WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2011
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 6-07-11 County Board Minutes. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried unanimously.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda under Highway Engineer as follows: #6, “Add the following Agenda item to the 6-20-11 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting: CSAH 34 Funding” (Russek); #7, “Add the following Agenda item to the 6-20-11 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting: CR 119” (Eichelberg). Mattson referenced the Public Hearing scheduled for 9:30 A.M. on the Proposed Amendments to the Wright County Point of Sale Septic System Certification Ordinance. Mattson said the townships received notice of the Public Hearing late last Friday and have not had a chance to review the proposed changes at their Township Board Meetings. He suggested holding the Public Hearing and then delaying the decision on the Ordinance amendments to mid-July or later. Russek said this can be discussed during the Public Hearing today. Thelen moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried unanimously.
On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: R. Gongoll, M. Lindquist, D. Olson, Sher.
1. Approve Renewal Of Seasonal (6 mo.) On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License For “Whispering Pines Golf Course,” (Corinna Twp.).
C. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer “Review Outline Of Technology Plan” To Technology Committee.
Gloria Gooler, Administrative Confidential Secretary, presented the claims listing for approval. Mattson referenced the amount of Corrections claims included and noted that the claims listing last week did not include any Corrections claims. He referenced expenditures on Page 1 for Court Appointed Council. He felt the costs were continually rising and there was no control over these charges. On a motion by Mattson, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, requested the Board adopt a resolution supporting an application to the 2012 State of Minnesota Capital Budget, requesting funds for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park Acquisition Project. On 5-24-11, the County Board authorized the Parks Administrator to prepare documents for the submittal of the 2012 Capital Budget request to the State of Minnesota Office of Management and Budget, requesting bond funds for acquisition of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in the amount of $6.1 million. Wright County and the City of Monticello have completed similar requests twice in the past. Requests for 2012 are due on 6-24-11. A resolution of support from each participating unit of government is necessary. The City of Monticello adopted a resolution of support (4:1 vote). Russek said he will not support the request as the County does not have the money for a match. Thelen moved to adopt Resolution #11-33, supporting the request for State Appropriations for Capital Improvement Projects, Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park Acquisition. Thelen said there were about 900 people that attended the Bertram Park Family Fun Day on 6-11-11. Residents have conveyed how important it is to preserve this valuable resource. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Russek said he has received comment from residents in his District congratulating his action to oppose the purchase of the park land. He feels this is a good piece of land but it is not the time to buy it. Mattson referenced the comment made by Thelen on attendance at the Bertram Park Family Fun Day. He said that when a free event is held, the public will show up. He also felt this is a great piece of land but said the County owns a lot of high priced park land. It bothers him that people no longer donate land for park land. Instead it is sold and they want their name attached to it. He felt the looming State shutdown is another warning not to move forward. Russek added that once the land is owned, it will need to be maintained. Wright County owns over 1000 acres in that end of the County and the Bertram Chain of Lakes purchases will add another 1200 acres. The motion passed 3-2 with Mattson and Russek casting the nay votes.
Mattice presented the 6-01-11 Meeting Minutes for the Site Visit to Collinwood Park and Adjacent Drainage System. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek said the water seems to be running well and the tile is 16”-18” under ground. Sawatzke and Russek felt that the private landowner could make the repair given the depth of the tile. Mattson moved to approve the Minutes and recommendation, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0:
Site Visit to Collinwood Park and Adjacent Drainage System
The attendees convened at the Wright County Government Center at 9:00 a.m. on June 1, 2011 and proceeded by vehicle to the south end of Collinwood Lake. The purpose of the meeting was to address a concern by a neighboring landowner regarding a drain tile issue that extends from Collinwood Regional Park through his property on Collinwood Lake.
Commissioners Russek and Mattson recalled that a number of years ago the County agreed to replace the portion of the tile line that is under the road and tied into the tiles that cross private property. Russek, Mattson, Mattice, and Riebel traced the tile line to the outlet and noticed that in some areas the tile line had separated. The tile line terminates on the water’s edge of Collinwood Lake. Both Commissioners Russek and Mattson felt that the tile was functioning properly, even with the separations.
Recommendation: It was the consensus Commissioners Russek and Mattson that though there are separations in the tile line and some sink holes have been created as a result of these separations, the tile line is still functioning properly and as originally intended. They also agreed that it is the responsibility of the private landowner, and not Wright County’s, to solve the cosmetic issues created by the separations.
(End of 6-01-11 Site Visit to Collinwood Park and Adjacent Drainage System Minutes)
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 6-08-11. At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg made a motion to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion includes correcting the spelling of “Schefers” in the document. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson asked whether the County wishes to move forward with position replacements with a possible State shut down. Eichelberg said the positions being presented today for replacement will not be filled prior to July because of advertising requirements. The County Board could address any impact a State shut down may have on positions at that time. Sawatzke asked Richard Norman, County Coordinator, if department heads should provide information on how positions are funded and what impact a State shut down will have, including whether the reimbursement will be received at a later date or whether the funding will be lost. Sawatzke referenced the minutes, Item B, where Human Services has requested to fill a Public Health Nurse position. He said there is over $100,000 in State revenues associated with the position. With regard to Item A, Social Worker III/Mental Health Professional, there are financial implications with not filling the position because of out-of-home placement costs. Some judges may not allow children to return home without this assistance. Russek asked whether the Courts System will be shut down if the State shuts down. Norman said the State will ask for a Court ruling on essential services. That same process was followed during the last State shut down. Those essential functions will continue to be operational and funded. Those not on the list will be shut down. The total impact of the shut down will be able to be analyzed once the Judge has made this ruling. Sawatzke said it will be well into July before the County will interview on the two positions being requested. If a State shut down does occur, the County Board can meet and talk about the implications and possible ways of changing the way business is conducted. Norman said the Leadership Quarterly Meeting is scheduled for 7-12-11. He suggested that an Agenda topic for that meeting be to analyze the impact of the State shut down. The motion carried 5-0:
I. POSITION OPENINGS.
A. Social Worker III/Mental Health Professional.
Charbonneau distributed a handout (see attached) describing her request to hire for the replacement of a Social Worker III, therapist position to provide in-home services. The position, partnered with other employees within the unit, provides in-home services to families who are either underinsured, do not have insurance, or are waiting for insurance. The handout also includes a letter written by Judge Kathleen Mottl discussing how beneficial in-home skills and therapists have been to clients. Eichelberg asked if this position requires special skills. Pawelk stated that the position requires a masters degree and two years experience. There is a preference for mental health certification. It is difficult to find qualified applicants who are willing to start at Step 1. Norman asked Charbonneau if she has heard what the impact will be in regard to Health and Human Services cuts from the State. Charbonneau stated that it is difficult to fully measure the impact of the proposed cuts. However, the County can be court ordered to provide these services whether there is State funding or not. Norman asked whether the position has been vacated already. Charbonneau stated yes. The position is supported by grant funds and federal/state reimbursements. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Human Services Department to advertise and fill the vacant Social Worker III/Mental Health Professional position.
B. Public Health Nurse (PHN).
Schefers distributed a handout (see attached) “Public Health Nursing Staff Position Request to Fill”, dated 06-08-11. Schefers stated that she is requesting authorization to advertise and fill an upcoming vacancy for a full-time PHN position. Schefers stated that the PHN’s last day would be 7-08-11. This position is a highly specialized position requiring very specialized training in Colorado. The training has been paid for by the Minnesota Department of Public Health. She stated that if the position does not get filled, a more expensive option would be to contract out the work. The position is supported by grant funds and federal/state reimbursements. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Human Services Department to advertise and fill the vacant PHN position.
(End of 6-08-11 Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 6-08-11. At today’s County Board Meeting, Thelen moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Eichelberg. Mattson said when reference is made to grant funding, he felt it should be worded differently. Many times it is indicated that a grant comes at no cost to the County. Mattson said it still involves taxpayer dollars. Thelen asked Mattson what language he recommended when grants are presented. Mattson said he wanted to point out that people have state and federal taxes removed from paychecks and so grant funds are not at no cost. The motion carried 5-0:
Swing stated that he would like to improve communications with the County Board in regard to the expenses and revenues associated with the 800 MHz system. He stated that he has the impression that the County Board does not understand the billing, or see how the grants have reimbursed the County for expenses related to the 800 MHz. After discussion, it was determined that Swing will notify the Technology Committee members (Eichelberg and Thelen) of claims coming to the County Board. Educating the Committee members prior to review of the claims listing at the County Board meetings may ease the concerns the County Board may have regarding the 800 MHz project.
I. 800 MHz RADIO.
A. Review Of Grants.
Swing distributed “Technology Committee Of June 8th, 2011 Handout” to the Committee. The first page of the handout outlines the project expenditures and grant receivables for the Wright-Sherburne Channel Add 800 MHz radio project. The County received $201,984 in grant funding and the channel add project cost $150,185. So an excess of grant funds to the County of $51,799 has been placed in General Revenue. Norman asked Swing what the excess grant funds can be used for. Swing stated that the County received the extra grant funds because other counties did not engage in the 800 MHz project. Norman asked if the excess amount is in a designated account. Swing stated that he would have to confirm with the Auditor/Treasurer where this got assigned. DeMars asked what a channel add is. Swing stated that Sherburne and Wright share a simulcast radio system of eight channels. Howell stated that the channel add project would add an additional channel so that there are a total of nine channels. Adding an additional channel increases the capacity of the system. Swing stated that it is a proactive step. A consultant did an assessment of the system to determine this is a smart move. Eichelberg explained that although the Counties don’t need all of the channels right now, there are only so many channels available. This project is to prepare the County for ten years down the road.
Howell stated that by using the grant dollars, the channel add was done at no cost to the County. Howell stated that this project was necessary for law enforcement. The party who gained the most from this project was the fire departments. The fire departments had one channel to communicate on. Now they have several. Swing stated that the communication between EMS, fire, and law enforcement has significantly improved since the installation of the 800 MHz project. A lot of benefits have been received.
Swing explained that the City of St. Cloud acts as the agent for the region, and Wright County is the grant manager for County agencies. In June, two grant receipts are coming for the cities of Buffalo and St. Michael. The County will have to issue checks in the same amount to the cities.
B. 2012 Budget.
Swing stated that the County has determined to set the same $75 per radio fee that was used for the 2011 budget to calculate the 2012 figures. This means that the County will charge $75 per radio to all agencies within the County. He turned the Committee’s attention to the second and last pages of the handout which outlines the radio counts for each agency and budget figures. He stated that there is total anticipated revenue from the fire departments of $38,100.
Swing stated that the Auditor/Treasurer is recommending that the expenses and revenues be handled out of a single account (Fund 100) for the 800 MHz project. This would eliminate confusion in splitting the costs to the Sheriff, Public Works, and Human Services Departments. Howell stated that the Sheriff’s Office would reduce the same amount out of their Professional Services line item which would be outlined in the details of Fund 100. Swing stated that I.T.’s budget has been carrying this project. For instance, the 800 MHz grant revenues are being receipted into I.T.’s revenue line item 01-063-5301.
Norman requested that each department include a narrative in their budget proposals stating that their radio allocation has been transferred to Fund 100. The Auditor/Treasurer will need to verify that this occurs.
RECOMMENDATION: As part of the 2012 budget process, the Auditor/Treasurer will propose to place the 800 MHz project in Budget 100. Each of the Departments that have associated costs will reduce their budget by that amount in their 2012 budgets with a notation that it will be moved to Budget 100.
C. Letter To Cities.
Swing stated that after the 6-14-11 County Board Meeting, he would like to send a letter (as seen in today’s handout) to city officials and public safety agencies regarding the 2012 budget figures for the 800 MHz radio infrastructure costs. He noted that the radio fee will remain unchanged from the 2011 rate of $75/radio. The letter is to assist the agencies in drafting their 2012 budgets.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Swing and Howell to send the letter to city officials and public safety agencies regarding the cost per radio fees.
(End of 6-08-11 Technology Committee Minutes)
At 9:30 A.M., Eichelberg made a motion to recess the regular meeting to the Public Hearing for Proposed Amendments to the Wright County Point of Sale Septic System Certification Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 5-0.
Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, provided copies of the original Ordinance, a summary of proposed changes, and the proposed Ordinance language. In 1995, the County enacted the Point of Sale Certification Ordinance for On-Site Septic Systems. About a year ago, Planning & Zoning staff contacted Kryzer about proposed changes to the Ordinance. The goal is to incorporate current practice into the Ordinance. Escrow agreements are being issued when properties are either in foreclosure or when funds are not available to bring the property or the septic system into compliance at the time of sale. The goal is to try to bring the escrow agreements into compliance, to update terminology, and to add definitions. Staff completed an extensive review of the exempt transactions and updated that section to bring it into more modern practice. Other counties were researched. The following outlines a summary of the proposed changes to the Ordinance:
Section 1.00 Title. The title was revised to reflect that the ordinance will now be called the Wright County Point of Sale Septic Certification Ordinance.
Section 2.00 Intent and Purpose. This section was amended to clearly state the purpose for enacting this ordinance and it also makes reference to the statutory provisions which allow Wright County to enact this ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that septic systems are in compliance at the time property is sold or transferred.
Section 3.00 Definitions. The definition section was added in its entirety.
Section 4.00 Wright County Point of Sale Form for Septic Certification. This section was amended to state that every property that is sold in Wright County must complete a septic certification form and file the form along with a certificate of compliance at the time the deed is recorded. The ordinance starts with the presumption that every property transfer must file the form and have their septic system updated. After making this broad statement the ordinance then goes on to exempt certain properties and transactions from the requirements of filing a certificate of compliance.
Section 4.01 Exempt Transactions. This section lists the transactions exempt from filing a valid certificate of compliance. The exemption for sales or transactions to children was removed. The following is summary of the exempt transactions:
1. The property is vacant or all septic systems have been abandoned
2. A certificate of real estate value is not required to be filed with the County Auditor. This exemption generally only applies to sales of property for less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). This exemption would most likely apply whenever a property is gifted.
3. The property is exempt from the imposition of tax pursuant to Minn. Stat 287.22 subpart (2) through (15).
a. Any deed to or from the United States or any agency thereof.
b. Any deed of distribution signed by a personal representative.
c. Co-owners partitioning their undivided interest in the same piece of property.
d. Sheriff’s certificate issued as a result of foreclosure.
e. Deeds related to easements.
f. The transfer is a result of a divorce and if being completed pursuant to an order of the court.
g. Any documents associated with a transfer on death deed.
4. The property is connected to a municipal wastewater treatment system.
5. The transfer is due to a tax forfeiture.
6. The transfer completes a contract for deed.
7. A valid Certificate of Compliance is on file with a local governmental unit.
Section 4.02 - Closing or Property Transfer Without the Required Certificate of Compliance. This section states that if a property does not have a valid certificate of compliance at the time of sale or transfer that the parties may establish an escrow agreement so funds are set aside to repair or install a working septic system. The requirements for an escrow agreement are listed in Section 5.00.
Section 5.00 - Escrow Accounts Standard for Non Compliant Septic Systems. This section identifies the requirements for entering into an escrow agreement. All escrow agreements must be approved by the Environmental Health Office. The minimum funds to be set aside are 1.5 times a reasonably calculated bid to meeting all septic system inspection, upgrade and replacement costs. The escrow funds cannot be released with the consent of the Environmental Health Office. This section states that the escrow agreement must identify where the fund will be held, who put the funds into escrow, the name of the parties to the agreement, and the deadline for completing the work.
Section 6.00 - Prohibition Against Transfer of Property; Enforcement. This section states that it is a misdemeanor to violate this ordinance.
Section 7.00 - Effective Date. This ordinance is effect the day following enactment.
Kryzer referenced Section 4, Wright County Point of Sale Form for Septic Certification. The premise is that all properties sold in Wright County need to have a Point of Sale Form completed listing the buyer, seller, exemptions, and whether there is a valid certificate of compliance for the on-site septic system. The County adopted the Ordinance in 1995 to make sure septic systems are periodically brought into compliance. This process will provide a method of verification when the property is sold and a double check for environmental health. The buyer of a property should know if the septic is working.
Kryzer referenced Section 4.01, Exempt Transactions. Lengthy discussion by staff occurred on whether to exempt transactions that relate to the sale of property to children. Staff recommendation is for this to be removed from the exemptions as it is hard for staff to determine whether a person is the seller’s child and it is a difficult area to enforce. When a property is given to a person under the age of 18, the property is sealed and nothing can be done with it. The court would have to appoint a conservator and a formal process would have to be followed. Staff recommends exempting transactions involving children. If a property is gifted, the transaction is considered exempt as they would not be required to file a certificate of real estate value. Kryzer does not feel there are any surrounding counties that have this exemption. Section 4.01, Item 3, lists properties exempt from the imposition of tax pursuant to Minn. Stat. 287.22 subpart (2) through (15). Kryzer said the Statute exempts certain transfers from the imposition of tax. Most of the Items listed in Subpart (2) through (15) are listed in the Point of Sale Ordinance, so the decision was made to reference the Statute instead of listing all of the exemptions. The broad language was left in the Ordinance. Kryzer highlighted the subparts of Item 3 (reflected in italics):
3. The property is exempt from the imposition of tax pursuant to Minn. Stat 287.22 subpart (2) through (15).
a. Any deed to or from the United States or any agency thereof.
Kryzer stated that the Wright County Ordinance would be preempted by any Federal Law or Agency.
b. Any deed of distribution signed by a personal representative.
Kryzer said if the property is being inherited, it would be exempt from the Ordinance. A personal representative either signs a deed of distribution or a normal personal representative’s deed. If a personal representative’s deed is involved, the property is being sold by the estate so it is not an exempt transaction. A certificate of compliance would need to be obtained and filed through the County. If the property is being inherited through a deed of distribution and an order through probate court, that would be an exempt transaction.
c. Co-owners partitioning their undivided interest in the same piece of property.
Kryzer said this has been in the Ordinance since 1995 and will continue to be listed.
d. Sheriff’s certificate issued as a result of foreclosure.
Kryzer stated that this is the certificate that comes from the Sheriff, it is not the resulting sale of foreclosure after that certificate. If a bank obtains a property through foreclosure, the sale from the bank to another individual or entity would not be exempt.
e. Deeds related to easements.
f. The transfer is a result of a divorce and if being completed pursuant to an order of the court.
Kryzer stated that the current Ordinance reflects that any sales to an ex-spouse are exempt. Kryzer said staff questioned what timeline this encompasses. The person would always be an ex-spouse and so the potential is there to continually sell the property back and forth. Staff recommends including only the initial transaction from the divorce.
g. Any documents associated with a transfer on death deed.
Kryzer said transfer on death deeds were created by the Legislature in the last 3-4 years. This will bring the County’s Ordinance into compliance with those procedures. It is a new method of transferring property upon death.
Kryzer highlighted the remainder of Section 4.01, Exempt Transactions. Minn. Stat. 287.22 is not referenced in its entirety in the Ordinance. Item 6 relates to contract for deeds. The initial filing of or entering into a contract for deed must follow the terms of the Ordinance and include a certificate of compliance. The County’s current practice has been to obtain the certificate when the contract is entered into. When the contract for deed is fulfilled and full ownership is taken, that is then an exempt transaction. Contracts for deeds are addressed on the front end of the transaction. Kryzer referenced Item 7 relating to having a valid certificate of compliance on file with the local governmental unit. If a certificate has been filed in the last 3-5 years, depending on whether the system was replaced or installed new, it is exempt from having to file a new certificate.
Kryzer referenced Section 4.02 Closing or Property Transfer Without the Required Certificate of Compliance. The majority of instances involving a non-working septic system involve a property being sold in the winter or as a result of a foreclosure. An escrow agreement is set up so the property can be improved at a later date. Section 5.00 Escrow Accounts Standard for Non Compliant Septic Systems sets out the requirements for entering into an escrow agreement.
Thelen asked whether Section 4.01, Exempt Transactions, a-g, is what is listed in Minn. Stat. 287.22 subpart (2) through (15). Kryzer said Minn. Stat. 287.22 subpart (2) through (15), includes a number of things that are relevant to the Ordinance. The Statute is referenced, but the Ordinance summarizes the most relevant items. A copy of the Statute was provided for reference. Mattson said he was contacted by one of the townships who indicated they did not receive notice until last Friday of today’s Public Hearing. Mattson requested that the Board delay action on adoption of the amended Ordinance until July or later. This will provide an opportunity for townships to review the changes at their upcoming township meetings. Russek said the County Board will address this request upon closing of the Public Hearing.
Roland Froyen, Clearwater River Watershed District (CRWD) Manager, encouraged passage of the amendments to the Ordinance. He questioned whether a contract for deed is registered with the County. Kryzer indicated that a contract for deed is required to be recorded upon being executed. It is filed with the County Recorder. Planning & Zoning receives a copy.
Charlotte Quiggle asked whether the Ordinance will address outhouses and why a property owner would not have to put in a sewer when the property is sold. Bill Stephens, Environmental Health Officer, said under Chapter 7080 rules, outhouses are an acceptable form of waste disposal on site if they are constructed properly and meet the criteria for separation from the high groundwater table. Outhouses should be inspected just as any other full drain field type system. The Ordinance covers outhouses. Quiggle referenced exemptions relating to tax forfeiture. When a government unit is selling to a third party (not conveying it to another governmental entity), she questioned why a septic would not be brought into compliance at that point and why the buyer would not be responsible. Kryzer said staff is not making this recommendation. It would be a Board decision on whether septic systems should be brought into compliance when they are sold. Sawatzke said it is seldom that a property with a residence is acquired through tax forfeiture. However, he felt the property should not be sold without the condition of bringing the septic up to date. Sawatzke supported this, whether it is listed in the Ordinance or it is done at the time of sale.
Art Dorn, Monticello Township, said that when properties have been sold through auction there is not information available on whether septic systems have been checked. He asked whether something can be done to address this. Stephens said those situations are primarily the reason why staff wanted to include escrow language within the document. Sawatzke asked how a situation like this can occur. Stephens said septic system information is made available when deeds are recorded. The original Ordinance includes language that the only recourse is to the seller of the property. Many times the seller leaves the area and it is hard to track where they have moved to. That is part of the reason they informally started working on escrows, giving buyers the opportunity to update systems without having to go through enforcement action. The original wording of the Ordinance made it difficult to track the seller of the property. An open house was held with closers and real estate agents. Feedback was positive on the proposed Ordinance changes.
Dean Flygare, CRWD Wastewater Management Task Force, said his company installs septic systems. He thought some of the largest offenders include properties that have transfers from one family member to another. He referenced the draft Ordinance, Section 4.01 Exempt Transactions, which applies to properties being exempt that are sold for less than $1,000.00. He asked how these properties will be addressed. Kryzer said those type of properties will continue to be an exempt transaction under the proposed Ordinance. The changes reflected by staff are not an overall, extensive revision to the Ordinance. Staff reviewed current practices since 1995. It is within the Board’s realm to make additional changes. Flygare encouraged the Board to consider adding this provision to the Ordinance. Some of the lakeshore properties are transferred from one family member to another. He did not understand why the septic would not be inspected. Some properties may have been taken care of, but there could be properties where the septic system has not been inspected in 40-50 years. Kryzer said as indicated, the largest offenders can involve the properties that are exempt (gifted, sold below $1,000). Also exempt in the Ordinance are inheritances, as long as the property is transferred through a probate deed through the probate process. If the property is sold by the estate, it is not exempt. The difference relates to the terminology and the deeds that are signed.
Thelen spoke with Kryzer prior to the meeting on the exemptions listed in Statute. She said Kryzer came up with a list of some of those that could be removed to satisfy the wishes of the Task Force. Kryzer said he did provide Commissioner Thelen with a proposed motion to that effect pursuant to her request.
Sawatzke asked about whether surrounding counties have similar ordinances. Stephens said it varies but staff did compare Wright County’s Ordinance to those of surrounding counties. The one consistency they did see was the removal of the child exemption. Staff focused on this in an effort to address some of the concerns of the Task Force. Some neighboring county ordinances mention CRV exemptions, some do not. Stephens clarified that while the Ordinance deals with the requirement of having a septic system inspected, it does not negate the requirements of Chapter 7080. Those requirements reflect that if a system is documented or proven to be failing, the system is not exempt from the Ordinance regardless of how the property is transferred. Sawatzke asked Stephens if he could estimate the percentage of sales to family members versus gifting. Stephens said he does not have documentation in this regard and felt it would depend on the location of the property. Relative to lakeshore, many properties are being sold through a property transaction between family members. This may not be the case with some of the farmsteads located away from the lakeshore. Sawatzke asked whether most lakeshore properties would fall under the new rules. Stephens said they would not meet the parent to child exemption and the systems would need to be brought into compliance if found to be deficient. Sawatzke did not feel there would be as much concern with a farmstead’s septic, as there is one septic system per many acres versus a lakeshore property which has one system on a much smaller piece of land. Stephens responded that there is probably a more direct impact on surface waters with lakeshore property, but there are instances where farmsteads could have a straight tile line running to the County Ditch, ultimately draining into a water body.
Thelen asked if the exemption for children would apply if a will is involved. Stephens understood that this would be the case. If a property is sold for $1,000 or less and does not meet the CRV requirement, or the property is transferred through a will, it would be eligible for exemption and could transfer without a compliance inspection.
Mattson said a flyover was completed on Lake Francis during the past 1-2 years. He asked if any results were available. Joe Jacobs, SWCD, said he reviewed the data with Kerry Saxton, SWCD. They completed onsite inspections based on the information from the flyover. The SWCD has made the decision not to fund the flyovers as the results are not as clear cut as advertised. Jacobs said he would be hesitant to enforce anything based on the results.
Dave Wagner owns two properties on Cedar Lake. One property is owned with his two sons. Wagner supports eliminating exemptions from the Ordinance. His view is that when a property is owned, it comes with the responsibility of paying the taxes and the mortgage, and obeying ordinances. It is his opinion that a property should not be exempt from anything, whether it is sold or gifted. A family member who receives or inherits a property is receiving something of great value. Along with this value comes the responsibility of not harming the environment. Wagner supports the request made by Dean Flygare.
Joe Jacobs, SWCD, said as a Water Planner for the County, he suggests the County Board look at the exemptions and consider reviewing them further. There are a number of water bodies that are impaired. Changes in watersheds are being reviewed to positively impact the water quality. He viewed revisiting the Point of Sale Ordinance as a good thing and a step toward making it as effective as possible in removing potential pollution sources. Part of the goal is to work with farmers and landowners upstream, as well as the lakeshore landowners, to take the potential pollution source out of the picture.
Stephens extended appreciation for the comments in support of the Ordinance changes, especially those of Dave Wagner as a resident. To his knowledge, Wright County was one of the first to enact a Point of Sale Ordinance. He could not say why specific exemptions were chosen at that time. Many other counties followed suit and adopted ordinances. It has been 16 years since Wright County looked at upgrading the Ordinance. They are receptive to the comments received. Thelen said she previously discussed with Kryzer changes to the Section dealing with exemptions, which references Minn. Statute 287-22, subparts. 2-15. Kryzer suggested to her that if the Section is changed that it reference Minn. Statute 287.22 subparts 4-7 and 10-15. This would cover the issue of wills and the sale or transfer of properties under $1,000. Thelen said she has heard comments today that this Section should be made as comprehensive as possible. She suggested Planning & Zoning staff work with Kryzer to review the recommendations from the CRWD about eliminating most or some of the exemptions. There has also been the suggestion to delay passing the amended Ordinance until after the townships have been given an opportunity to review the proposed changes at their upcoming Board Meetings. Kryzer said it appears that the County Board would like to continue this discussion to a future date. Staff could incorporate some suggested changes for review at that time.
Mattson moved to close the Public Hearing at 10:12 A.M. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0. The regular meeting was reconvened. Mattson made a motion to lay the proposed amendments to the Wright County Point of Sale Septic System Certification Ordinance over to the 7-19-11 County Board Meeting and to accept written comment for 30 days. Russek clarified that the Public Hearing is closed but written comment will be accepted for 30 days. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Sawatzke said that cities and townships will be reviewing the proposed changes to the Ordinance. Staff should inform them of the discussion and action which occurred at today’s Board Meeting for consideration. Kryzer said staff will forward correspondence to the cities and townships on strengthening the exemptions. Mattson said it appears all exemptions could be eliminated. Kryzer responded that would be a policy decision of the Board. Sawatzke asked whether there is the possibility to exempt farmsteads from the Ordinance but not lakeshore property. Last year, a comment was received at a hearing that a person had to sell a portion of their property to pay the inheritance taxes. He said that some farmsteads are people’s livelihoods. Sawatzke was unsure whether there should be a different concern in that situation. He again spoke of one septic system on many acres versus one septic system on a lot next to a lake. He felt there was a difference in the potential problems in each of those cases. Common sense would indicate there should be more concern with the system on the lake lot. At the meeting on 7-19-11, Sawatzke asked that staff provide information on what can be done in these types of situations. Kryzer said the Ordinance could reference transactions made on properties within the shoreland district that are 1000’ from a lake and 300’ from a river. Thelen stated that some non-lakeshore properties are draining into wetlands and these need to be looked at as well. She asked how it is determined when a septic system has failed. Sawatzke said it is hard to determine a failed system as it is below ground. Norman suggested that the Board set a time specific for discussion on 7-19-11. The motion and second include setting the time for 9:30 A.M. The motion carried 5-0.
The meeting recessed at 10:20 A.M. and reconvened at 10:31 A.M. Commissioner Eichelberg was absent for the remainder of the meeting.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, said bids were opened on 6-07-11 for the CSAH 75 Improvement Project (SAP 086-675-013, Contract No. 11-03). The bids included an alternate for the City of Monticello’s request to add a box culvert under CSAH 75 (including associated ponds). Fingalson referenced handout material reflecting the contract bid summary. The low bid is from R.L. Larson Excavating, Inc., $1,991,776.16, including the Alternate, which is 9.74% under estimate. The cost of the alternate was estimated at $337,243.80 but came in at $250,200.50. Fingalson said one of the reasons the bid award was delayed was to allow time for the Monticello City Council to meet on the alternate. The City Council Meeting was held last evening. A report will be provided by City officials later in the meeting. Present from the City today were City Administrator Jeff O’Neill and City Engineer Bruce Westby.
Fingalson provided a summary of the funding situation for the CSAH 75 project. He said at the end of last week, Richard Norman, County Coordinator, questioned figures on the budget compared to the actual bids. Today, Fingalson distributed a handout reflecting budget information. The budget line item for the CSAH 75 Bridge Removal/New Alignment in the 2011 Road/Bridge budget is $960,000. This was based on the concept plan of realigning the road, etc., without the benefit of the detailed design. The final design ended up being a longer length and a higher cost ($1,741,576). Since the 6-07-11 bid opening, a bridge bonding award was received in the amount of $220,802.05 for removal of the deficient Bridge No. 5434. This brings the State Aid regular construction cost down to $1,520,773.61. Budget Attachment C for the 2011 Construction Projects was updated and the new totals applied to an updated Five-Year Cash Flow Summary. The ending balance for the State Aid Regular for 2011 is -$1,611,359. This means the County would need to advance encumber this amount from next year’s allotment to deliver the 2011 program. In November, 2010, the County was authorized to advance $1,860,000 from the County State Aid Construction Fund. This was the projected deficit in November, 2010. What is not identified in Summary A and its corresponding Attachment C are the bituminous improvements to the easterly three miles of CSAH 34, which the County had proposed to complete with State Aid funds this summer. Adding that project results in an ending balance of -$2,477,609, which is $617,609 more than what is currently authorized to advance encumber. The County is eligible to advance this additional amount of $617,609 initiated by a new resolution of the County Board.
Jeff O’Neill, Monticello City Administrator, said at the previous County Board Meeting, no decision was rendered by the County Board as far as a County cooperation or collaboration on the CSAH 75 underpass project. He thinks the County understands the need but there was hesitation in participating based on the mix of funding and the thought that the Xcel contribution and local contribution needs to be substantial, because it will serve a strong local benefit. He said the costs were not really understood at that time and they were relatively high because of some associated grading. Since the last Board Meeting, the City had an opportunity to talk with Xcel Energy again and the City Council has reviewed the scope of the project. The City is looking toward getting the box culvert in place to allow the area to fully develop in the future, limiting the cost to $110,000 for that project itself. The City has been able to obtain commitments for $70,000. O’Neill said the request is for a County contribution of up to $40,000. The benefit to the County will be the ability to maintain traffic speeds at 55 mph on that end of town without having safety improvement requests from the City and constituents. There are over 800 people living in that area. O’Neill highlighted the City’s pathway system and Montissippi Park on a map. O’Neill felt that with the path connection and people wanting to cross CSAH 75, there will be a request in the future for some sort of traffic mitigation. County regulations stipulate that there are no at-grade crossings in areas with speed limits of 45 mph and greater. With the underpass improvements, two areas of circulation would be created including the traffic route along CSAH 75 and the pedestrian traffic. This includes people crossing back and forth to enjoy the River setting and their community. He stated that the precedence that will be set is as follows: When an occasion arises where a bridge is being replaced and there is the potential for an off-grade crossing to be removed, the County will collaborate, and in this case fund up to 36% of the cost, to work with the local entities to reinstate that opportunity for the long-term benefit of the community, when that pathway is on the regional trail system that the County has in place. He hopes they can work together to solve a long-term problem, with Xcel contributing. Xcel is interested in assisting with the connecting trails, but that has not yet been identified. O’Neill said the City would appreciate a County contribution up to $40,000.
Russek asked whether there is a trail on the north side of CSAH 75. O’Neill explained that the underpass would connect to Xcel property. Xcel has indicated that they will provide the easements to connect to the Montissippi Trail (appx. 1/2 mile away). He referenced the 800 people that live in this area that may utilize the trails leading to the City of Monticello and the River. One of the key goals in Monticello is to create access to the River and to the County Park. From the City’s standpoint and from a parks development trail standpoint, the underpass would tie this all together and allow the traffic to flow without any pedestrians crossing CSAH 75.
Thelen said this project sounds good but she did not feel the City has made a compelling argument why the County should contribute. The underpass will serve the residents of Monticello. It was her understanding that it would be atypical for the County to get involved. She referenced O’Neill’s comments relating to the underpass allowing the traffic flow to continue at the same rates on CSAH 75. That argument could be made County wide. O’Neill said he did not want to reference the public safety aspect. However, everyone is concerned with public safety and eventually there will be a demand for some type of traffic control. It is a long stretch from Pinewood Elementary School to this point (for a crossing). He referenced people living on both sides of the road and the attractions in the area. He said the County has some responsibility to design its road systems to create a safe environment. The City and Xcel have stepped up to pay a portion to make that connection. He said the County’s drive is to keep the traffic moving. He said there is an expense that comes with that and that is some level of safety. O’Neill periodically receives complaints from residents on traffic, speeds, and safe crossings in this area. There has been one serious accident in the area in 10 years. Most recently, there has been an increase in truck traffic because of a project. He felt that working with the local entities to maintain a safe crossing would be something the County would be interested in. Sawatzke said the County is interested in this but there are roads like this in every community. Like the City, the County is trying to find ways to balance the budget. Sawatzke felt the trail itself will serve local needs and he was not personally convinced how many people it would serve. He questioned how many people will actually walk that far to the west to cross under the road. The underpass should probably be placed further to the east. However, elevations and the location of the railroad tracks impact where the underpass can be placed. Sawatzke said if there is a trail connection in the future from Clearwater, the underpass location further to the west would be desirable. He was unsure whether that trail will happen. The County Board recently met on the County Trail and Bikeway Plan. One of the discussion points brought forward by the engineer/designer is the cost sharing of trails. The County discussed the economics of trails at that meeting. The County is responsible to fund trails that run between cities. The County has not asked cities to fund trails outside of City limits. Sawatzke said there are established lines of funding responsibility. In the past, the County has taken the position not to fund projects within communities, but they do analyze requests which are different or unique. As Thelen stated, the funding argument is not compelling. Sawatzke resides in the Monticello community and would like to support the project. However, he did not feel that even if he were leading the project that he could get two other Commissioners to vote in support of the funding request. There are situations like this that may occur in other communities as well.
Sawatzke noted the cost of the project is down to $110,000. He asked how much Xcel Energy is contributing. O’Neill responded that Xcel is contributing $20,000 plus easements. The City is contributing $50,000. Sawatzke said this is only a $15,000 cost difference from the original cost estimate by the City of $130,000-$150,000. The City was willing to contribute $75,000 at that point. O’Neill said Sawatzke made some good points. He felt with the underpass improvement, more people will ride bicycles to the west as part of their ride through Montissippi Park. O’Neill extended appreciation to the Board for their consideration. He restated that a long-term problem could be solved with the underpass. The City will continue to seek funding sources if the County is not interested in participating. Sawatzke referenced O’Neill’s positive comments about Montissippi Park. Sawatzke said that the Park is a resource that is provided by the County for the community. He said it would be great to find a safer way to cross CSAH 75 and the County is not shying away from its burden. The consensus of the Board was to decline the request from the City of Monticello for a contribution to the underpass improvements on CSAH 75.
Fingalson said if the County Board proceeds with award of the contract for the CSAH 75 Improvement Project, it will allow the processing of paperwork in an effort to obtain the 95% State funding prior to the pending State shutdown. The project has been on hold to accommodate the City’s underpass improvement design to try to make that part of the project. If the Board approves the contract today and the City comes up with the funding for the box culvert afterwards, that improvement could be added to the contract by supplemental agreement. Fingalson said Virgil Hawkins, Assistant Highway Engineer, spoke with the contractor today. There will be some excess material available on the project so the cost for the underpass project will be approximately $110,000. The project cost will still have to be negotiated. The City has applied for Legacy Grant funding toward the trail system. Sawatzke questioned whether the culvert size could be reduced in an effort to minimize costs. Fingalson stated the box culvert must meet State Aid standards and the project meets minimum standards. Fingalson offered the option to proceed with the award of the contract, with the possibility of adding the culvert through supplemental agreement as a means of compromise, as he supports providing an off-grade crossing. Thelen said this would be at no cost to the County. Fingalson said if the City chooses to move forward, an agreement will be drafted between the City and County outlining project costs and responsibilities. Sawatzke moved to award the contract to R.L. Larson Excavating, Inc. of St. Cloud for the base bid of $1,741,575.66. Fingalson will proceed with obtaining State funding for this project prior to the pending State shutdown. The City can pursue an alternate to the agreement, if desired, within a 3-4 week period at no cost to the County. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Russek asked Fingalson whether the County has the funding to proceed with the CSAH 75 Improvement Project. Fingalson said this is correct. He confirmed the Project is over budget but there is enough funding because of advance encumbering on next year’s allotment ($1.86 million). The motion carried 4-0.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 6-08-11. At today’s County Board Meeting, Bill Swing, Information Technology Director, said three vendors responded to the Request For Quotes (RFQ) for the Doors Access & Badge ID Security System. This project was a partnership between Administration and Information Technology. Swing referenced handout material reflecting the timeline of the project, the RFQ’s, the criteria used for evaluation, and the compiled ratings from the Evaluation Team. The recommendation of the Committee was to authorize pursuing the IFS proposal contingent on verifying references. Swing said a comparable County reference was located in New Jersey. That system actually services three buildings. One of the main concerns of the system purchased by Wright County is that it be mainstream so it can continue to be supported into the future. Swing said his recommendation is to proceed with the two year warranty and then use a time and materials basis for repair thereafter. Mattson moved to approve the minutes and request to proceed with IFS for the Doors Access & Badge ID Security System at a cost of $76,575 with a two-year warranty. After that, repairs will be on a time and materials basis. Funding will be from Budget 100, Site Improvements. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried 4-0. The 6-08-11 Building Committee Minutes follow:
I. DOOR ACCESS & BADGE ID SECURITY SYSTEM PROPOSALS.
Swing distributed a handout “Door & Badge ID Security RFQ; RFQ Response Evaluation Results”, dated 6-08-11. Swing stated that on 11-30-10, the County Board authorized the Administration and I.T. Departments to issue a request for quote (RFQ) for a new or upgraded doors security access and employee ID Badge system. He stated that since the deficiencies of the system were discussed at the 11-17-10 Building Committee Meeting, his purpose today is to walk the Committee through the RFQ process.
Swing stated that the daily users of the card keys would not know that the system is broken. The frustration comes from behind the scenes in the Administration and I.T. Departments. Swing stated that the administration of the entire County campus of four buildings is centrally administered in the Administration Department. The I.T. Department supports the overall functionality of the program. The doors system has been band-aided and stretched beyond its capacity. There are problems in the software and hardware that supports the current system. Nelson cited an example of a controller in the vacated Sheriff’s space that has stopped working. The RFQ includes replacement of all controllers in all buildings except for the new Jail/LEC Building. The new system would directly connect individual controllers to the network.
Hayes stated that a new system would provide flexibility in the creation of access groups for departments, groups within departments, and individuals. Currently the system is not flexible. Adding a single door to a person’s access group affects an entire group. It is difficult to customize an individual’s access.
Hayes explained the importance of the Doors Security system. He stated that if it weren’t for the card key/ID badge accesses, County staff would rely heavily on physical door keys. If one key is lost, the security of the entire building is jeopardized. It is very expensive to replace locks and keys if a key were to be lost or stolen. He stated that using keys creates wear and tear on the locks. In the Jail/LEC, card key/ID badges allow control of access into certain areas of the building. Kelly stated that the Doors system provides reporting capabilities. Reporting capabilities have not been completely accurate or effective. The reports provide back-up on who has been entering/exiting areas within a building. Hayes stated that Administration and I.T. want to update the Door and Badge ID system to bring the County into the future.
Proposals were due on 5-27-11. Swing announced that there were three vendors who provided proposals: ADT Security Services, Integrated Fire & Security (IFS), and Floyd Total Security. Swing stated that there were five scoring criteria used in evaluating the RFQ responses. An evaluation team of four members individually scored the results. Cost was one of the most important factors; followed by service, functionality, ease of deployment, long term viability, and integration into future building security systems. He referred the Committee to the handout (see attached) for scoring results.
The lowest priced bid was ADT at $71,778, with IFS at $76,575, and Floyd at $116,670.98. However, ADT only provides a one year warranty and has an annual maintenance contract that costs $9,733. IFS provides a two year warranty and has an annual maintenance contract of $3,650. Hayes stated that IFS would also charge $330/hour for a weekend call.
Swing disclosed that the County has a working relationship with IFS who has serviced the Door and Badge ID system and fire system. Hayes stated that the service with IFS has not always been up to par, however, they did a reputable job at the Jail/LEC. IFS won the bid for installation of the Door and Badge ID Security system at the new facility.
Eichelberg asked if all three companies have been in business for a long time. Swing stated that a critical component in evaluating the RFQs was whether the operating system each company was proposing had a significant market share. ADT is a large national company. IFS would update the County’s current Keri System. The Evaluation Team met with the regional manager for Keri who claims that Keri has a 20% market share. The regional manager is located out of Chicago. The main office is in California. Nelson stated that Keri Systems seems like it is a large company. However, the regional manager was not forthcoming with its references from organizations comparable in size with the County. She stated that she is not familiar with the ADT system.
Norman stated that it would be nice if members of the Evaluation Team could tour a similar sized campus (i.e. government building or hospital) and talk to the users of the program about the pros and cons of their system. The ultimate proof is in seeing a system in a similar sized organization to demonstrate that the system and vendor can deliver. Norman stated that it would be hard to make a recommendation if the County has not had an opportunity to check references. Norman asked if Swing would be able to obtain and check references by Tuesday’s Board Meeting. Swing stated that it could be possible.
Eichelberg stated that the price difference between ADT and IFS is minimal. However, the maintenance and hourly costs would make up the difference quite quickly, making ADT an expensive vendor over the long term. He stated that he agrees with Norman that the County needs more information. However, he is leaning toward the Keri System (IFS) based on the information that was presented today.
Swing stated that the ease of deployment by upgrading the County’s current Keri System is quite good. There would be an automatic conversion of the County’s existing system. Whereas with ADT, the database would have to be reconstructed and new badges would have to be reissued. Swing stated that there is also some flexibility in switching service providers that support the Keri System once IFS installs the new system. There is no flexibility in service providers with ADT.
Mattson asked what fund this project would be funded from. Norman responded that it would come out of Budget 100, Site Improvements. Hayes stated that the Doors & Badge ID Security system is likened to the County’s infrastructure. It not only serves as a method to get employees in and out of portions of the building, but it also serves as an ID system.
Mattson stated that if Swing were to obtain the necessary information, the County Board could move forward on Tuesday. Swing stated that this project was a good partnership between the Administration and I.T. Departments.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize pursing the IFS proposal contingent on verifying references and funding out of Budget 100, Site Improvements.
(End of 6-08-11 Building Committee Minutes)
Fingalson requested approval of a Cooperative Agreement with Northern States Power for the CSAH 75 Project. An exchange of real estate interests is required for the CSAH 75 Bridge Removal and Reconstruction Project. The specifics are depicted on Highway Right-of-Way Plat No. 66 which was approved by the County Board and has been recorded. Sawatzke moved to approve the Agreement, seconded by Thelen, carried 4-0.
Fingalson requested approval of a resolution required to establish a public at-grade crossing of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe railroad tracks at the new alignment of CSAH 75 in the City of Monticello. The resolution petitions the Commission of Transportation to issue an order approving the establishment of a new grade crossing. Thelen moved to adopt Resolution #11-34, seconded by Mattson, carried 4-0 on a roll call vote (Eichelberg absent).
Fingalson requested approval of a resolution and a Mn/DOT Agreement for the CSAH 40 Bridge Project. This is required to allow appropriation of federal funds through the State of Minnesota for the project. Thelen moved to adopt Resolution #11-35. She inquired whether this project will be shut down if there is a State shut down. Fingalson confirmed operations would be ceased as it is federally funded. The project has not been started due to high water. They were not anticipating starting work until July 5th. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 4-0 on a roll call vote (Eichelberg absent).
On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Thelen, all voted to accept the 2010 Highway Department Annual Report.
Sawatzke moved to add the following items to the 6-20-11 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Agenda: 1) Discuss Status Of CSAH 34 Funding; and 2) CR 119. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 4-0.
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 6-08-11. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 4-0:
I. SHERIFF CITY CONTRACTS, 2012/2013.
The Committee discussed setting the Sheriff City Contract rates for the next two-year period. The rate was $57.50 in 2010 and is $59.00 in 2011 ($1.50/year increase). Sheriff Hagerty proposed contract rates of $59.75/hour in 2012 and $60.50/hour in 2013 ($.75/year increase). Miller stated that $.72/hour will cover the cost of the deputy’s salary (including step increases), vehicles, and gas. This is assuming that there are no large spikes in budgeted line items (overtime, gas costs, etc.). For example, the Sheriff Department gas line item is based on the cost of $3.00/gal. The Sheriff’s Office has experienced a low turnover rate for deputies in recent years; therefore, many of the deputies are at Steps 4 and 5 of the 9-Step Salary Schedule. Unknown costs of the contracts include clerical staff time and costs to the Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Norman said the County Board passed a resolution in the 1970’s relating to contract cities. The resolution reflects that the Sheriff’s Office can provide patrol services to cities providing that the amount billed covers the total cost of providing that service. Cities are supposed to notify the County by August 15th of each year if there is a change in their contract hours so that can be built into the County’s budget for the following year. Recommendation: Sheriff City Contract rates will be set at $59.75 in 2012 and $60.50 in 2013 ($.75/year increase).
(End of 6-08-11 Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
The Board discussed the Performance Measurement Program. The item was laid over from the last meeting to obtain information from Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, on discussions held with other counties on whether they are participating in the Program. Today, Norman explained that he received an email from Hiivala reflecting that he is in favor of Wright County participating in performance measures. While at the MCCC Conference, he spoke with other counties about the Program. Most were going forward but more than a few have concerns about who would read or interpret the surveys. Norman said the following counties are participating in the Program: Winona, St. Louis, Carver, Crow Wing, Washington, Renville and Cass. Morrison County is not participating. Norman said Winona County sent an email reflecting that they contacted the State Auditor about the ability to substitute measures that are not relevant. In their case, the library and parks measures for counties would serve little or no purpose. The State Auditor’s representative confirmed that they would have the flexibility in creating more appropriate measures. Sawatzke asked Norman whether Hiivala voiced any concerns on the Program. Norman said he did not. Norman recommended approving entering into the Performance Measurement Program with the State, authorizing him to send proper notice by the 7-01-11 deadline. Thelen moved to approve that recommendation, seconded by Sawatzke. Thelen said the Program seems like it is about being accountable and transparent in county government. She extended thanks to Norman for bringing this forward. Norman said there are a number of counties heavy into performance measurements on projects and programs they operate. He felt that some day, counties will be mandated to complete performance measurements on programs that receive State funding. Sawatzke questioned how information will be quantified. An example would be the number of snow plow hours in one county versus another. That number could vary dependent on miles of county roads, amount of snow, etc. Thelen said that the Program will most likely be adjusted to make measurements more relevant. Norman said that can be worked on. He felt the Wright County Highway Department came before the Board previously with a snow plow policy quantifying their goals and objectives during a certain snow event. Norman said that information would be used on these performance measurements. Sawatzke said the point is that over time, he hoped they would come up with things that were more valuable for comparison. Norman said the effort is in its infancy and will evolve over time. Mattson questioned whether the County can drop out of the Program. Sawatzke said he assumed this could be reviewed annually. The motion carried 4-0.
Allina Hospital & Clinics. $380.10
AMI Imaging Systems Inc 375.00
Annandale Tactical Training 450.00
APEC Industrial Sales & Serv 2,067.83
Aramark Services Inc. 6,215.44
Berg Bag Company 1,719.39
Bevel, Gardner & Assoc 645.00
Big Time Towing 240.47
Black Moore Bumgardner M 637.50
BNSF Railway Company 16,000.00
Buffalo Hospital-Otpt Comm 612.45
Buffalo/City of 54,906.82
Center Point Energy 121.26
Central McGowan Inc. 123.03
Central MN Concrete Cuttin 450.00
Climate Air 3,609.00
Cokato Motor Sales Inc. 697.55
Community Lawn Care 477.03
Cottens Inc. 2,308.43
Craguns Lodging and Conf 367.96
Crop Production Services II 1,553.61
CST Distribution LLC 1,317.00
Cub Pharmacy 4,659.78
Dell Marketing LP 2,721.18
Dental Care Associates of Bu 758.00
Design Electrical Contract 702.66
Dove/Karen L 162.80
Emergency Physicians Prof 187.50
Fibernet Monticello 719.60
Foxe Fyre Gallery 217.82
Gale-Tec Engineering Inc 1,885.00
Gateway Masters Distrib 414.84
Gilson Company Inc. 226.45
Going Under Dive Center 127.82
Gopher State One Call 237.80
Granite Pest Control Serv 323.40
Greenview Inc. 11,159.44
Hickman’s Service Inc. 404.82
Hilyard Inc. - Minneapolis 381.15
Intereum Inc. 1,094.52
Jerrys Towing & Repair 162.96
LaPlant Demo Inc 458.25
Larson Companies LTD/WD 2,848.45
Lawson Products Iinc. 284.94
Loberg Electric 1,285.00
Marco Inc. 882.73
Martin-McAllisters Consult 400.00
Menards - Buffalo 160.77
Metro Group Inc./The 4,670.49
Mid-America Business Syst 106.77
Midland Corporate Benefits 997.75
Miller Trucking & Landscap 563.23
Mini Biff LLC 523.13
MN Assn. of Assessing Office 100.00
MN Chemical Company 611.21
MN Counties Computer Coop 1,243.43
MN Counties Intergovern 2,184.00
MN Elevator Inc. 13,731.31
MN Office of Enterprise Tec 965.00
MN Resort and Campground 790.00
MN State Bar Association 721.00
MN Supreme Court 1,316.00
Morries Parts & Serv Group 328.92
Neil’s Floor Covering 16,232.36
North Metro Realtors Assoc 114.00
Office Depot 729.12
Omann Brothers Inc. 621.09
ORyans Conoco 150.00
Pearson Bros. Inc. 213,876.68
Reese/Genell K 120.50
Royal Tire Inc 6,584.86
Russell Security Resource 813.61
Security Response Services 149.50
SHI International Corp 122.90
Software House Internat 161.38
Span Publishing Inc 144.00
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc. 1,094.52
Stericycle Inc. 796.68
Telcom Construction 100.00
Tires Plus 329.81
Tractor Supply Credit Plan 136.79
Unlimited Electric Inc. 775.56
West Payment Center 835.80
Westside Equipment 3,653.50
Wright Soil & Water Cons 186.12
Zarnoth Brush Works Inc. 1,239.75
Zee Service Company 284.40
Zumbro Valley Forestry 3,050.00
34 Payments less than $100 1,451.86
Final total $441,630.28
The meeting adjourned at 11:22 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal July 11, 2011.