WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 2010
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with Sawatzke, Thelen, Russek, and Eichelberg present.
On a motion by Thelen, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the County Board Minutes of 12-14-10 as presented.
The following item was petitioned onto the Agenda: Items For Consid. #3, “Promotions In The Sheriff Department Be Referred to Negotiations Committee” (Norman). On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Thelen, all voted to approve the Agenda as amended.
Thelen requested that Consent Agenda Item B1 be pulled for discussion. It was placed under Items For Consideration. Thelen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Eichelberg seconded the motion. Sawatzke noted that a correction should be made to Consent Agenda Item A5: Lee Mark should be changed to Lee Monk. The motion carried 4-0 with the noted change to the name listed in Item A5.
1. Performance Appraisals: R. DesMarais, Assr.; C. Badeaux, Aud./Treas.; W. Biros, D. Chapman, J. Dinius, B. Vogel, Bldg.Mnt.; C. Barnaal, Crt. Srvs.; A. Backes, W. Cordell, M. Johnson, B. Leinonen, J. Wolff, Hwy.; K. Eich, Parks; B. Rhineberger, P&Z; S. Albrecht, D. Anderson, R. Bastien, C. Burton, R. Darsow, C. Curtis, M. Erickson, R. Fischer, C. Grew, T. Halberg, W. Holland, E. Kunkel, M. Lauer, N. Lee, K. Lipelt, A. Pribyl, M. Pullis Sher./Corr.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 12-10-10.
3. Claim, Anoka County Sheriff’s Office, $10,146.66 (Nov. Share, Reg. Crime Lab).
4. Claim, Frank Madden, $5,074.90 (Service For Nov., 2010).
5. Approve Mayor’s Association Nominees To The Region 7W Transportation Policy Board; Clint Herbst, Monticello, and Lee Monk, Clearwater.
1. Approve and Authorize Signatures On Joint Powers Agreement With Corinna Township.
1. Approve Renewal Of Tobacco Licenses In 2011 For: Don’s Auto Service & Repair Inc. (Albertville), And Lantto’s Store Inc. (French Lake Twp.).
1. Approval Of “Wright County Highway Right Of Way Plat No. 65” CSAH 40 Bridge Construction SAP 86-640-02.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, stated that Wright County was reimbursed for some of the costs associated with the Governor election recount of 2010. The County was reimbursed by the State of Minnesota at a rate of .03 cents/ballot, and therefore received $1,445.97 on 12-10-10. The County had ten volunteers in addition to Wright County staff. The volunteers worked a total of 136.5 hours to assist in the recount. Hiivala asked the County Board to approve a compensation of $10/hour for each of the volunteers, for a total of $1,365.00. The County would be able to retain the remaining amount of compensation after paying the volunteers. Eichelberg made a motion to authorize compensation of $1,365 to 10 volunteers. Thelen seconded the motion. Sawatzke asked Hiivala if this is similar to what was done two years ago during the State Senate recount. Hiivala stated yes. The motion carried unanimously.
Hiivala asked that the County Board delay discussing the opening of the bids for the County’s official newspaper bids. He stated that his office would bring the bids down to the Board Room.
Hiivala presented the November Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines. He stated that overall, the revenues are looking good and under budget. Hiivala noted that the taxes were settled out so the Guidelines look better. There are still some significant fees that have yet to be collected, such as the Sheriff’s contract. The Land Record revenues will come in under budget, however, this will likely be set off by other revenues that are coming in over budget. Norman stated that he has a question on page 24 of the Guidelines. He noted that under the Revenues category, Police Aid is $1.1 million and it was budgeted for $775,000. He asked whether there has been a distribution to the contract cities yet. Hiivala responded that the full grant was shown as a receipt, and full pass through amount to the cities is reflected on page 25 (201-6859, State Pass Through Expense). He stated that he assumes the Police Aid is a net amount after considering the pass through expense. He stated that he would address this question specifically in the December Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines. On a motion by Thelen, seconded by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the November Revenue/Expenditure Budget Reports.
Hiivala opened the bids for the Official County Newspaper for 2011:
Line length in picas 10.5
Lines per inch in legals 10
Length in lower case alphabet 84
Cost per column inch for legals .92
Delano Herald Journal
Line length in picas 10.5
Lines per inch in legals 10
Length in lower case alphabet 84
Cost per column inch for legals 3.75
Hiivala requested that the bid award be laid over to the next County Board Meeting.
Hiivala submitted the claims listing for approval. Russek referenced a claim on Page 17 for Centra Sota Cooperative $249.46. The claim was coded under the professional services line item. He stated that this doesn’t seem correct. Hiivala stated that the fuel is for the radio tower generator. He stated that he could ask the Sheriff’s Department if this is where the fuel was originally budgeted. Sawatzke stated that he agreed that the charge does not seem appropriately categorized under professional services. He stated that he thinks this should be categorized under fuel. On a motion by Thelen, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. The motion carried 4-0.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, stated that today he is presenting a Stipulation for Settlement between Wright County and the City of Albertville regarding the 2007 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Audit. He noted that a similar item was presented to the County two years ago with the City of St. Michael. He explained that approximately three years ago, Wright County was notified of Findings of Noncompliance by the State Auditor regarding an audit of TIF districts. He and Hiivala met with staff and the City of Albertville in 2008 to request that they provide additional documentation. It was determined that the noncompliance was a result of bad record keeping by the prior City Administrator. The Stipulation recognizes that the City was able to provide adequate documentation to prove that the City of Albertville did not misuse the tax deferred dollars. He stated that the Stipulation was to be considered by the Albertville City Council on 12-20-10. Once the document is approved by the City, it will be approved by the County Attorney’s Office and then sent to the State. The Stipulation requests that the City of Albertville do a better job with its record keeping. Asleson informed the County Board that this was an informational item only.
Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, stated that he would like to request a Parks Committee Of The Whole meeting to discuss title examination and easements in Clearwater Regional Park. The County Board directed him to compile some information regarding this matter. On a motion by Thelen, seconded by Eichelberg, all voted to approve scheduling a Parks Committee Of The Whole meeting on 1-25-10 at 10:30 a.m.
Eichelberg presented the 12-15-10 Building Committee Minutes and recommendations. Listed below are the minutes. Discussion which occurred at today’s County Board Meeting follows the Minutes:
I. REQUEST BY BUFFALO SCHOOLS TO LEASE SPACE IN GOVERNMENT CENTER. An alternative out-of-school suspension program, wRight Choice, has requested to lease space in the County Government Center. Mattson asked what the County would charge per square foot for the lease of the vacated Sheriff’s Department space. Norman stated that space is rented at $16.50/sq.ft. There is an estimated 2,000 total square feet available for lease. He stated that the County made the same offer to the Tenth Judicial District Guardian ad Litem Supervisor. Neither party needs the entire space; however, the County still has to pay the utilities and maintenance costs for the entire space. He stated that the County had determined that the space could potentially be shared by both parties. Norman stated that he sent an inquiry to the office of Greg King, Guardian ad Litem Manager of the 10th Judicial District, in Ramsey. The inquiry to share the space with wRight Choice was mailed on 12-03-10, and an answer was anticipated by 12-13-10. Norman clarified that no response has been received to date. Norman stated that it is recognized that the space would not be needed by wRight Choice for the entire 12-month period. The lease could then be calculated accordingly. Thompson and MacMillan determined that the space would likely be utilized from February to June in 2011. The space would not be used for summer school; therefore the total lease amount for the five month period would be $6,875. Norman stated that the County would provide modular furniture from its inventoried storage. He stated that the logistics would have to be determined regarding card key access. There are telephone and computer jacks in the room. Mattson explained that the technology is in place. Buffalo Schools would simply need to bring its own equipment. Eichelberg stated that a positive to this program is that it is only utilized during the daytime. This program would not need access to the building during evening hours. Norman asked that the students be brought through the two main entrances and the metal detectors. MacMillan stated that this would not be a problem. The metal detectors would not only send a message to the students, but it will also make staff feel more comfortable. Norman stated that he hasn’t spoken with the County Attorney’s Office to discuss whether they would want a formal lease agreement. Eichelberg asked whether the offer to wRight Choice is contingent on the other half being rented out to the Guardian ad Litem. Norman stated that the decision is up to the County Board. Eichelberg stated that as long as this is a pilot program, he is in favor of it. He stated that as a former teacher, he is in favor of it because it will help the school system and the students. Mattson asked Thompson whether the school would provide transportation. Thompson stated yes. Norman stated that the School and County may have conflicting schedules on some days. Thompson clarified that the County site would be the home site, like Buffalo High School’s partnership with the Wright County Technical Center. The program would not be available on the days that the Government Center is not open. MacMillan stated that perhaps the program would outgrow the building. He stated that Court Services has done a good job partnering with the Safe Schools Committee. The level of delinquent numbers has remained level for many reasons. However, he believes the main cause for the stagnant numbers is because of the partnering efforts. MacMillan stated that leasing space is new territory for the County. This pilot program will be a good test to determine if leasing is good business for the County. Eichelberg asked whether other schools are interested. MacMillan stated that he is not sure. He stated that response from other schools may be forthcoming once the initial project is put together. Norman asked whether there will be more than ten students in the program at one time. He also asked whether Thompson and MacMillan would anticipate more schools to participate in the program. MacMillan stated that if the program grows larger than ten students, they would look at it at that time. Norman asked whether the student has a choice to participate in the program. Thompson stated yes. Typically, this is an early intervention program for non-violent students. She cited examples of program students who received a petty misdemeanor for marijuana or received a charge for disorderly conduct for bullying. This program is typically for students that require special education or have mental health issues. These are students that need to be removed from the school building and aren’t home bound. She stated that the Safe Schools Committee partners with Court Services and the Mental Health Unit in the Human Services Department. She stated that there will be a licensed teacher on site at all times. The teacher is specifically targeted for special education students. Eichelberg asked whether the program would only be open to high school students. MacMillan stated that this program could be open to middle schools. However, they have not expressed interest. He stated that his impression is that the Buffalo Middle School can facilitate their own program. Thompson stated that the middle school students would be separated from the high school kids. Norman stated that the logistics would be worked out if the terms and conditions are okayed by the School Board and County Board. Thompson stated that she would also have to run this by the business manager and head principal. Thompson stated that if this project does move forward, they will look forward to reporting the challenges and successes of the program to the Committee. MacMillan stated that this program is modeled after the Carver County High School model. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with leasing the vacated Sheriff’s Department space to wRight Choice, Buffalo High School.
II. LICENSE BUREAU SAFETY ISSUE. Aanerud stated that she is here on behalf of Bob Hiivala, County Auditor/Treasurer. She stated that the License Bureau is required to be open extended hours during the week. Therefore, the Wright County License Bureau is open until 6:00 p.m. on Thursdays. She stated that security stops their work at 4:30 p.m. in the Government Center. She commented that on Thursdays she has two people on staff after that time. She cited an incident that occurred a few weeks ago that caused staff to question their safety. Her staff feels they are vulnerable. Norman clarified that there are other departments that have staff that work late hours. Aanerud stated that she recognizes that, however, the customers that come to the License Bureau can be belligerent. Norman asked whether staff call 911 during other perceived emergencies. Aanerud stated yes. Howell stated that it is very appropriate to call 911. Howell reminded the Committee that the hours of operation were discussed at the initial committee meeting to add security and bailiffs at the entrances. The hours were going to be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Some flexing of hours has been done since then to accommodate court schedules. However, it was noted during the initial discussions that there would be night meetings, and employees working later hours that would not be covered by the services of the bailiffs. He stated that everybody agreed it wasn’t a perfect system. Norman asked whether the bailiffs could flex their schedule to cover Thursday evenings. Howell asked whether one of the entrance doors could be closed on those evenings. Norman stated that both doors need to be open to accommodate night meetings. Norman proposed having a bailiff rove the corridors within the Government Center. Howell stated that they could work with flexing the schedules, but this could not be a guarantee if there are court trials going on. Aanerud stated that to have the presence of a uniformed officer, armed or not, would be beneficial. Howell stated that using civilian officers would be cheaper than an armed bailiff. Norman stated that most customers would not know whether an officer is POST Board certified or not. Aanerud commented that there is the potential a third person would come down on Thursdays from the Auditor/Treasurer Department to assist with passports. She noted that the passports function has recently been removed from the License Bureau. Eichelberg asked whether a lot of customers show up on Thursday nights. Aanerud stated that this time of year is slow. However, between Christmas and New Years, it gets busy again. She stated that the number of customers depends on the season (i.e. snowmobilers, motorcycles, boats, and opening fishing). She stated it is hard to predict how many customers will come in on Thursday evenings. Aanerud noted that the panic button is no longer available for use. Nolan explained that 911 is now able to determine the location that an emergency phone call comes from within the Government Center. Dispatch then contacts the Buffalo Police Department who then contacts the Bailiffs within the Government Center during business hours. Howell stated that he would discuss with the Sheriff flexing the schedule of one bailiff to roam the building during Thursday evenings. He cautioned that there may be times that overtime may be used in order to accommodate this request. He stated that he will also discuss with the Sheriff the possibility of using a civilian officer that works part-time for the County. Norman stated that he understands that the Bailiffs have to cover the needs of the Courts, however, there are days when 2-4 Bailiffs are seen standing at the front door. Howell stated that he will bring this feedback to the Sheriff and the supervisor of the Bailiffs to determine whether some of the Bailiffs could patrol the hallways of the building. Aanerud stated that she is very appreciative of the consideration and thinks the ideas expressed today all sound great. Eichelberg commented that this change in schedule should be reviewed in a few months to determine how it is working for everyone. Aanerud noted that there are a few Thursdays that the License Bureau won’t be open due to holidays. Howell stated that the Sheriff’s Department would appreciate communication regarding the License Bureau’s schedule. RECOMMENDATION: Sheriff’s Department will provide security on Thursday evenings to accommodate the schedule of the License Bureau.
(End of 12-15-10 Building Committee Minutes.)
At Today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg made a motion to approve the minutes and the recommendations of the 12-15-10 Building Committee meeting. Sawatzke seconded the motion for discussion. He stated that in regard to the second item, he was not an advocate during the initial decision to lock the Courthouse down and put the bailiffs at the front and back entrances. He explained that the concept was originally put in place due to the courts. The courts are in session from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and it was decided that instead of centralizing the guards in the Courts area, they would be placed at the front and rear entrances of the Government Center. He clarified that there are no guards at the Public Works Building or HSC. He noted that the County’s cities and townships do not have guards within their buildings. He stated that he has a great deal of respect for the girls in the License Bureau. However, he questions how far this will be drawn out. He stated he would estimate that it will cost the County approximately $4,000 to pay a guard overtime to cover the Thursday late shift for the License Bureau. Eichelberg stated that the minutes did not reflect that the License Bureau keeps cash on its premises. Sawatzke asked whether there are cameras in the License Bureau corridor. Norman stated yes, however, the cameras only show what has happened. The cameras do not prevent anything. Sawatzke stated that he understands that, however, just like a convenience store, customers typically pay with something other than cash. Russek stated that there must have been an incident that caused the request. Russek stated that he does not think that the employees are necessarily worried that they will be robbed. They are likely worried about being harassed. He stated that if an armed guard makes them feel more comfortable in their job, then he thinks it is worth having an armed guard on the premises. Sawatzke asked how many customers visit the License Bureau on Thursday nights. Eichelberg stated that Aanerud told the Committee that the number of customers can depend on the season. Eichelberg also clarified that the Sheriff’s Department would look to flex schedules to avoid overtime. Thelen stated that she understands Sawatzke’s concern; however, the License Bureau must feel a sense of threat based on past experience. The motion carried 3-1 (Sawatzke casting the nay vote).
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, presented the 12-14-10 Transportation Committee of The Whole (TCOTW) Meeting Minutes. Listed below are the minutes. Discussion which occurred at today’s County Board Meeting follows the Minutes:
I. WRIGHT COUNTY SAFETY PLAN. Fingalson explained that a Wright County Safety Plan has been developed for Wright County that outlines suggested safety changes on the county highways, and there is an opportunity to apply for federal money to make these suggested improvements. Cordell presented a PowerPoint presentation [Attachment A] that offers a look at the data that was collected and the recommendations that followed. He explained that the safety plan is data driven, and a number of different factors were considered. This plan gives a description of the safety emphasis areas, identifies a short list of high priority, low-cost safety strategies, and documents at-risk locations along the County Highway system. When application is made for federal funds, the corresponding pages in this safety plan are to be included in the application, and the funding panel will rely heavily on these plan sheets when deciding to give funding. This project is the only one in the United States where the state has partnered with the counties to use federal money to develop safety plans for each county in the state. Part of the reason for that is that Mn/DOT has recognized that over half of the crashes in the state occur on rural roads, which are mainly on the local system. Mn/DOT will be developing safety plans for all the districts and counties, but District 3 and District 6 have been selected first because of the high number of fatalities on their highways. This three-year project is one of the components of Minnesota’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). One focus of this safety plan is to make low-cost improvements that will have a great impact. The Wright County Safety Plan identified suggested safety projects of over $3 million. Steps leading to the completion of this safety plan included a number of different meetings, the collection of crash data, the selection of safety emphasis areas, the ranking of areas of concern, and the development of safety strategies and safety projects. The plan was supposed to be completed in July 2010, but Wright County did not get it until late November. Some of the strategies used came out of the Highway Research Program National Cooperative (NCHRP), and they came up with five critical areas, Young Drivers, Drugs and Alcohol-Related, Unbelted Drivers/Passengers, Intersection Crashes, and Road Departure Crashes. The data studied was from 2003-2007. Road departure is the biggest cause of fatalities in rural areas. Curves show up as a critical factor (44-60%) of severe road departure crashes even though they represent only about 10% of the roadway mileage. The plan identifies those curves that already have chevrons and those that are eligible to have chevrons. The plan is divided up into three categories of projects Segments, Curves, and Intersections. The higher the ranking, the better chance it will qualify for safety funding. The methodology changes the view of “no crashes equals no risk” to “risks even with no crashes if sites have the characteristics as determined in the data-driven aggregate.” Mattson asked if it is possible to tell how the new dynamic signing on CSAH 9/CR 107, CSAH 36/CSAH 6, and CSAH 35/CSAH 8 has affected the statistics, but Cordell said that it is too early to know how effective they are. He is still working to get them functioning at optimum levels.
II. SOLICITATION FOR HSIP FUNDING (SAFETY). Mn/DOT is asking for solicitations and has $6 million of federal funds available for FY 2012 and 2013, and this money is available only to Districts 3 and 6. The County Roadway Safety Plan needs to be the starting point for selecting projects for this solicitation. Each project can receive up to $250,000, and application can be made for multiple projects. Funds received would require a 10% match from the county. Together, Fingalson, Hawkins, and Cordell have come up with three projects recommended for application of funding, and include rumble strips, chevrons on curves, and street lighting at intersections. An application for $56,200 would cover the recommended areas for rumble strip installation. These grooves would be outside the white stripe, which is located on the outer edge of the driving lane. Application for chevron signing on the recommended curves would be made in the amount of $250,000. A recommendation is also being made to install street lighting at 11 more intersections for a total application of $165,000. Upgrading of signs could be considered for funding, but Cordell said that Wright County’s sign are in pretty good shape now and there seems to be more of a need for intersection lighting. There was some discussion about the availability and desirability of using LED lights, but Cordell said that this technology is not quite ready to be used for this purpose. They are close and might be ready soon, but they are not yet cost effective. Thelen expressed her concern that lighting might be installed in areas where a need has not been shown for them. She prefers, as do many of the residents in her district, less lighting in rural areas. She also expressed her desire that installation of more lighting wait until the LED technology is efficient and economical. Cordell pointed out that all projects that are recommended for application are a result of a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. The intersections proposed for lighting are not necessarily crash-laden locations, but rather reflect the desire to direct drivers at night. This could help prevent a crash. Sawatzke commented that it is harder to see some upcoming intersections at night, but agreed with Thelen that this is not true of all intersections. He doesn’t agree that intersections should be lit up just because money is available from the federal government. Does it work well already, or is lighting needed? He agrees that we want to be proactive with safety, but he does not want to waste money if the change is not needed. Fingalson said that the intersection which has been lit recently (about which Thelen received complaints) was the site of a bus/truck crash a number of years ago, but that happened in the daylight hours. He said that this safety plan is a proactive approach for low-cost safety improvements, and some people just don’t like lights in the country. Wright County has about 90 intersections lit up now, and the recommendation is being made that 11 more intersections get lighting. Thelen said that it make sense to put up chevrons at curves where it has been shown that crashes happen, and there is no annual cost to provide electricity to these chevrons either. Fingalson said that they are making a proposal for these safety improvements and thought that they would include as much in the application as could be handled by the Highway Department for all three areas Segments, Curves, and Intersections. He commented that all the work being done by Towards Zero Death (TZD) is helping decrease the deaths and injuries on the highway. This safety plan is meant to help contribute to safety on the roads. Even though there is no guarantee that this will prevent incidences, these recommendations are based on information gathered on how low-cost solutions can help. Russek commented that rumble strips are present in the center of TH 55, but since there aren’t very many head-on crashes, it would make more sense to put them where they are the most effective. Rumble strips on the edge of the pavement, outside the fog line, might help prevent the lane departure crashes. There was a general consensus expressed to stay away from rumble stripes, which are on the edge of the pavement but with a white fog line painted over them. Sawatzke said that reflectivity (of the rumble stripe) is overrated and thinks the value is in hitting the strip, not the reflectivity. Fingalson said that requests could be made for safety improvements that are not high on the priority list of the plan, but if other counties are using pages in the plans for their requests, they will probably get their requests granted ahead of the ones not on the list. Thelen commented that she does not like the rural lighting and would prefer to wait until better technology is available for more efficient and economical lighting. Mattson said that he likes lighting, and Russek said that he also likes the lighting and hasn’t received any negative comments about it. Sawatzke said he is not against them, but he doesn’t know if they are needed at all the intersections indicated. He asked if any consideration had been given to timing them so that they are shut off during a certain part of the night, say from 1:30 5:00 a.m. because of little or no traffic at that time. He would also like to see more efficient lighting with the LEDs. Hawkins commented that technology will probably improve LEDs and in time they will also be more affordable. Fingalson said that if application is made for chevrons ($250,000), rumble strips ($54,000), and street lighting ($165,000), the total amount requested would be about $470,000, and $47,000 would be the county share. There is no guarantee that Wright County will get the funding. The money received could be spent over a two-year period, beginning July 1, 2011. The Highway Department has $24,000 in the 2011 budget for the 10% local share expenditure, and more would be needed the next year if the whole application is accepted. The projects could be requested for either Fiscal Years 2012 or 2013. The consultants who developed the safety plan based the rankings on a number of risk factors. Fingalson said that a request could be made to receive some funding one year and the remainder the next year. That way, chevrons and rumble strips could be installed one year, and the lighting could be done after that. Maybe technology would have made some improvements to LED lighting in that extra time. Thirteen intersections are proposed for lighting, and Eichelberg asked if they could be prioritized. Mattson said that he wants both the chevrons and street lighting. Of the crashes that have occurred at intersections, Cordell said that he did not have information with him to indicate at what time of day they occurred. Fingalson said that he will continue to keep track of the LED technology for the best cost effectiveness. There was some discussion about the possibility of changing plans after funds are received, but then those funds would be forfeited rather than available to apply to other projects. However, if funding is received for lighting, it would be possible to choose different intersections over some of those higher on the list. Fingalson said that the improvements suggested today have all been approved in the safety plan and Wright County is likely to receive the full amount requested (depending on the number of other county projects submitted). Money received would be used for materials and installations, and this would be contracted out. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that application be made for safety funding for chevron materials and placement ($250,000), rumble strip installation ($54,000), and rural intersection street light materials and installation ($165,000). If possible, street light installation could be delayed until 2013.
III. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UPDATE. Hawkins said that the Engineering Division is currently working on over 13 active projects in various stages of design/construction, all of which are on the Five-Year Plan adopted by the County Board on January 12, 2010. Projects include reconstruction of CSAH 12 (15th Street to S Buffalo City Limits), in conjunction with the City of Buffalo’s portion of CSAH 12 (S Buffalo City Limits to TH 25), the CSAH 40 Bridge replacement (with target date for bidding in February), 2011 bituminous overlays, the CSAH 75 Bridge removal and realignment, and the CSAH 3 rural reconstruction from Cokato to the south county line (which could be the first concrete Wright County constructed highway). The reconstruction of CSAH 12, which is being done in two sections (one section by the City and one section by the County), has provided a number of challenges because of the soil corrections that have been needed. These have been addressed by surcharging and wick drains. The presence of the City of Buffalo’s sanitary force mains has also complicated the construction, resulting in delays, extra work, and additional expense (to be incurred by the City). The County’s contractor has submitted an invoice for an extra $250,000 in expenses because of the delays and extra work they say they have shouldered, but this will be reviewed, and the contractor will be paid (by the City) what is legitimately owed to him for any extra work. Plans for the CSAH 40 Bridge replacement are nearing completion and a letting date will be set soon, with an opening in late February or early March. This project will be split between Wright and Stearns Counties and funding will come from federal and state bridge bonding monies. The 2011 overlays will include CR 117, and CSAHs 34, 35, and 12. The bituminous on CR 117 will be milled and an overlay will be applied, along with a safety edge which reduces accidents and costs very little extra to install. CSAH 34 will receive a full-depth reclamation and bituminous overlay. Both CSAHs 35 and 12 will receive an overlay with an urban design of curb and gutter within city limits. An overlay for CR 147, originally included in the Five-Year Plan, has been eliminated from the overlay plans for 2011. The CSAH 75 Bridge is scheduled to be removed, and a new alignment is planned. The City of Monticello is looking at the option of adding a pedestrian underpass to the project in partnership with Xcel Energy, and the additional cost would be $100,000 - $120,000. The concept has already been approved at Monday night’s (12/13/10) City Council meeting, but the funding details are not yet determined. The City would like to have an underpass under CSAH 75 that will connect with Montissippi Park, but Wright County has not paid for off-park trails or underpasses in the past. The new railroad crossing will be an at-grade crossing east of the current bridge, which will be removed. Xcel is considering abandoning their current trail that runs parallel to the railroad tracks and redesigning it to run through a wooded area. This would then connect with the City’s trail system and would also benefit from a pedestrian underpass. At this point, Xcel has expressed no interest in contributing to the expense of the underpass. The trail can be redesigned at a later time, but the most cost-efficient time to put in an underpass would be when CSAH 75 is being reconstructed. Hawkins said that Wright County has a draft agreement with Burlington Northern for the removal of the current bridge and the new at-grade crossing, which is currently about 42 pages in length. CSAH 3 reconstruction will be a rural two-lane design with paved shoulders and is scheduled for 2012. It is planned to be a concrete surface, and the up-front costs might be equal to or less than bituminous, and the life cycle cost is significantly less. The travel lanes would be concrete and the shoulders would be bituminous. In addition to the CSAH 12 reconstruction project, other projects accomplished in 2010 include the bituminous overlays of CSAH 1 (S County Line to CSAH 30), CSAH 6 (S County Line to 70th Street SW), CSAH 21 (W County Line to CSAH 1), CSAH 30 (W County Line to CSAH 8), CR 153 (in the City of Cokato), and continued work on the CSAH 36 flood control project. Fingalson said that he and staff have been studying possibilities for the realignment of CR 147 that include a connection with CSAH 34 in the Buffalo area. Recently, a connection with CR 134 had been considered and there were four different routes reviewed. There is a little over $300,000 available in the TH 55 Corridor Coalition fund, and it might be available for Wright County’s use. Acquiring right of way would require a 20% local share, and $100,000 was put in the budget for next year. As they reviewed the possible routes and considered the high cost of acquiring right of way, they began to look at another option. Fingalson said that the option of connecting CR 147 to CSAH 34 had been considered a number of years ago and is consistent with the City’s long-range transportation plans. The City has even preserved the corridor and a two-lane roadway has already been built on part of it. Mn/DOT has agreed that money targeted for the CR 134/TH 55 connection could be used for this project, but permission must be granted by the TH 55 Corridor Coalition to use the money in that fund. It has been estimated that the acquisition of right of way necessary for the construction of the proposed routes for the CR 134 connection range from $225,000 to $425,000, but the right of way necessary for the CSAH 34 connection would be in the range of $10,000. If this option were chosen, a new connection with TH 25 would also be constructed at a better location for sight distance, just south of the current CR 147/TH 25 connection. A new railroad crossing would be needed at the TH 55/CSAH 34 connection, and the current CR 147 railroad crossing would be abandoned and the current CR 147 would end at some point west of the railroad tracks. People who live along the current CR 147 would lose their more direct access to TH 55 at CR 147, but the diminished traffic on this roadway would probably be appreciated by the residents. Fingalson said that he has talked with some residents in the residential development next to TH 25, and they have expressed support for a connection at CSAH 34, which would not only give them a direct route to TH 55 but would probably also help cut down on traffic that drives through the neighborhood as a short cut to TH 55. Mn/DOT is in favor of this proposed connection at CSAH 34 because it would mean that the TH55/CR147 intersection could be eliminated. The portion of roadway that is already built west of TH 55 (at CSAH 34) could be utilized. He said that a major complication of a CR 147/CR 134 connection would be the amount of money that it would take to purchase right of way, and some properties would have to be split, and there might even have to be a buyout of a residence. In addition, because of the increased amounts of traffic that would be using CR 147, a major upgrade would be needed. A connection at CR 147/CR 134 could also present traffic flow problems because the access spacing between TH 55 and Menards does not fit the desire spacing guidelines, and extra traffic generated by a full intersection might prove to be a problem. A downside of the CR 147/CSAH 34 connection would be that the old portion of CR 147 would have to be revoked to Buffalo City and Buffalo Township because it would not belong on the county system, and it would need to receive a new overlay before it is given to them. The estimates presented here today do include an overlay for CR 147. Russek suggested that the owners of the surrounding property help pay for the new connection because they would benefit from this improvement, and Sawatzke suggested that they assess the owners who are located between TH 55 and the current CR 147. Russek said that this might be an opportunity to get the right of way for no cost since the route of this new connection would greatly enhance the properties on the CR 147 side of TH 55. This connection would create two prime properties right across the highway from Target. Wetland mitigation may be a big expense because Wright County doesn’t have much wetland in the bank right now. Fingalson said that he would like to bring a recommendation with him to the TH 55 Corridor Coalition meeting scheduled for Friday, December 17. Sawatzke said that he remembers that there was some opposition to this a few years ago because this would have the potential to siphon traffic away from downtown Buffalo and negatively impact businesses. He requested that the minutes from those meetings be made available so that he could read through the discussion. He remembered that there was some controversy at the time that it was discussed. Russek said that he thought the controversy had more to do with the proposed rerouting of TH 25 away from downtown rather than a new connection for CR 147. With the development that has taken place in this location, this might be worth looking at again. Fingalson said that he would present this CR 147/TH 55/CSAH 34 connection proposal to the TH 55 Corridor Coalition and find out what the members’ reactions are to it. If completed, this could be an extension of CSAH 34 all the way to TH 25, so state aid money could be available for this. RECOMMENDATION: It was the consensus of the TCOTW that Fingalson present this proposed connection of CR 147/TH 55/CSAH 34 to the TH 55 Corridor Coalition to see if members would support the use of Coalition funds for this improvement.
(End of 12-14-10 TCOTW Committee Minutes.)
At today’s County Board Meeting, Wayne Fingalson reviewed the Wright County Safety Plan and the need for the Plan. The Safety Plan is a data driven document backed by crash research in the County. Fingalson stated that he is soliciting the endorsement of the Commissioners to put the Plan on the County website. He noted that the County Board would not only be adopting the entire Plan, but the projects included within the Plan. Eichelberg asked whether Fingalson would still come before the County Board to seek approval on the projects even after approval of the Plan. Fingalson stated yes. The Commissioners determined that they would like the opportunity to review the Plan before endorsing it. Wayne Fingalson presented a road map on the overhead camera of the proposed chevrons, street lighting, and rumble strips projects for HSIP (Safety) Funding. He stated that since the 12-14-10 TCOTW Meeting, he has spoken with MnDOT and a consultant regarding LED lights. LED technology is still relatively new and expensive. However, the County may have an opportunity to have one LED light installed as a pilot project. Eichelberg asked what the likelihood is for the County to have this three-part project fully funded. He noted that the HSIP Funding (Safety) project is a two-year funding cycle. Fingalson stated that the chance of receiving 100% funding depends on the number of applications that come from other counties. He stated that he would estimate that the County has a 75-80% chance of receiving full funding. Eichelberg asked whether the County would have some flexibility in determining the scope of the lighting project. Fingalson stated that he asked MnDOT about this, and their response was that the County would not get to change the scope of its project. The application for funding is a competitive bidding process. Thelen stated that the rural street lighting portion of the HSIP Funding project is a concern to her. She stated that the rural residents affected by the proposed lighting projects should be asked if they want the lighting. She commented that some people live out in the country to avail themselves of the dark. She stated that since the 12-14-10 TCOTW Meeting, she asked the Sheriff’s Department for a summary of crashes in the proposed areas for rural lighting. She stated that the County has to measure the costs of this project against perceived benefits. She stated she has a problem with MnDOT endorsing this kind of project when there are State budget issues. She asked whether anybody is taking into consideration that there is a crisis in terms of energy. She suggested the use of motion detectors in the lesser traveled intersections. She stated that she cannot support the rural lighting project at this point. She stated that she would approve the safety project with the exception of the lighting project. She stated that she’d like to hear MnDOT’s logic regarding this topic.
Fingalson stated that street lighting is a proven safety strategy which is based on research done on intersections before and after lighting was installed. He stated that he does agree with Thelen in that a better effort should be made in directing the lighting down onto the intersection, rather than into the sky and neighborhood. Thelen stated that although there may have been improvements made in ambient lighting, it still doesn’t address the energy cost. Fingalson agreed by stating that lighting is not free. However, the lighting assists in the safety for drivers, making it easier to negotiate intersections. Bill Cordell, Sr. Engineering Technician, stated that the motion detector is not an exact science. It is not instantaneous. He stated that studies based on crash data do indicate that the benefit to cost analysis on lighted roadways is 15 to 1. He defined this as meaning that there are 15 times more benefit than cost. He stated that the cost data is based on severe injury. A fatality can equate to over a million dollars. He noted that the cost to operate the lights is part of the County Highway’s budget. Sawatzke asked when the County’s lighting program was started. Fingalson stated that the County Board adopted the policy in 2002. The County started with zero lighted intersections. It now has 90 (located on State and County roads). Sawatzke stated that the County is heading in the direction of lighting every single intersection. Fingalson stated that the County would have approximately 25% of its intersections lighted. Cordell commented that the HSIP Funded projects are proactive projects. These completed projects would prevent something from happening. Thelen stated that if this is the case, then perhaps people should not drive after dark. She again stated that there are other costs that aren’t being measured here. Sawatzke asked whether this grant proposal would be going to the grant agency in two proposals. Fingalson stated that it would be submitted as one proposal. Sawatzke asked whether the County could accept part of the project and wait one year to settle the remainder of the project. He noted that by that time, LED technology may be better. He stated that he agrees with Thelen in considering motion detectors as a way to save energy. During the late evening/early morning hours when an intersection is not used, perhaps a motion detector would be more energy and cost efficient. Cordell explained that the technology of a motion detector is not effective in detecting a car that is approaching an intersection at 60 mph. The cost would be prohibitive. Russek stated that he spoke with an employee of Hutchinson Technical Institute who discussed how motion detector lights are inefficient. He stated that he was told that you can never recover the cost for them. Thelen asked whether some of the funds applied for the rural lighting project could be re-allocated for the rumple strips. Cordell stated that the funding must be applied to the projects that are listed in the proposal. Thelen asked how wide the shoulders are on the roadways utilizing rumble strips. She asked whether they are wide enough to accommodate bikes along the road. Cordell stated that the shoulders are typically 8’ paved shoulders, with the exception of Highway 16 which has 6’ shoulders. There is adequate room for biking. Sawatzke stated that the rumble strips should provide a barrier between the bikes and cars.
Sawatzke moved to approve the recommendation to solicit HSIP Funding including the second lighting phase noting that every effort would be made to install LED lighting if possible and look into the ability to provide motion detection. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Thelen asked whether Sawatzke would consider a friendly amendment to the motion to include surveying persons near the proposed rural intersections to determine whether the street lighting is desirable. Fingalson asked that the County Board define “near the proposed rural intersections”. He proposed 500’ as a measurable distance. Sawatzke agreed with using 500’ as a measurement. He also noted that surveying the residents within the 500’ radius of the intersection would simply mean that the residents would be given the opportunity to provide input. Fingalson stated that he would be supportive of Sawatzke’s comment of affected neighbors providing input. Eichelberg stated that he seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 4-0.
Fingalson stated the City of Monticello won’t be present at today’s County Board Meeting. Since the 12-14-10 TCOTW meeting Xcel Energy has agreed to cover 50% of the engineering costs with the City of Monticello for the CSAH 75 Pedestrian Underpass. He cautioned the County Board that if Xcel Energy does not agree to pay half of the construction costs for the project, the City of Monticello may be back to request funding assistance from the County. He noted that precedence has been set that cities pay for these types of projects, not the County. Fingalson announced that as of 12-17-10, Russek was elected as chairman of the Highway 55 Corridor Coalition for 2011.
Using the overhead camera, Fingalson showed a map of the intersections at CR 147/TH 55/CSAH 34 to the County Board. Fingalson provided an overview of the CR 134/TH 55 connection from the 12-14-10 TCOTW minutes. He stated that the proposed CSAH 34 ROW would be a piece of wooded and wetland property located within a development. This connection point would eliminate the bad intersection at CR 147 and TH 55. The project, and alternative routes, were presented to the TH 55 Corridor Coalition. The estimate for this route would be $1.4 million instead of $2 million. He did note that it would not be as convenient for Buffalo Township to maintain the old CR 147. He stated that ultimately, the benefit is to provide a better intersection at TH 55 and it can be done at less of a cost than originally estimated. Eichelberg made a motion to approve continuing to research the concept of the proposed connection of CR 147/TH 55/CSAH 34 and continue to work with the necessary entities. Fingalson stated that an environmental report will be required prior to any construction. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Russek announced that Fingalson did a good job lobbying Hennepin County to forego their portion of the Coalition fund in order to accommodate Wright County’s improvement project. Sawatzke stated that this project should be evaluated deeper. He stated that it is not fair for someone to receive a lot of money for the sale of the property to accommodate this access. Fingalson stated that by law, the County has to offer fair market value for the property. Sawatzke stated that everybody needs to be aware that this project may not work. Russek commented that the County Board is only approving the concept. Fingalson stated that the Coalition funding does have a shelf life. The available funding will not be enough to do the entire project, and this project would not be worked on right away. The motion carried 4-0.
On a motion by Thelen, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the 12-14-10 TCOTW Meeting minutes. The motion carried 4-0.
The meeting recessed at 10:28 a.m. and reconvened at 10:38 a.m.
Thelen stated that she would like to discuss the Consent Agenda B1, “Approve and Authorize Signatures On Joint Powers Agreement With Corinna Township.” She asked that Kryzer walk the County Board through the changes that were made to the Agreement since it was discussed at the 12-14-10 County Board Meeting. Kryzer explained that there were two Agreements that came in the County Board packets. One is a clean copy, and the other tracks what changes were made. He clarified that the final version is the Agreement that the County Attorney’s office would be recommending. He noted that somehow Sections 18 and 19 were struck when he merged the two documents together. He clarified that they should not have been struck. Kryzer referenced some minor changes that were made in preparation of the final document. The discussion primarily focused on Section 12, Liability. He summarized that the document reads that Corinna Township will indemnify Wright County. He stated that from a legal perspective, the County has a lot of liability coming at it from the Township level. Yet, the County does not cause a lot of liability on the Township. He stated that procedurally, he would recommend that the County Board approve the clean version of the Agreement that is being presented today. Russek stated that it is his understanding that this is not a legally defined joint powers agreement. This is simply an agreement between two parties. Under State Statute, a Joint Powers Board, would be established and recognized by the State in order to have a Joint Powers Agreement. Kryzer stated that this Agreement, or relationship, is different than a Joint Powers Agreement which has its own separate board. This is a working partnership agreement. Corinna Township is going to administer the shoreline controls, and the County is going to administer the building and septic inspections. Norman asked whether the County Attorney’s office or the Commissioners have contacted MCIT for their opinion. Asleson stated that he is not aware that MCIT has been consulted on this topic. He stated that he has dealt with them on issues similar to this. He stated that he attended a joint powers seminar two months ago, and in his opinion, the final version of the Agreement meets the requirements. Thelen asked if Kryzer is recommending that the County Board approve the Agreement, then discuss amendments. Kryzer stated yes. The Minutes would then clearly reflect the events. Thelen moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement as written and presented by Kryzer at today’s County Board Meeting, seconded by Eichelberg. Thelen then stated that she’d like to amend her motion to request that the County Attorney’s Office change Section 12 to indemnify both parties. She stated that if the County’s building and septic inspectors make a mistake, then the County should stand by its employees. She stated that as far as she knows, there hasn’t been a lawsuit against a building or septic inspector. She stated Corinna Township will not approve the Agreement if it is missing the language indemnifying both parties. She asked Kryzer whether he agrees that there is a joint threat of liability for both parties. She noted that if the Agreement is approved by the County Board today, it would then go before the Township at their meeting tonight. If approved by both parties, the relationship could then start on 1-01-11. Norman stated that he would defer to the County Attorney’s office whether they feel the amended language is sufficient and MCIT should review the Agreement.
Sawatzke asked Asleson for his opinion. Asleson stated that Krzyer has been working on this Agreement. He stated that he would liken this Agreement to an agreement between the County’s Highway Department and a city. While there isn’t a separate joint powers board, they both reference Statute 471.79. He noted that the Highway and city agreement is typically for a single project, not an ongoing relationship as there will be between the County and Corinna Township. Thelen clarified that this Agreement is for one year.
Kryzer clarified that the County is still held responsible for any wrongdoing done by its building and septic inspectors. Asleson stated that the County has three options: approve Agreement as-is, remove Section 12 entirely, or add another paragraph to reflect that Wright County would indemnify Corinna Township. Thelen stated that it is her opinion that each party should indemnify each other. Sawatzke asked Kryzer why he thinks the Township should indemnify the County, but not the other way around. Kryzer stated that the County has a higher liability. Thelen stated that there is no greater risk for the County to indemnify the Township. Asleson stated that he sees this language in most cooperative agreements. He clarified that he is aware of one time that a County Building Inspector was sued. However, in conciliation court, it was determined that the realtor did not disclose something that the County was not aware of. Sawatzke stated that he is in favor of approving the document as-is as Kryzer recommended. Motion carried 4-0.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 12-15-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that the final sentence of the minutes should be corrected to state, “He stated that Kelly’s Department is down one position.” Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Eichelberg. The motion carried 5-0.
I. POSITION OPENINGS.
A. Assistant County Attorney.
Kelly stated that Lee Martie was a County Attorney III. He stated that he recognizes he can only hire at a County Attorney I level, at salary step 1, which will save on his overall budget. He stated that his Department is answering to the Sheriff’s Department, BCA, and the fourth largest sheriff patrol division in the State of Minnesota. He will have to determine how to shift his staff around to fit the needs of the Department. He stated that he is requesting that he be allowed to proceed as soon as possible in the hiring process. Sawatzke asked what types of cases Martie took. Kelly stated that Martie had been moved up to his District Court Team. He was working on felony assaults and burglaries. Sawatzke stated that he is in favor of the replacement position. He stated that Kelly’s Department is down one position. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize hiring process for a County Attorney I.
(End of 12-15-10 Personnel Committee Minutes and discussion.)
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 12-15-10. At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 3-0 (Thelen absent):
I. DISCUSSION RE: WIRELESS EXPANSION IN THE GOVERNMENT CENTER. Swing distributed a one-page handout briefly outlining a request to expand the wireless network to the fourth floor (see attached “Technology Committee, December 14, 2010”). MacMillan’s request for Court Services was also endorsed by Tom Kelly of the County Attorney’s office. He noted that the funding is to come out of budget line item 6622, Court Services Compliance Technology. Swing stated that in an effort not to “piece-meal” the project, which proves to be more expensive in the long run, he polled other departments to assess their wireless needs. Only two responses were received: I.T. and Auditor/Treasurer. The feedback indicated that there is a need for wireless in the County Board Room, conference rooms C118 and C111, and the Auditor/Treasurer’s conference room. The handout indicates that the cost to install wireless access points in eight locations would be $7,113. Four locations would be on the fourth floor. MacMillan stated that there is a need for wireless on fourth floor for both the County Attorney and Court Services Departments. The wireless capability will grant use of handheld wireless devices and laptop computers accessed by the public, public speakers, attorneys, and probation agents. Norman noted that this request was not brought to the Budget Committee Of The Whole. He reminded the Committee that the County Board just completed its budget process for 2011. The County has to ask itself whether this is a “needed” or “nice” service. MacMillan stated that this project is categorized under the $80,000 for capital outlay for technology. He clarified that he does not see this as a non-budgeted item. Norman stated that he thought the $80,000 had a specific purpose. He recalled that it was to be used for the law/legal integration project. Swing outlined the status of the eComplaints project. He stated that the next phase of the project hasn’t been scoped out yet. MacMillan stated that the use for the $80,000 was not defined. The expansion of wireless capability fits the type of projects allowed under the $80,000 fund. Jobe asked whether access to wireless capability would require authentication. Swing explained that users would receive temporary authentication. It would be a controlled bandwidth requiring user identification and a pass code. Jobe stated that he likes the idea of expanding the wireless capability in the Government Center. He stated that he makes frequent trips to the Government Center and finds it cumbersome not to have access to his computer files. He stated that he is in support of the project and is surprised by the reasonable cost of the installation. Thelen stated that she is irritated by the budget process; it is her opinion that it is not a fair process. She stated that the County does need a process, as the County Commissioners recently learned at the recent AMC Conference. However, she can see how the expansion of wireless service within the Government Center would create efficiencies. There is efficiency in using her laptop in her office and in the County Board room. She stated that she can’t see where else the need for wireless would be outside of the fourth floor, County Board Room, and conference rooms. Norman explained that budget dollars assigned within a Department’s budget that are not spent are considered as turn back dollars at the end of the calendar year. MacMillan stated that $80,000 is set aside for 2010 and 2011. He clarified that he will have turn back dollars at the end of 2010. Norman stated that it is his perspective that the $80,000 should be specifically designated for projects. If it cannot be designated, it should technically be turned back for use by other Departments. Norman asked Swing if this project would create extra work for his Department. Swing stated yes. His Department would have to coordinate two vendors and manage the project. Jobe asked whether the holdup on following through with installing wireless to eight locations is due to lack of process. He stated that the project seems to be of good value. Swing stated that the wireless project was not in the context of CIP planning. He stated that ideally, a good technology plan should have some fairly clear definitions for the next budget year. It should also contain some plans for the next two to three years. He stated that Wright County, as a whole, needs to get better at its planning. Norman asked whether there is a plan in place for wireless expansion for the HSC, Public Works Building, Jail/LEC, and Government Center. Swing stated no. He stated that he cannot justify wireless in all areas of the County right now. He stated that it is his position to insist that Departments have to present their case for why they need wireless capabilities. He stated that the justification for adding wireless to the Jail/LEC is because it no longer makes sense to build new buildings without wireless capability. Norman stated that although this is ultimately the County Board’s decision, a determination needs to be made on whether there is enough business need to support the expansion of wireless capability. Each Department will have to come forward with their justification. Then a decision needs to be made whether to install it all at one time. Installing wireless access points in segments can actually cost more in the long run. Swing agreed with Norman. He stated that there needs to be more discussion on wireless. It has to be endorsed by all of the Departments. This is a subject that should be brought before the Leadership Committee. Eichelberg stated that he can understand how there is a savings in having an overall plan. Swing stated that he sees the fundamental issue is planning. Norman stated that the County Board should take a position that it needs a plan when it rolls into the overall budget discussion for next year. MacMillan asked how much it would cost to install wireless access points on just the fourth floor. Swing estimated that it would cost $5,000. There is a savings in having the vendors do the work for all eight (or more) locations at one time. There is a lot of time spent in the cabling and configuring of the system. Eichelberg asked if there are additional expenses that could be anticipated once the wireless access points have been installed. Swing stated that there are no other costs. Thelen stated that under Swing’s new model, MacMillan did present his plan for wireless capability. MacMillan stated that he has enough in his 2010 budget that he could fund this project if it could be billed today. Swing stated that with the amount of planning involved, this project would not start until 2011. Thelen stated that she is in favor of this project and its funding source from the Court Services Compliance Technology line item. Eichelberg stated that he can see the need for the expansion of wireless service in all of the areas outlined in Swing’s handout. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize wireless expansion to eight locations in the Government Center. Fund MacMillan’s request from the Court Services budget, line item 6622.
(End of 12-15-10 Technology Committee Minutes and discussion.)
Norman stated that he requests the Personnel Committee Minutes from 11-17-10 and subsequent County Board Minutes of 11-30-10 be clarified and revised. The Recommendation made on page 11 of the Personnel Committee Minutes should be revised so that the second sentence be deleted and replaced with the following:
“The part-time Human Services and Sheriff Department employees will receive compensation for the vacation and sick leave hours as previously indicated on their time sheets.”
On a motion by Sawatzke, seconded by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the revision as presented by Norman.
Norman asked that the issue of promotions in the Sheriff’s Department be referred to the Negotiations Committee. He stated that a couple of employees were promoted to management level positions. They have grieved the salary that was offered and accepted at the time of their promotion. There are two other potential grievances. This impacts the terms and conditions of employment. Russek asked that Norman contact Frank Madden, Employment Attorney, to determine his availability. Norman noted that this would be a closed meeting and would be recorded. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Eichelberg, all voted to schedule a Negotiations Committee meeting to discuss promotions in the Sheriff’s Department.
Russek wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Air Compressors Plus LLC 509.16
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 249.81
Ameripride Services 229.32
Anoka County Corrections 14,713.00
Anoka Hennepin Technical 465.00
Bauman/Lawrence R. 288.00
Buffalo Chamber of Commerce 105.00
Buffalo Clinic 369.16
Buffalo/City of 465,625.00
Center Point Energy 8,722.23
Centra Sota Cooperative 336.20
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 31,166.73
Childrens Hospital & Clinics 125.00
CIT Information services Inc. 28,431.00
Climate Air 2,030.15
Commissioner of Transport 6,295.68
Design Electrical Contract 1,482.02
Dingmann Marine & More LLC 229.67
Dustcoating Inc. 21,328.59
Election Systems & Software 12,393.16
Espresso Midwest 133.34
Fehn Gravel & Excavating/De 13,666.76
Force America Inc. 226.98
Frontline Plus Inc. 1,257.00
General Office Products 1,313.96
Globalstar USA 115.39
Granite Electronics 542.96
Greenview Inc. 267.00
H&R Const. Co. 18,671.25
Hewlett Packard 3,060.24
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 1,538.33
Impact Proven Solutions 9,891.64
Information Systems Corp 247.04
Klatt True Value Electric 119.35
Kustom Signals Inc. 151.20
L3 Communications Inc. 10,100.88
LaPlant Demo Inc. 453.33
M & M Express Sales & Serv 216.16
M & M Express Sales 395.38
Marco Inc. 839.18
Mariposa Publishing 261.84
Mathiowetz Construction 48,578.29
Menards - Buffalo 412.44
MN Assn. of CVSO 150.00
MN Native Landscapes 800.00
MN Society of Prof Surveyors 930.00
MN State Nursery Account 763.09
Montrose/City of 1,045.80
Motorola Inc. 7,182.00
Norman/Richard W. 300.04
North American Salt Co. 56,728.66
Office Depot 2,949.89
PMI Computer Supplies 876.50
Polar Chevrolet 17,543.41
Prairie Equipment Company 10,612.69
Public Safety Equipment LLC 2,267.06
RDO Equipment Co. 16,565.63
Reds Auto Electric 171.73
Reds Cafe 641.25
Regents of the University 31,862.49
Royal Tire Co. 5.950.14
Russell Security Resource 3,903.91
Safelite Fulfillment Inc. 264.65
Schermann/Robert D 340.00
Schmidt/Donald M 131.00
Security Response Services 237.50
SHI International Corp 391.17
T & M Towing and Snow Plow 171.00
TDS Telecom 263.33
Three Rivers Park District 1,990.00
Traffic Control Corporation 29,727.28
Transcend United Technolo 5,867.44
Truck Utilities Inc. 18,435.94
Verizon Wireless 318.92
Voss Lighting 198.37
Wagner/H David 294.00
Walker Trucking/C 1,450.00
West Payment Center 1,177.24
West Sherburne Tribune 109.20
Wright County Highway Dept 173.39
Wright Hennepin Electric 1,046.90
Zack’s Inc. 974.24
30 Payments less than $100 1,163.16
Final total $965,019.80
The meeting adjourned at 11:11 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Jan. 17, 2011