Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek, Thelen, and Eichelberg present.
Eichelberg moved to approve the 10-12-10 minutes, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Aud./Treas. Item #5, “Announcement On Passports” (Hiivala); Item For Consid. #2, “AMC Board Of Directors Meeting” (Russek). Thelen moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Performance Appraisals: B. Hatfield, Bldg. Care; B. Haynes, N. Helgeson, Hwy.; D. Estenson, T. MacLeod, D. Munsterteiger, Sher.
2. Schedule Employee Recognition Ceremony For 3-08-11 @ 10:00 A.M.
3. Authorize Delegates To Attend AMC District V Meeting, 10-21-10, Litchfield.
B. HIGHWAY
1. Approve Memo Of Understanding With City Of Cokato, City Of Albertville, City Of Waverly, & French Lake Twp. For Storage And/Or Purchase Of Sand/Salt And/Or Salt For 2010/2011 Snow/Ice Control Season.
C. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Authorize County Attorney To Commence Civil Action To Complete The Public Road In The Plat: “Grand Castle Estates” (Buffalo Township).
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said that Wright County signed a Joint Ditch Policy with Meeker and McLeod Counties for Joint Ditch 15. Wright County notified Meeker and McLeod of a request by Matthew Wozniak to clean out a portion of the Ditch at his own expense. Both counties have signed off on the request. Today, Hiivala was presenting this to the Wright County Board for approval. Kerry Saxton, SWCD, will be notified of the cleanout. Russek moved to approve the cleanout request by Wozniak, seconded by Thelen, carried 5-0.
Russek provided a County Ditch 31 update. A cleanout request by Mildred Yager was discussed at the last County Board Meeting. Russek has since learned that the cleanout request will extend into their neighbor’s property. Russek, Hiivala, and Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, feel there needs to be a written agreement if the cleanout extends into the neighboring property. Russek has been unable to contact that landowner. Russek moved to table this issue until he can obtain more information on the request, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Hiivala presented the September Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines for approval. At 75% of the year, the General Fund is under Budget on expenses. However, some expenses are held until the end of the year. Hiivala felt the County was doing well in all three Funds. The land records departments have realized a decrease in permitting revenues but the decrease has been offset by other revenues in the organization. Sawatzke added that those departments have also realized a reduction in staff so that is also offsetting the loss of revenues. Thelen moved to accept the September Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Hiivala was notified last week that passports will no longer be able to be issued by the Motor Vehicle Office, effective 10-20-10. The U.S. Passport agencies do not want permits issued by offices that issue first time driver’s licenses. The issuance of passports will be moved to the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office, 2nd Floor of the Annex Building. Hiivala said they are awaiting approval of their application. This was provided as an informational item.
On a motion by Russek, second by Thelen, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 10-13-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion was seconded by Russek. Sawatzke referenced the carpet replacement for the 3rd Floor, Annex. He said he would support the recommendation but questioned the County specifying a carpet that only one firm can bid on. He felt that the County should either find more people to bid or create a specification for more competitive bids in the future. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, said this is a carpet the County has specified before and received bids on. It was not that the carpet companies could not provide bids; rather, they indicated they could not provide competitive bids. Norman said the suppliers for Neil’s Flooring must be more competitive. The carpet squares that will be purchased are made from recyclable material and will be recyclable in the future when replaced. The motion carried 5-0:
I. Tenth Judicial District Request To Lease Space.
This issue was laid over from the 9-22-10 Committee Meeting. The Committee had recommended that the 10th Judicial District send a proposal to the County reflecting a layout of cubicles, how much square footage is required, what types of service the County needs to provide (telephone, custodial service, internet, storage, etc.).
At today’s meeting, Norman distributed a copy of the letter received from the 10th Judicial District outlining their request (see attached). The District is seeking sufficient space to house five Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) staff, two additional staff members, desks, a large file cabinet, and paper shredder. The request is for approximately 600 sq. ft. The letter states there is no expectation that Wright County will provide any office furniture or absorb costs associated with telephone calls, access to the Internet, or maintenance of GAL provided equipment. The intent is that the program will lease office space and will provide its own furniture and equipment.
Norman suggested the former Sheriff Detective area space as an option. A handout was distributed reflecting the square footage of the area and a list of considerations for review by the Committee (attached). His recommendation is to install a partition near the offices utilized for nursing mothers so that use can continue. Doing so will leave the areas occupied by the GAL staff and the nursing mothers rooms with one exit each. There is still a question on how clients will be served and whether the GAL staff will access the building on nights and weekends. Norman said it is preferable for security reasons that the proposed office area not be utilized for meeting with clients. When representatives were in from the 10th Judicial District to discuss this with the Committee, they compared themselves to Public Defenders. Norman could not recall that the Public Defenders have ever approached the County with a request for space. Norman said the area which may be used is about 2000 gross sq. ft. County space rental is $16.50/sq. ft. as that is the County’s cost. He envisioned the GAL staff could probably obtain public rental space located near the Courthouse at a reduced cost.
Recommendation: Offer to rent the former Sheriff Detective office space to the 10th Judicial District for the GAL staff as outlined (2000 sq. ft. @ $16.50/sq. ft.) for a total of $33,000/year. Norman will research options for blocking off the area to the nursing mother’s rooms. Costs associated with any remodeling of the area to fit their needs will be the responsibility of the 10th Judicial District. The County will provide the space only and the 10th Judicial District will be responsible for furniture and equipment. Details of access to telephone and internet need to be worked out.
II. Proposal For Community Room Upgrades.
This item was laid over from the 9-22-10 meeting in order to research lower cost options for the Community Room. The original proposal was for just over $17,000 (not including sales tax or electrical work).
Since the last meeting, Norman and Hayes met with EPA on these options. EPA provided a revised project proposal. The proposal includes an upgrade to the sound system and video presentation options. It will not include a document camera, which can be added at a later date if desired. Hayes said the current sound system doesn’t work well and the upgrade will also provide a large space for video presentations. The next largest room is C118 which does not accommodate large groups. The proposal for the upgrade will cost $10,283 (not including sales tax or electrical work). Norman recommended completing the work in 2010 with funding from Site Improvements. Mattson questioned the estimated cost of exclusions in the proposal (i.e., electrical, construction). Norman said the electrical work should be minimal. Hayes did not envision any construction required. A standard shelf will be placed in the southeast corner of the room. Further discussion with the vendor will take place on options for securing the equipment in the room.
Recommendation: Authorize the upgrade at a cost of $10,283 (not including sales tax or electrical work) with funding from Budget 100, Site Improvements.
III. Carpet Replacement.
This item was laid over from the 9-22-10 meeting.
Hayes received carpet quotes for the 3rd Floor Annex. Alternate A includes the hallways and reception area. Alternate B includes the lunchroom. The offices on the 3rd Floor will not be carpeted at this time. Chair mats were ordered for individual offices.
Three vendors were contacted for quotes. Monticello Carpets (Monticello) and Rob’s Flooring (Maple Lake) did not submit quotes as they could not buy the specified carpet competitively. They said they would submit quotes if the County would let them specify the carpeting. One quote was received from Neil’s Flooring (Buffalo). Alternate A is $17,898.62 and Alternate B is $5,820.88 (not including sales tax). With sales tax, the total is $25,447.47. The work will be completed after work hours and around the reception furniture. The cove base will be replaced. Hayes said he has worked with Neil’s Flooring in the past and is recommending acceptance of their quote.
Recommendation: Award to Neil’s Flooring (Buffalo) to include Alternates A&B for a total of $25,447.47. Fund from Budget 100, Site Improvements.
(End of 10-13-10 Building Committee Minutes)
Nick Neaton, 4-H Program Coordinator, provided an update on the Wright County 4-H Program. As they are coming to the end of a very busy season, re-enrollment is starting. Wright County’s Program has 568 members and most belong to one of the 24 4-H Clubs. 4-H teaches practical, life-long skills to youth, ages 5-19. Neaton said the 2011 goal will be to increase membership while taking care of the youth who are currently in the Program. 4-H must stay competitive with the number of options for extra curricular activities. There is a misconception that 4-H is only for farm kids. 4-H has something for everyone. He said this year, some of the areas members worked with included aerospace, fashion review, public speaking, bread project, vegetable gardening, and an entomology project. There is also a Junior Master Gardener Program, where activities included growing vegetables at the Fairground. The Program was taught by Neaton, Brenda Postels (Extension Educator), and several Master Gardener volunteers. Food that was grown during the season was donated to the Buffalo Food Shelf. There are more than 170 screened adult leaders with a 3:1 adult to child ratio. 4-H strengthens communities by giving youth a sense of the larger community outside of family and school. 4-H participants visit nursing homes several times during the year. Neaton said over the years, 4-H has placed a number of signs along County roadways. Some of those are in disrepair. It is their goal to refurbish the signs and they are working to do so. Other events this year included 4-H members talking about nutrition at the Coborn’s Store and serving a fundraiser dinner for the Wright Hennepin shareholders. Neaton highlighted the 2009-2010 season. He said 440 members participated in the Wright County Fair. There were 50 4-Her’s who brought livestock to the State Fair and 75 who brought non-livestock exhibits. State Fair highlights include: Overall Champion Heifer; Senior Champion Poultry Showman; Champion Alpine Senior Doe (Goat); Grant Champion Netherland Dwarf (Rabbit); and Grand Champion Senior Rabbit Showman. There were 20 members that competed in a State Horse Show, 31 who participated in the State Shoot, and 15 who competed in the State Dog Show. Many clubs participate in community service activities and 4-H partners with the Wright County Master Gardeners to create the Junior Master Gardeners Program. 4-H will host the first inaugural “Fright Night” Halloween bash at the Fairgrounds, and more than 200 participants are expected. The 2010-2011 Goals include increasing membership, rebuilding smaller clubs, improving the County Ambassador Program, seeking a 4-H Interstate Exchange partner, hosting more project education days, and starting a 4-H giant pumpkin contest. The Board said they had received cards from some of the 4-H Clubs. Neaton said this is part of a State-wide push to educate participants on the role Commissioners play in 4-H and why it is important to send appreciation cards. Discussion followed on the positive impact 4-H has on its participants including better grades, less likelihood of participating in risky behaviors, and the youth are more likely to contribute to their communities. Neaton has an education background. While working in schools, he said the largest stumbling block was behavior. When he came to the 4-H Program, he was amazed at the behavior and respect shown by the kids involved. This allows the groups to move along with what they want to accomplish rather than focusing on discipline. This reflects well on both the participants and their families. Neaton said 4-H Awards Night will be held on 11-27-10 at 6:00 P.M. at the Waverly Town Hall. The Commissioners will be invited to attend. The Saturday after Thanksgiving was selected as the date for this event as many 4-H alumni are in town. This has resulted in better attendance at the event. This was provided as an informational item.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 10-13-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried unanimously:
I. POSITION OPENINGS.
A. Public Health Nurse.
Denise Tracy resigned her position as a .8 FTE Public Health Nurse, effective 10-22-10. Nesseth distributed a handout from Carol Schefers, Public Health Director, outlining the request to fill the position (see attached). The position is located in the Health Promotion Unit dealing with disease prevention and control. It is an essential service that Public Health must provide through follow up with the community on various possible and confirmed disease outbreaks. The position is fully funded using Annual Public Health Emergency Grants and the Community Health Local Public Health Grant.
Brown stated this opening may not need to be advertised. A Public Health Nurse position opening was recently advertised and so there may be an applicant pool to pull from. The position held by Tracy works with communicable diseases and epidemiology, and Brown was unsure whether this candidate pool will bring forth this expertise.
Norman said there is a .5 FTE Public Health Nurse position that has been vacant for the past 18 months because of a case in arbitration. The case is being resolved through a settlement agreement. The Union has agreed to the settlement, and both parties and the employee still need to sign the agreement. The County lost the first part of the arbitration dealing with the probationary period. The Union Contract reflects the employee is to serve a six-month probationary period. The County has a long past practice of prorating this probationary period but the Arbitrator ruled against the County in the case. Norman said at this time, he would recommend filling one FTE Public Health Nurse position and not fill them as .8 FTE and .5 FTE positions. This would result in a loss of 1/5ths of a FTE position.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize hire of one FTE Public Health Nurse position in place of the .5 and .8 FTE positions.
B. Extension Staffing Issues.
An employee in the Extension Office is on medical leave. This leave has been extended but the person’s return date to work is undetermined.
Chur explained that being down to one office staff person is presenting some issues. The first is office coverage. There are times when the three Educators are not in the office. The one office staff person has taken advantage of the Voluntary Leave Without Pay Program offered through the County, but has agreed to work full-time during the medical leave of the other employee. However, there are times when this person is not in the office (sick, vacation, etc.). The second issue is that the Extension Office is behind on projects. The projects are not time sensitive but need to be completed.
Chur saw two options. The first would be to hire a temporary employee through the County. The second would be to enter into a short-term casual contract with the University of Minnesota for a temporary person to come in on an as-needed basis. The County would be billed monthly at a cost of approximately $14/hour. The University would handle the Human Resources portion of the hire including payroll. There is a limitation on the total number of hours worked in a year. Chur envisioned the temporary person assisting no more than 1-2 days per week. Some weeks may be less than that. Brown stated that a basic clerical temporary employee would be paid $8.00-$10.00 per hour if hired through the County. The wage would depend on the scope of the work required. Chur desires someone with computer skills and an Extension background if possible. She said a former employee may be interested in this temporary position which would be desirable, due to their familiarity with the office. Otherwise, Chur may be able to temporarily hire one of the Extension volunteers if they meet the qualifications desired. Brown said that due to the former employee’s experience with the Extension Office, they could be offered the temporary position at Step 1 of the Salary Schedule. The County just advertised for a clerical position in another department and that candidate pool could be used. If the former employee does not accept the position, Chur is to provide Brown with a list of qualifications to compare to the clerical candidate pool.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Chur to offer the temporary position to the former employee of the Extension Office, to be paid at Step 1 of the Salary Schedule. If this is not an option, Chur will work with Brown on filling the position through the clerical pool.
(End of 10-13-10 Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 10-13-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to accept the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0:
I. POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR CHILD PROTECTION MATTERS.
Kelly stated that this Committee decided at the 9-22-10 meeting that it is fair and in the best interest of the County to seek proposals from interested and qualified attorneys to represent indigent parents in CHIPs cases. The Committee recognized that it may not necessarily accept the lowest priced proposal. Kelly stated that both he and Karvel are familiar with the work of Richards and Gabriel and would be conflicted in giving an opinion to the Committee. He cautioned that the County Board should consider inserting a paragraph in the contract of the winning attorney that the contract would be null and void if the courts were to refuse to appoint the attorney to a CHIPs case.
Norman stated that the County is looking to hire a professional service and therefore would not necessarily hire the lowest priced attorney. The County will be using other criteria as well in making its final determination.
Norman distributed three proposals (see attached) received from Johnson, Larson, Peterson & Halvorson, P.A., CGW Law Office, and Amy Jo Chantry. Norman noted that the Committee is viewing these three proposals for the first time today and would recommend laying over the final decision for two weeks to give them an opportunity to digest the information at hand.
Sawatzke asked whether Amy Jo Chantry has represented any CHIPs cases in Wright County. He noted that she has a private practice. Kelly stated that according to her proposal, she has accepted appointments for child protection cases which have been conducted in Stearns County. She is not on the County’s appointed list of attorneys that represent parents in CHIPs cases where there is a conflict of interest.
Kelly stated that Chantry’s compensation would not exceed $87,900 within the calendar year, which would be paid in twelve equal installments. The proposal doesn’t discuss whether this would cover her fees for cases that would go before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Richards stated that his proposal dated 10-6-10 does not include the cost to represent an indigent parent in an Appeals case. Richards discussed how there are costs involved in IFP (“in forma pauperis”) cases; which he stated he would be required to seek reasonable compensation for. He clarified that he would ask the courts for approval to charge a reasonable hourly rate for his representation of an indigent parent at an Appeals hearing (determined on a case-by-case basis). If the court were to approve his request, he would then obtain a court order to proceed. He stated that there are transcript costs and filing fees for IFP cases. He did not anticipate that there would be many Appeal cases and noted that Appeal cases are a lot more time consuming.
Gabriel stated that her contract for services for 2011-2013 does cover the cost of representation for the cases that go to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. She stated that she has represented many appeals and is familiar with the time involved with a case that goes to the appeals level. For Wright County, she has specifically represented two appeals since 2008. She stated that to make her contract amount optimal, she included her costs to represent all related appeals cases. She clarified that the $500 filing fee would be waived at the Courts level if the client is indigent. She verified that the County would not receive an invoice for her services to represent at the appeals case level. Gabriel clarified that the last appeal case was approximately $3,000, and the County did receive an invoice. With her new contract, the County would not receive an invoice for this type of work.
Norman asked whether the County is responsible for paying the attorney fees for those CHIPs cases that are appealed. Kelly stated yes. These cases go before the State Court of Appeals. If the case were to go before the Supreme Court, the County would also be responsible for covering those costs.
Sawatzke asked whether the Committee is interested in ruling out Chantry’s contract since it is the least comprehensive and is the most expensive. Norman stated that the Chantry proposal does not address all of the items within the RFP. Mattson concurred that the Chantry proposal is vague.
Kelly stated that he was not aware of the conditions that were within the RFP. He asked Richards and Gabriel whether their proposals included their fees related to representation at Emergency Protective Care (EPC) hearings.
Gabriel stated that although it is not technically discussed in her proposal, there were 17 EPC cases so far in 2010 and she was able to attend all of those meetings. The County did not receive a separate invoice for those hearings. She explained that EPC hearings are scheduled within 72 hours of the child being removed from their home. The hearing determines whether the child returns to their home or becomes the custody of the County. An attorney receives 36-48 hours notice of the EPC hearing and because of normal attorney and court schedules, it can sometimes be impossible to attend an EPC hearing. She stated that she would not guarantee that she could attend all EPC hearings; however, she cannot recall missing any EPC hearings in Wright County since 2008. The Courts do find it helpful to have attorney representation present at the EPC hearings; otherwise, the parents aren’t assigned an attorney and they don’t understand what is going on.
Kelly explained to the Committee that the Court does appoint an attorney at an EPC hearing. If the parent is indigent, the attorney fees are waived. Gabriel stated that the law is clearly ambiguous on who is responsible for paying the attorney fees at an EPC hearing; however, it is good practice to have attorney representation present at these hearings.
Richards stated that he agrees with Gabriel’s statement. He stated that he would be in favor of amending his proposal to include the cost of attorney representation at EPC hearings. It is critical to have an attorney immediately available at an EPC hearing. The sooner an attorney is involved, the faster and better the resolution can be. This leads to a more cost effective result. He stated that since there are four other attorneys from his law firm that are within six blocks of the Courthouse, coverage at an EPC hearing should not be a problem.
Norman asked whether the County has ever been charged for representation at an EPC hearing. Gabriel stated that she has not seen other attorneys at an EPC hearing. She stated that the County has never received a bill from her for her services at an EPC hearing. It always has been included as part of her contract.
Sawatzke noted that both attorneys, within their proposals, have included the cost of their services at EPC hearings.
Kelly asked each of the attorneys to give a narrative on why the Commissioners, on behalf of the County, should select them as the representative of indigent parents in child protection cases.
Gabriel stated that she has been reasonable, diligent, and eager to represent indigent parents since her contract with the County in 2008. She stated that the County should already be aware of the quality of her work. She asked that the County refer to the Judges and the staff in Court Administration who work with the process. She stated that she is sure they will support the County Board’s decision for contracting her services. She stated that the Judges have consistently appointed her for these types of cases. She stated that she is passionate about, and proud, of her work. She stated that she has given the County a fair price.
Richards stated that he has dedicated 25 years of his career representing children and families affected by mental disorders. He stated that he was the court appointed CHIPs attorney until 1995. Since that time he has been a full part-time Public Defender for Sherburne and Wright counties. He stated that his specialty is representing indigent clients. He stated that he fits in with the Wright County courts system and is serious about what he does. He is very professional and believes his strongest asset is being realistic and fair with his clients. He stated that he has been an advocate for children in criminal and civil cases. He stated that he believes that if the County Board were to contact the courts, they would give him a very high reference.
Norman suggested that the Ways & Means Committee recess until 10-27-10 at 9:00 a.m. to give the Committee the opportunity to review the proposals.
Gabriel asked whether a decision would be made at that time as she needs to make a decision regarding her status with her other county contracts. Norman stated that the Committee would make a recommendation at the 10-27-10 meeting, which would be forwarded to the County Board. The County Board would review the minutes and recommendation, and vote on the final decision at the 11-2-10 County Board Meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Recess the Ways & Means Committee Meeting until 10-27-10 at 9:00 a.m.
(End of 10-13-10 Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
Russek attended the AMC Board of Directors Meeting in St. Paul on 10-15-10, where discussion occurred on the hire of an AMC Administrative Coordinator. Russek and Dennis Fink made the argument to the Board of Directors that the package offered to the candidate was lucrative compared to the benefits offered to the other AMC employees. Offering the same type of benefit to other AMC employees could result in an increase in AMC membership dues. If this were to happen, member counties may not elect to remain with AMC. Russek said that the Board of Directors hired the Executive Director but the package was reduced to what was sustainable. This was provided as an informational item.
The meeting was recessed at 9:41 A.M. and reconvened at 10:00 A.M.
The Bid Opening occurred for the Historical Society re-roofing project. Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, and Craig Schulz, Wright County Building Inspector, were present for discussion. Hayes said the bid specifications include the requirement of three-tab shingles and a ballast membrane. The specifications require the bidder to be an ESP certified contractor. Hayes distributed a bid tally sheet reflecting those companies who were provided bid specifications. One bid was received from B&B Sheet Metal & Roofing (Buffalo MN) for $35,600.00. The bid included a unit price of $6.00/sq. ft. to replace damage decking if need. A bid security was included. The bid does not indicate whether tax is included but the bidder is responsible for paying the tax and obtaining a building permit. Sawatzke questioned whether the other companies met the criteria to bid. Hayes responded that at least two of the companies did. McDowall (St. Cloud) indicated they could not do the three-tab shingles but they could do the membrane. Buysse Roofing (Waite Park) indicated they were too busy to complete the work this fall. Hayes said the County has hired B&B Sheet Metal in the past to repair the roofs at the Government Center and Human Services Center. He has confidence in this company as a competitive bidder. The County Board recessed at 10:05 A.M. to allow Hayes and Schulz to review the bid documents. At 10:08 A.M., the meeting reconvened. Hayes said Schulz reviewed the proposal from B&B Sheet Metal & Roofing and it is their recommendation to accept the bid contingent upon the following from B&B Sheet Metal & Roofing: 1) The County receiving a copy of their certification as a membrane applier; 2) The County receiving their declaration and certificate of insurance; and 3) Additional details on the design. Sawatzke asked whether all of those things were requested in the RFP. Schulz confirmed this. Sawatzke made a motion to accept the bid from B&B Sheet Metal & Roofing contingent upon the specified items that were included in the RFP being submitted to staff. The motion was seconded by Thelen. The motion and second were amended to include the funding source as Budget 100, Site Improvements. Schulz has volunteered to oversee the work and inspection. The motion carried unanimously.
Bills Approved
Brian Abrahamson. $427.00
Aggregate & Ready Mix of Mi 150.00
Albertville Body Shop Inc. 1,375.52
Alexander Hamilton Institute 153.95
All State Communications 285.00
Allina Medical Transportation 500.00
American Society of Civil En 230.00
Ameripride Services 175.26
Anoka County Corrections 6,150.00
APEC Industrial Sales & Serv 297.16
Aramark Services Inc. 6,543.22
Arctic Glacier Inc. 496.16
AVTEX Inc. 2,615.14
Barthels Auto Body 1,272.93
Brock White Co. LLC 499.80
Center Point Energy 1,253.14
Climate Air 7,146.53
Commissioner of Trans 150.00
Dental Care Associates 1,088.00
Design Electrical Contrac 55,972.20
Dingmann Marine & More LLC 295.51
Emergency Physicians Prof 321.75
Employers Association Inc. 8,820.00
Evident Crime Scene Produc 111.25
Fastenal Company 101.34
Federal Highway Administ 1,500.00
Fehn Gravel & Excavating 12,758.41
General Office Products 266.05
Grainger 171.22
Greenview Inc. 15,330.67
Hardrives Inc. 163.52
Harris Computer Systems 800.00
Bryan Hendricks 390.00
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 1,830.26
Gregory Howell 109.98
ICC Upper Great Plains 1,107.00
Indentix Incorporated 444.20
Intoximeters Inc. 255.54
Karels Towing 168.60
Lee Kelly 426.58
Knowledge Lake 215.60
Greg Kramber 294.72
Kustom Signals Inc. 344.75
Lakedale Telephone Co. 301.99
LaPlant Demo Inc. 1,113.46
Laroque Construction Inc. 542.00
M-R Sign Company Inc. 161.12
Marco 5,379.64
Martin Marietta Aggregates 1,852,02
McQuay International 724.69
Menards - Buffalo 104.93
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc. 1,801.94
Midwest Protection Agency 3,962.74
Mini Biff LLC 130.68
MN Assn. of County Surveyor 195.00
MN Counties Computer Coop 1,281.53
MN Counties Intergovernmen 421.00
MN County Attorneys Assoc 150.00
Monticello Auto Body Inc. 149.63
Morries Parts & Service Group 981.40
Margaret Munson 315.00
Northern Safety Technolog 546.29
Office Depot 528.37
Omann Brothers Inc. 416.12
Performance Office Papers 395.56
Qwest 6,938.83
Reds Auto Electric 227.33
Royal Tire Inc. 4,630.79
John Russek 242.00
Russell Security Resource 134.69
Sand Creek Group Ltd 4,747.50
Brian F. Severson 300.00
SHI International Corp 438.19
State of MN-Office Enterprise 965.00
State Supply Co. 138.80
Strategic Equipment and Su 221.87
Sunsource 576.03
Total Printing 397.04
Towmaster 6,936.19
Keith Triplett 100.00
University of Minnesota 810.00
Voss Lighting 708.13
Waste Management - TC West 191.56
Watchguard Electronic Ho 447.25
West Payment Center 1,154.26
J. Shannon Wolff 125.00
Wes W. Workman 300.00
Wright Co. Auditor Treasurer 108.62
Wright Co. Highway Dept. 38,588.89
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec 3,191.19
Wright Hennepin Electric 749.70
19 Payments less than $100 1,007.29
Final total $228,839.22
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Dec. 20, 2010.


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