m., Mattson closed the bids for the construction of a pole barn at the Wright County Fair Grounds. Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, stated that he has received bids for the design, materials, labor, and construction of the building of the new Goat Barn. He thanked the contractors who submitted bids for today’s bid opening. He stated that there were three size options the contractors bid on. The contractors were instructed to supply a bid bond or a check for $250, which will be returned once the low bidder signs a construction contract with the County. Sawatzke asked what the size options are. Hayes stated that the size options are: 30’xlO4’, 40’xlO4’, and 42’xlO4’. Russek noted that the old Goat Barn was 30’xIO5’. He noted that the building has been completely demolished and the rubble has been removed from the site. Hayes opened the bids received:
Bidder; 30’x104’; 40’x104’; 42’x104’; Bid Bond Received
B V Construction, Buffalo; $32,400; $36,400; $37,100; Y
Al Weege, Buffalo; $34,900; $40,700; $43,000; Y
Clear Building, Inc., Cokato; $42,720; $47,475; $48,340/ Y
Gutzwiller Construction, St. Michael; $39,620; $45,916; $47,455; Y
Liman Post & Bean, Annandale; $375,00; $42,500; $44,000; Y
Hance Construction, Monticello; $34,028; $37,168; $38,614; Y
Ram Contracting, Winsted; $38,539; $45,479; $47,776; Y
Hayes stated that he recommends holding the bids over for one week. The County’s Building Inspector will review the proposals and bring a recommendation to the 5-25-10 County Board Meeting. Mattson thanked the contractors for their proposals. Russek moved to acknowledge receipt of the bids and lay over the award of the bid to the 5-25-10 County Board Meeting, seconded by Eichelberg. The motion carried 5-0.
Bills Approved
3-D Specialties, Inc.. $11,832.13
Advantage Police Supply Co. 772.00
Albion Township 548.80
Allina Hospitals & Clinic 500.00
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 5,049.22
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 315.23
Annandale Advocate Inc. 270.00
Anoka County Corrections 4,305.00
Aramark Correctional Serv 6,623.64
Arctic Glacier Inc. 279.98
Asleson/Brian J. 141.80
Asplin Travel Plaza/Kirk 103.87
Bachman Printing 393.45
Bankers Advertising Co Inc. 470.99
Bonnie’s Maple Lake Cafe 174.21
Boyer Truck Parts 109.17
Brothers Fire Protection 575.50
Buff N Glo Inc. 393.96
Buffalo Floral & Landscaping 160.00
Buffalo/City of 34,948.25
Carlson Construction 500.00
Catco Parts Service 982.78
Center Point Energy 3,701.33
Centra Sota Coop Cokato 106.93
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 46,175.92
Central MN Mental Health 600.00
Century Link 270.00
Civic Research Institute Inc. 179.95
Climate Air 9,599.17
Cub Foods 255.84
Culligan of Buffalo 542.92
Deatons Mailing Systems Inc. 942.00
Dell Marketing LP 8,486.18
EMEDCO 274.99
GCS Service Inic. 227.88
Gooler/Gloria 138.50
Greenview Inc. 384.00
Hancock Concrete Product 1,157.46
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 669.71
Holiday 15,070.57
Howard/Jolanta 100.00
John Nagengast Doors LLC 2,320.00
Johnson/Troy 424.84
Keeprs Inc. 153.50
Lakedale Communications 479.32
Larson Allen LLP 100.00
Lawson Products Inc. 606.42
Loberg Electric 18,326.73
Lostetter/Carol H. 200.00
M-R Sign Company Inc. 2,113.68
Maney International Inc. 571.77
Marietta Aggregates/Martin 1,304.99
Menards - Buffalo 320.99
Midwest Protection Agency 1,970.36
Midwest Safety Counselors 195.21
MN County Attorneys Assoc. 100.00
MN Native Landscapes 800.00
MN State Auditor 414.00
MN State Bar Association 230.00
Montrose/City of 1,018.20
Morries Parts & Service Group 673.57
MTI Distributing Inc. 120.89
Mumford Sanitation 1,082.38
Nagell Appraisal & Consult 300.00
Niebolte/James 119.99
Norman/Richard W. 595.08
Office Depot 2,316.65
ORyans Conoco 145.00
Paumen/Lanette 106.00
Performance Kennels Inc. 171.79
Positron Public Safety Sys 4,051.00
Prairie Lakes Youth Program 620.00
Precision Prints of Wright Co. 331.31
Qwest 7,440.62
Rain Maker Lawn Irrigation 637.00
Ramacciotti/Frank 100.00
Richards/Thomas W. 500.00
Royal Tire Inc. 4,126.71
Scenic Signs 372.30
Sherwin Williams 480.94
Specialty Turf & Ag 137.33
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc. 160.53
St. Michael Veterinary Clinic 760.16
State of MN-Office Enterpr 1,335.00
Target 600.00
Twin City Seed Company 416.23
Vance Brothers Inc 4,452.68
Victory Corps 288.79
Westside Equipment 1,014.81
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec 3,242.38
Wright Hennepin Electric 840.05
Wurm Construction/Keith 920.00
Zarnoth Brush Works Inc. 1,167.08
24 Payments less than $100 992.90
Final total $230,602.51
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m.


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

Herald Journal
Stories | Columns | Obituaries | Classifieds
Guides | Sitemap | Dassel-Cokato Home | Delano Home | HJ Home