WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
JULY 6, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek, Thelen, and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 6-22-10 were corrected as follows: Page 1, 3rd paragraph, add as the second to the last sentence, “Thelen petitioned the following as Item For Consid. #2, 2010 MN Waters Lake Association of the Year Award, Sugar Lake” (Norman). Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Thelen, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: 9:20 A.M. Agenda Item, “Dan McDonald RE: STS Program” (Sawatzke). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Thelen, carried unanimously.
The Consent Agenda was discussed. Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested that the following item be removed from the Consent Agenda, Administration Item #3, and added to the regular Agenda as Auditor/Treasurer Item 2: “Claim, BV Construction Inc., $35,245 (Payment No. 1, Goat Barn, Fairgrounds).” Thelen moved to approve the Consent Agenda including the request by Hiivala to move Item A3 to the Regular Agenda, seconded by Eichelberg. The motion carried 5-0:
1. Performance Appraisals: B. Major, G. Gooler, Aud./Treas.; R. Hickman, D. Oliver, A. Wendorf, Bldg. Care; S. Kile, Ct. Svcs.; T. Hackenmueller, T. Laage, J. Sturges, T. Waldron, Hwy.; R. Borell, L. Schmidt, Parks.
2. Approve Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Church Of St. John, St. John’s Education Center, 17260 Hwy. 12 SW, Cokato MN 55321 (Cokato Twp.).
4. Approve Memo Of Understanding With Teamsters No. 320, Jailers/Dispatchers Unit, To Establish Post Retirement Health Care Savings Plan.
1. Renewal Of Annual On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License For “Albion Ridges Golf Course” (Albion Twp.).
2. Tobacco License Renewal For 152 Club (City Of Albertville).
1. Award 2010 Street Lighting Project to Design Electric In The Amount Of $153,177, SP 86-070-03; HSIP 8610 (173).
D. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Approve 3-Year Maintenance Contract For County Phone System With Spectrum Solutions.
1. Authorize Signatures On Amendment To STS Contract Regarding Reduction In State Funding.
2. Appoint Pat O’Malley As Interim Jail Administrator With Work Out Of Class Pay.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, was contacted by Wright Lumber in Buffalo. There is a pending payment by the County to BV Construction in the amount of $35,245 for Payment No. 1 for the Goat Barn at the Fairgrounds. Wright Lumber has a lien waiver which they would like satisfied prior to the County making payment to BV Construction. Hiivala requested the Board approve the payment to BV Construction and authorize Hiivala to hold release of the funds until there is a satisfactory arrangement or lien waiver in hand. Hiivala reviewed the issue with Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney. Wright Lumber is in a position to request a lien waiver. If the Board approves the payment, he will hold it until they have the waiver in hand. Russek moved to approve payment of the claim to BV Construction and to authorize Hiivala to hold the release of the funds until the lien waiver is in hand. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0. Hiivala will provide an update at the next County Board Meeting.
The claims listing was reviewed. Mattson referenced a claim on Page 1, $1,509.62, relating to various charges incurred for court appointed counsel. Hiivala said this is the County’s share of the expenses. Asleson said although he is not familiar with the court files listed, the firm does a lot of court appointed work on guardianships or commitment petitions. Russek referenced a claim on Page 23, Shenehon Company, $7,544.00, for appraisal reports. Russek said property appraisals are normally approved by the County Board prior to them being completed. He was unsure whether this appraisal relates to the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. Sawatzke felt the appraisal is required to meet State grant agreement requirements associated with the purchase of the last 50 acres for the Bertram site. An appraisal is required anytime there is a grant through the State to verify the value of the property. He felt the City of Monticello has shared in these costs previously and may be doing so on this appraisal as well. In review of the claim, Hiivala said it relates to a summary appraisal report at the Bertram site for the purchase of 51.4 acres. It appears this is the entire bill for the County, and he was unsure whether the firm billed the City directly. Russek said normally the Board approves all appraisals. Approval could have been included in the original motion. Hiivala was directed to contact Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, for an explanation on these questions. Russek moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. The motion includes an update from Hiivala at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.
Tom Kelly, Attorney, introduced Greg Kryzer as a new Assistant County Attorney. Kryzer was hired as the Land Use Attorney and will work closely with the Planning & Zoning Department. The position was formally held by Tom Zins, who recently retired. The Board welcomed Kryzer. Thelen moved to authorize signatures on the Approval of Appointment & Oath. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Pat O’Malley, Assistant Jail Administrator, requested approval of a contract with the MN Department of Corrections to house up to ten parole violators at a cost of $55/day for room, board, and basic medical (as is normally provided on site). The DOC will be responsible for extraordinary or emergency medical costs. The contract was reviewed by Asleson. The inmates will either be parole violators or inmates who are waiting for programs through the DOC. The inmates will be intermixed with the current jail population and are not different types of inmates than what is currently being housed. Sawatzke asked whether this is an annual contract. O’Malley stated that it is. The DOC’s fiscal year is from July 1st through June 30th. Sawatzke referenced the contract amount at a not-to-exceed figure of $105,000 and asked whether the figure may be exceeded. O’Malley said he has contacted the DOC. It is unclear whether 10 inmates will be the limit as the DOC is projecting increases in numbers of inmates. This contract allows the DOC to send to Wright County other inmates that they have within their system already. Wright County has been housing inmates that have come in on a probation or parole violation. The inmates have been kept in Wright County for the DOC. The contract being considered with the DOC is to allow inmates from other counties to be housed in Wright County. This is due to the proximity of the Jail to DOC facilities and because the DOC lost bed space when the Prairie Correctional Facility closed. There are 250-300 inmates that were moved from the Prairie Correctional Facility to various county jails. Sawatzke said it needs to be communicated to the DOC that the County will charge over and above the not-to-exceed figure if use is beyond that amount. In response to Sawatzke, O’Malley said they can carry out this agreement without the need for new pods or increased staffing levels. They will not proceed on anything such as this without discussing it with the County Board first. They would not make a step like that unless it would be in the County’s best interest. Sawatzke asked whether the only cost to the County is for food and laundry. O’Malley said essentially, yes. Sawatzke moved to authorize signatures on the contract with the MN DOC, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Dan McDonald said it was just over a year ago when he introduced himself to the County Board as the new Sentence-To-Service Crew Leader. Sherburne County recently elected not to continue with the STS Program. The Program Leader in Sherburne County will take over the Crew Leader position in Wright County and McDonald will no longer be working with us (State employees). He may work in Scott or Rice County. McDonald extended thanks to the County Board for the opportunity to work in Wright County. He said it has been a great experience and enjoyed working with the various cities, the Fair Board, and employees. Russek said good reports were received on the work completed by the STS crew when McDonald served as the Crew Leader. He was thanked for his service.
A Capital Improvement/Finance Committee Meeting was held on 6-23-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Thelen. Russek said there are recommendations contained within the minutes. It will depend on what happens with the budget as to whether these recommendations will be upheld. The motion carried 5-0:
I. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Russek opened discussion and stated that the first priority should be to make Wright County more efficient and run smoothly. Norman thanked Lee Kelly for taking the lead on the Wright County Capital Improvement Plan. He stated that Kelly also worked closely with the IT Department in regard to their five year plan.
Norman stated that the projects for 2010 and 2011 should be considered and the remaining projects will be discussed as long term projects. Norman referenced the reconfiguration of the Recorders Office and he feels that in terms of 2010, the entire second floor of the Annex building should be reviewed. Consolidation in the Recorders Office could free up additional space in the Assessors Office. Norman added that depending on project complexity, an engineer or architect may have to be hired. Russek commented that both the Recorder and Assessing Department’s would like to reconfigure or expand so that the public can be assisted at a counter. T. Kelly agrees that combining the departments and keeping the public in the hallway is a good idea. Norman recommended using the Site Improvement Line Item budget. Currently only $5,000 dollars has been utilized, leaving a balance of $245,000.
Norman referenced remodeling of the Court Administration area. T. Kelly feels that this is a priority in 2010 since the Attorney, Sheriff, and Court Services Departments currently share space in this area.
Norman commented that throughout the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) there are a number of departments requesting additional storage. He added that storage is a component of records management. In addition, if Wright County had a central records management storage area it would require a climate controlled environment and the hiring of a full time records manager. Norman stated that another option is to use current available storage areas which would result in departments having to utilize off site storage facilities when their space is full. T. Kelly commented that it would be more cost efficient for Wright County to keep storage in one place versus each departments storage needs met individually. Norman suggested that a storage area could be created in the old jail facility. Swing stated that discussions have taken place in regard to retention schedules and keeping each department up to date. Russek stated that in addition to a climate controlled area; the area would have to be secure and agrees that a full time recorders manager would be needed. Swing added that from a legal standpoint it would be beneficial for Wright County to have detailed records on what is in storage, where it is located, and how long documents need to be retained.
T. Kelly brought forth for discussion the Surveyor Departments expansion and/or remodel. Jobe stated that the Surveyor Department is crowded and currently shared with other departments. Record storage remains a problem since nothing can be thrown away. Jobe is concerned as original documents from the 1850’s have to be retained, along with continuously adding new documents. The current file cabinets have reached maximum capacity and there is no room for additional file cabinets to be added. Jobe stated that the location of a records management department would have to be considered in regards to making it easily accessible.
Norman stated that records identification would need to take place in order to differentiate records that are frequently accessed. Swing referenced Dakota County and stated that their records center is responsible for determining (based on guidelines) what records should be onsite and what records should be in long term storage. Their ultimate goal is to satisfy all legal guidelines. Swing added that centralized storage is the preferred way.
T. Kelly questioned how the County can move towards a records center and source of funding. Norman stated that the County Board or Budget Committee Of The Whole would need to discuss this if there is an interest in doing a total records retention program, which would include hiring a records manager and creating processes, or create more storage areas for individual departments. He added that a lot of boxes are out of site out of mind with no index of what is in the box and where each box is located. In addition, the records manager would need to perform audits, possibly a couple of departments each year, to ensure that the retention schedule is being followed. It is a very complex process. T. Kelly agreed and stated that it should be presented to the County Board for review since there are a lot of departments in the CIP requesting additional storage space.
Norman referenced the Doors System request made by Administration for 2011. The current card key/id badge system is outdated and is difficult to maintain. L. Kelly stated that the back-end of the system has many short comings and the current system is coming to the end of its useful life. Currently doors reports are not being run on a regular basis due to inconsistencies with the information being provided. The reports provide security information along with monitoring department access. Swing stated that the system originally was good for monitoring approximately eight doors and it is not designed to run on the network. With the number of doors that are currently secure, it is amazing that the current system is working at all. L. Kelly stated that there will be costs associated with updating the system; however, he is looking into the possibility of using as much of the existing hardware as possible. Norman stated that the current system was installed in 2002. He added that technology has changed over the years and that the current system is no longer meeting our needs. L. Kelly stated that he has been researching new systems and the updating capabilities.
Norman referenced the caulking and tuck pointing, of the Government Center in order to preserve the building integrity and appearance. The building is in the eighth year of a ten year maximum for tuck pointing. Norman feels this project should move forward. He continued that the project could be earmarked as a Site Improvement Line item for 2011. T. Kelly stated that it should be part of building maintenance and questioned if there are any building issues at the Human Services or Highway buildings. Norman replied that he did receive a list of needed upgrades from Craig Hayes and Al Buskey. Russek agreed that building maintenance needs to be completed in order to avoid bigger problems.
Norman referenced the Law Legal System Integration and anticipates that costs will appear in department budgets. Swing clarified that it includes document workflow for the Attorney, Sheriff, and Court Service Departments. He continued that it appears on the CIP; however, he does not have any numbers or cost to report at this time. Pricing will be available after a demonstration and presentation in mid to late July, 2010. T. Kelly stated that the current system was installed knowing that it would be possible to add on to it in the future. He commented that it falls under the CIP since there are multiple departments involved.
Norman clarified that there is no actual Capital Improvement Fund; however, if the Board chooses to do so, the Levy Stabilization Fund can be used in a number of ways. Norman stated that it is funded by end of year fund balances from the departments in the General Fund. He added that a three year Equipment Note, good through next year, is available for the purchase of sheriff vehicles, highway equipment, and hardware. The money remaining from the first year allowed the County to earn interest which will give the County a positive balance after the third year. Norman continued that an equipment note allows departments to purchase equipment and shows up as an expense during the year. At the end of the year, money is transferred to show income to balance the account. Hiivala is projecting that the County will have $85,000 dollars available to use in the third year to buy equipment or pay down debt service on the Note.
Russek questioned if the GIS Mapping of Ditches will be funded through a grant. L. Kelly replied yes and stated that until grants are completed, they will not appear in the CIP.
Russek referenced the Parks Departments requests and stated that all requests will need to be reviewed as some payments may already be dedicated. Norman stated that bigger projects would probably have to be included in a bond issue and two items could be part of site improvements in the Park Budget.
Schwartz referenced the Human Services Integration, Imaging, and Document Workflow project. This is a management system used to move from paper to computer. She stated that the client work load has increased 30%. In addition, Health Care Reform will add to current case loads. Swing commented that this project relates to the records management structure. Costs will be presented to the Board in July, 2010 and he feels that return on investment will be significant. Jobe questioned if the records management system will allow employees to view documents on line and retrieve them electronically. Swing stated that the system would tell us where each box is located and its content. Norman stated that each department will submit their CIP requests with their budgets.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Budget Committee Of The Whole should consider including building maintenance tuck pointing in the 2011 budget under Site Improvements. Establishment of a Records Management System should also be a priority. Remodeling the Second Floor of the Annex should be considered yet this year. Doors System replacement should be considered in 2011. Courtroom remodeling should be considered if there are sufficient funds remaining in the Site Improvement line item.
(End of 6-23-10 Capital Improvement/Finance Committee Minutes)
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 6-23-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 5-0:
I. PERFORMANCE REVIEW, MARC MATTICE, PARKS ADMINISTRATOR.
Based on five Performance Reviews submitted, the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Exceptional.”
(End of 6-23-10 Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 6-23-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Thelen made the following correction to the minutes: Page 3, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence should read, “Swing distributed an ROI Analysis (see attached) of the Marco MPS Gold Program which gives a projected savings of $121,951.80 (3-year savings).” Thelen moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Eichelberg. Sawatzke questioned whether there were any specific recommendations. Eichelberg said the information was provided as an update. The motion carried 5-0:
I. REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY.
Swing referred to his “Report on Technology” (see attached) which breaks out two major initiatives for his Department: Law/Legal System Integration and System Integration, and Imaging and Document Workflow in the Financial Division of Human Services. Swing stated that in support of what was discussed at the Leadership Retreat, the theme of today’s Report is “alignment”. The discussion at the Retreat included staying fiscally conservative while spending the County’s money strategically. Swing stated that these are initiatives that were brought forward by other departments and are being labeled as “tech projects”. He stated that the nature of these large projects are in line with, or are going in the direction of, where the County needs to go. The two projects have been included on the CIP list. He stated that a Technology Committee Of The Whole Meeting will be set for July, 2010 to discuss these projects further.
Norman asked Swing whether the State of Minnesota would commit to funding the Court Administration’s share of the Law/Legal System Integration. Swing stated that the State has committed that they have the funding. He stated that he has met with Mike Morairity, Peggy Gentles, and Mike MacMillan. The BCA and the courts are building systems to get the data at a level that can be shared State-wide. He noted that the next time they meet, they will include the State in these discussions.
Swing stated that a major concern in rolling out these two initiatives is to address the deficiencies in the current staffing numbers not only in his Department, but in other departments as well. He stated that Human Services has four ISS (Information System Services) employees that work in the Human Services Center Building. These employees are pseudo-technical people that have job descriptions outlining their duties. He stated that he would like to see this same level of support in the Sheriffs Department. Howell stated that the Sheriffs Department supports the integration initiative; however, the Sheriffs Department is struggling with its current staffing numbers. Adequate staffing is needed to facilitate the BCA’s eCharging process. Swing stated that the Sheriffs Department will request staffing to satisfy this need as part of their budget presentation.
Norman asked whether Swing’s proposal would be built into the Departmental budget proposals for 2012. Swing stated that these are in the CIP and department budget proposals so everybody can understand the depth of these initiatives. He stated that these are difficult projects to scope because they are so large. He stated that the Human Services project is considerably larger than the other project.
Swing stated that these initiatives will impact both I.T.’s infrastructure and staffing. He stated that the Lead Developer position was approved in 2008 and left vacant. The job description for this position has been created and evaluated. The position was budgeted; however, the County Board put it on hold. This position is needed on I.T.’s development side. Swing referenced the I.T. Organizational Chart (page 8) which separates Infrastructure from Development. He stated that I.T. has technical strategies under both divisions. These strategies are to make the County more efficient. I.T. will be asking the County Board to move on a fall 2010 hire date to prepare for these initiatives to begin the second half of this year.
Thelen asked whether Swing could provide a Return On Investment (ROI) on the Lead Developer position. Swing stated that the Human Services imaging system initiative will create significant efficiencies. He stated that the workload is getting greater and greater. Swing stated that he needs this position regardless, and they would not be able to carry out the HS initiative without the Lead Developer position. Schwartz stated that she is not sure how Swing could create this as an ROI in his Department. Swing added further comment that it is a waste of money to purchase software and hardware (i.e. Sharepoint) and not be able to use it due to lack of staffing.
He stated that in relation to other I.T. Departments in other counties, his Department is undersized. His Department wants to leverage what other counties are doing. He stated that one “can’t make these types of decisions in isolation”. He noted that Wright County is not the “leading edge” in its field. His Department should have been more aggressive earlier. The County was too conservative in that realm. He stated that I.T. should be moving in the direction of imbedding more of the basic I.T. duties within the departments; specifically in application support. He stated that it is his opinion that the ownership and responsibility of these systems (i.e. Keri Doors System) should be within the departments, not in I.T.
Eichelberg asked whether there is anything else that the Department Heads should know prior to budget time. Swing stated that this report and the Guidelines have been distributed to each department. There have been good discussions as a result of the Report and Guidelines. The budget numbers have gone out and he stated that he feels they are well positioned for the budget sessions. Norman stated that today’s item is informational and will be included within each Department’s budgets.
II. 2010 TECHNOLOGY BUDGET GUIDELINES.
Swing distributed copies of his 5-15-10 Memo regarding “2011 Technology Budget Guidelines”. He stated that this went to all Department Heads. The purpose of the memo is to keep each of the departments aligned with the functions of I.T. He stated that it is more important today, than in prior years, to discuss how the new domain for automation is system integration. He stated that I.T. has been building up systems in every department. He stated that it is his assumption that the average citizen thinks the County is more technologically advanced than the reality. He stated that over the next few years, I.T. will focus its discussions on integration. For instance, the Attorney’s Department wants the information that the Sheriff’s Department has, and Court Services wants access to the information that the Attorney Department has. Each of the Departments have similar information, however, they all have different ways of storing and accessing the information. The information is being passed between these departments manually.
He stated that the Guidelines Memo has been going out for a number of years. The Guidelines (Appendix A) list standard devices and their maintenance costs which can be used as a guide in creating Department budgets. Swing stated that this information is not new, as this is the information the techs use when meeting with Department Heads.
Swing stated that unbudgeted I.T. projects should be brought to I.T. management before going before the County Board or Technology Committee. This idea reinforces the need to communicate. Swing stated that grants really force a Department to make a decision out of context of the budget. Swing stated that the JAG grant was an example of this.
Swing turned the Committee’s attention to the highlighted item, “Managed Print Services”. He stated that I.T. has been working with Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, regarding this topic. He reiterated that this is a new approach to managing printers. The program will be introduced in 2010. The program would work similar to the Marco copier program with the exception that the departments would retain ownership of their printers.
Swing distributed an ROI Analysis (see attached) of the Marco MPS Gold Program which gives a projected savings of $121,951.80 (3-year savings). He noted that the program is only for laser printers within the organization. The County asked Marco to survey the number of printers throughout the County and provide an estimate of cost to manage its printers. Each Department will retain ownership of their printers, however, Marco will be responsible for printer supplies, repair services, and printer replacement. Swing noted that the cost of the consumables will offset the cost of the program. He stated that the savings will not only be in the cost but also in the efficiencies. Swing stated that this is similar to a leasing program in that they will replace and repair the printers. However, each Department technically owns their printer. He stated that black and white dual-sided copies is the best and most economical way to print. He reminded the Committee that color copies are very expensive. Fingalson asked if there were any other companies that the County considered for this same type of program. Swing stated that he and Hayes contacted two other companies and concluded that Marco provided the best deal. Norman stated that Marco has proven that they are responsive for his office’s service requests. Swing stated that Marco does have good service.
Norman asked when this program would be implemented. Swing stated that July 1, 2010 is the start date. Norman asked whether the Department Heads have been made aware of this program so they can implement it within their budgets. Swing stated yes. He stated that he sent an email to all Department Heads on 6-22-10. The email states that the dollars would be budgeted within their equipment maintenance line item (6301) as of July 1, 2010 instead of their operating supplies line item 6411. Jobe asked whether the MPS Gold Program is prorated by usage. Swing stated that it is based on volume. Marco did a printer analysis and has a good feel for the volume in each Department. He noted that for instance, Human Services really pushes a lot of paper through their copier and printer machines. Schwartz stated that she is attending this meeting on behalf of Larry DeMars. She stated that he has no problem with this new service.
(End of 6-23-10 Technology Committee Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 6-23-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said the Committee affirmed the protocol and procedures that were discussed in 1995 at the Ways & Means Committee. The 6-23-10 Ways & Means Committee Minutes include two attachments. Attachment A is a draft provided by Mattson and pulled from Ramsey’s County website. Attachment B formalizes Wright County’s procedures. The following changes were made by Sawatzke to the minutes: Page 1, remove the language in the 3rd paragraph and insert the following language as the new 3rd paragraph: “Another discussion occurred regarding how the County Board votes on motions and addresses roll call votes. Roll call votes will start from either the left or from the right. Asleson noted that voting is the prerogative of the Chair. If an issue loses on a vote, only the winning side can bring the item back to another Board Meeting.” Sawatzke made a motion to approve the 6-23-10 Ways & Means Committee Minutes and recommendations, with Attachment B to become the policy of the Board. The policy is available to be reviewed at any time in the future. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
I. ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER. Mattson stated that he requested this agenda item in an effort to create a procedure that could be used as a reference for the County Board. Asleson stated that the County Board has operated on memory and past practice. Norman distributed Mattson’s draft (Attachment A) which was pulled from Ramsey County’s website, as well as a copy of the Ways & Means Committee Of The Whole Minutes of 7-18-95 (see attached). The Committee reviewed Mattson’s draft and made changes accordingly. Asleson stated that the State Statutes simply state that a quorum is required to conduct a meeting. This is documented in the County Board Chapter of the Statutes. Asleson stated that Robert’s Rules of Order are typically utilized by larger government bodies. Sawatzke stated that is why he would like to emphasize item #1 to read “…Robert’s Rules of Order and past practice shall guide the procedures of the Board of Wright County Commissioners”. Asleson stated that the rules or procedures of the Board ought to be flexible. Norman commented that these guidelines serve as a protocol.
Discussion occurred regarding item #11 (now, item #7 on Attachment B) on adding agenda items at the beginning of a meeting. The concern was how to define a non-controversial item. Asleson asked whether the drafted document should include a procedure on how to address an emergency or controversial topic (i.e. storm damage to the Public Works Building). Norman stated that there is a separate provision that deals with bringing emergency items to the Board. Asleson clarified that an emergency County Board Meeting is different than an emergency Board agenda item. The Committee agreed that the language should be revised to include, “non controversial, does not involve expenditures not identified in the County’s budget, or is of an emergency nature”. Sawatzke stated that this really is in alignment with the County Board’s past practice. Norman clarified that an item consisting of an emergency nature is defined by the County Board. Sawatzke noted that the County Board has exercised the ability to charge an emergency fee on such issues as an emergency liquor license.
Another discussion occurred regarding how the County Board votes on motions and addresses roll call votes. Roll call votes will start from either the left or from the right. Asleson noted that voting is the prerogative of the Chair. If an issue loses on a vote, only the winning side can bring the item back to another Board meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Present and accept the Wright County Board Rules Of Procedure.
(End of 6-23-10 Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
Norman presented a request to fill a Personnel Board of Appeals opening. Norman was contacted by Ozzie Arlien who indicated that he does not want to be considered for reappointment. His term expired 7-01-10. Norman took the opportunity to extend appreciation to Arlien for his years of dedicated service to the citizens of Wright County. His first position was the Executive Secretary to the County Board. He then was elected as the Auditor. The offices of the Auditor and Treasurer were combined and the position was made appointed. Arlien then became a County Commissioner and was later appointed to the Personnel Board of Appeals. The Personnel Board of Appeals meets very infrequently. The last time the position was advertised was in 2000. The advertisement at that time reflected the County was looking to fill the position with someone with human resources and labor relations experience. Interviews were conducted by the Personnel Committee and a formal recommendation was made to the County Board. Norman did not have the per diem figure available. The person is paid mileage and a small per diem. The two other members on the Personnel Board of Appeals, Laureen Bodin and Connie Lounsbury, take time away from their work day to serve. They do not look for much compensation from the County; they just have a service they are willing to provide. Norman stated one appointment is due every July 1st and the members serve on a three-year revolving basis. Russek moved to proceed with finding a replacement using the same process as in the past, seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke questioned advertising costs and suggested that the ad be placed in a newspaper such as the Drummer which is delivered throughout the County. Norman said if the County advertises, the ad should, at minimum, be published in the Howard Lake Herald (County’s official newspaper). Sawatzke said if the County is not required to advertise, it would not need to be included in the official newspaper. The motion carried 5-0.
Norman presented a request to cancel a Board Meeting in August due to the occurrence of five Tuesdays. The suggested date was 8-03-10. After discussion, Russek moved to cancel the 8-31-10 County Board Meeting, seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke questioned when the Budget Committee Of The Whole schedule will be available. Norman plans to distribute the schedule the last week of July. He is anticipating starting Budget sessions on 8-10-10 with a pretty intense schedule to follow. The motion carried 5-0.
Congratulations were extended to Ivan Raconteur who was recently appointed the Editor of the Howard Lake Herald.
Adams/Robert W.. $1,515.00
AECOM USA Inc. 480.50
Albertville/City of 50,000.00
Allina Health System 16,893.00
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 489.43
Allina Medical Laboratories 534.60
Allina OCC Med 190.00
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 320.62
AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 225.00
Annandale Rock Products 174.19
Annandale/City of 557.00
Anoka County Sheriff 8,000.15
Aramark Services Inc. 6,727.76
Åsplin Travel Plaza/Kirk 143.82
Assn. of Training Ofcrs. of M 550.00
Automatic Garage Doors & Fi 754.06
Barker Co./Bob 860.84
Bauman/Lawrene R 1,142.00
Black Moore Bumgardner M 1,509.62
Bound Tree Medical LLC 360.87
Bowman Sheet Metal 491.57
Boyer Truck Parts 4,308.50
BP Amoco 1,562.76
Buffalo Auto Value 168.86
Buffalo Transmission 3,115.61
Business Ware Solutions 266.04
Cartegraph Systems Inc. 1,890.00
Cassidy Realty & Appraisal 1,235.00
Cenex Fleetcard 401.33
Center Point Energy 2,257.33
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 44,251.68
Central McGowan Inc. 231.64
Climate Air 2,518.64
Cokato Motor Sales Inc. 28,275.00
Commissioner of Transport 171.60
Country Chevrolet 15,604.38
Crop Productions Services 1,945.45
Cub Foods 189.92
Cub Pharmacy 4,226.92
Deatons Mailing Systems Inc. 568.36
Dell Marketing LP 7,194.40
Design Electrical Contract 120.15
Douglas/Ralph D. 649.00
Elk River Municipal Utilities 126.19
Emergency Physicials Prof 303.00
EPA Audio Visual Inc. 328.14
ERC Inc. 1,525.00
Erickson Engineering Co. 6,807.50
Federal Signal Corporation 106.41
Federated Propane 2,878.40
Forestry Suppliers Inc. 112.59
Going Under Dive Center 704.34
Hardrives Inc. 2,566,828.80
Hewlett Packard 161.88
Highway Technologies Inc. 227.65
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 3,567.95
Hoekstra/Alan R. 1,217.00
Identix Incorporated 2,682.00
Imperial Medical 560.00
Interstate All Battery Center 431.93
Jerrys Towing & Repair 144.28
Johnson Sales & Services 940.50
Karels Towing 178.48
L-3 Communications Mobile V 40,403.50
Lab Safety Supply Inc. 128.82
LaPlant Demo Inc. 642.13
Lostetter/Carol H. 400.00
M & M Bus Service Inc. 515.87
Maple Lake Lumber Company 186.76
Maple Lake/City of 1,092.50
Marco Inc. 8,258.61
Menards - Buffalo 539.14
Metro Group Inc./The 5,096.66
MFR Valuation 2,500.00
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc. 8,397.41
Mies Outland Inc. 908.12
MN CLE Inc. 425.00
MN Copy Systems 238.40
MN Sheriffs Association 7,124.00
Monticello Community Ed 1,500.00
Monticello Vacuum Center 1,779.78
Montrose/City of 588.00
Morries Parts & Service Group 2,292.44
MTI Distributing Inc. 148.97
Municipal Software 5,852.05
Nagell Appraisal & Consult 1,500.00
Office Depot 2,951.38
Positron Public Safety Sys 4,051.00
Regents of the University 31,862.49
Retrofit Companies Inc. 550.48
Rhodes Lock & Glass 498.59
Royal Tire Inc. 6,942.93
Russell Security Resource 2,866.88
Safelite Fulfillment Inc. 267.51
Schermann/Robert D. 591.00
Schleif/Scott J. 1,016.00
Schmidt/Donald M. 329.00
Secretary of State 105.00
Shell Fleet Plus 280.34
Shenehon Company 7,544.00
SHI International Corp 883.86
Silver Creek Township 1,219.50
South Haven/City of 844.75
Star Tribune-Subscriptions 970.00
Stationers Inc. 1,041.91
Synergy Graphics 18,711.08
Trophies Plus LLC 119.41
Trueman Welters Inc. 299.98
United Parcel Service 118.70
Vance Brothers Inc. 3,771.19
Verizon Wireless 134.70
Voss Lighting 111.40
Wagner/H David 520.50
Walmart Store 01-1577 523.94
Waste Management-TC West 2,155.77
Wisecup Law Office LLC 100.00
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec 185.44
Wright Hennepin Electric 544.16
Xcel Energy 2,108.85
Zep Sales & Services 398.54
30 Payments less than $100 1,690.10
Final total $3,006,143.49
The meeting adjourned at 9.57 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Aug. 23, 2010.