WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
JULY 10, 2012
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Eichelberg, Thelen, Russek and Mattson present.
Eichelberg moved to approve the 7-03-12 County Board Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Russek abstained from the vote as he was not present at the 7-03-12 County Board meeting. The motion carried 4-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Aud./Treas. Item #1, “County Ditch 38 Update” (Mattson). Russek moved to approve the Agenda with the addition. Eichelberg seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
On a motion by Eichelberg, seconded by Russek, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: T. Praska, Assessor; D. Pace, Bldg. Maint.; W. Locke, G. Sorensen, Sher./Corr.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 6-23-12.
3. County Auction Report.
1. Approve Abatement, PID #113-700-003430, Ervin And Judy Catherine Maas (City of Rockford).
1. Approve Tobacco License Renewal For “Olson’s Truck Stop” (Silver Creek Twp.).
2. Approve Annual 3.2 Malt Liquor License Renewal For “Osowski’s Flea Market” (Monticello Twp.).
Mattson provided an update regarding County Ditch 38. He said he had good news. A few weeks ago he contacted the railroad company to try to expedite matters regarding the drainage issue. He met with a representative at the site on Monday, 7-09-12. The representative said the tile system in the ditch was misaligned when they laid the tile underneath the railroad tracks. Mattson hopes documentation from the railroad company will confirm this and commit to installing a new 30 inch line four feet under the County’s line, extend it to the main ditch and resolve the situation. The railroad company did another push through at no charge, which unfortunately did not accomplish alleviating the water issue because the ditch was misaligned. Mattson did not discuss the cost with the railroad company representative. He said the railroad company appears to be taking steps to alleviate the ditch problem and drain the water on both sides of Highway 12. The representative agreed with Mattson about the major problems the misalignment caused. Mattson said the representative was very thorough in his investigation.
Thelen asked whether Kerry Saxton, Wright County Soil And Water Conservation District, still needed to pull a string through the ditch. Hiivala said Saxton had done so, which allowed a rope to be pulled through the manhole to the outlet. However, Hiivala said that does not address this problem. Hiivala said the County still needs to explore getting the water to the location of the repair work. Mattson said the line will be just west of the Montrose/Waverly line by the fence on the west side of the mobile home park, north of Highway 12. Mattson said the fence may not be an official dividing line, but it is close. Russek said he spoke with Saxton yesterday, who also believes the railroad company will give the County a new line under the tracks.
The claims listing was discussed. Russek commented that the first claim to the Association Of Minnesota Counties lists “Russell” attending with Eichelberg. He asked that the name be corrected to say “Russek.” Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said he will see that the correction is made. Russek moved to approve the claims listing, subject to audit. Mattson seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
Greg Kramber, County Assessor, presented the 2012 State Board of Appeal and Equalization documentation stating there were no changes. Kramber said this is the tenth consecutive year with no State orders. He commended his staff and local assessors and the efforts they made to do fair and equitable assessments. Kramber said he has focused on using training and education to improve County assessment practices through technology and other resources. The County has experienced tremendous growth in the last ten years. Wright County was one of the fastest growing counties in the United States, and third or fourth in the State for years. Kramber said they have worked through difficult legislative sessions and drastic changes in the economy, especially with foreclosures. The value of real estate has changed significantly during the last ten years. Kramber said the Department’s ability to retain a “no change” status reflects very favorably on his staff, and he wanted to thank them publicly and convey his appreciation for their efforts. Kramber also thanked the County Board, Administration, Recorder, Surveyor, Information Technology, Auditor/Treasurer and all Departments that helped the Assessor Department achieve this excellent track record. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve as County Assessor.
Sawatzke commented that the “no change” track record was impressive. He asked how many counties have achieved similar results. Kramber said many have, but there are still quite a few who have not. He is very involved with the Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers (MAAO), and said that organization stresses member education. Kramber said he feels blessed to have a ten year track record with no changes. Thelen commented that Kramber deserved credit as well. Eichelberg thanked Kramber and his staff. Russek congratulated Kramber on a job well done.
O’Malley presented a request to refer an open Office Technician II position in Corrections to the Personnel Committee. He said in 2007 their budget was changed. At that time, Corrections had two half time positions entitled Holdover Attendants. When the budget changed, one of the half time positions was increased to full time; however, it was never filled. Corrections would like to fill that position now that the Classification Study has rewritten the job description as Office Technician II. O’Malley asked the Board to refer the request to the Personnel Committee to discuss filling this position. Eichelberg moved to refer the item to the Personnel Committee. Russek questioned whether the Board should refer this request to the Personnel Committee when the 2013 Budget will be discussed in the near future. He asked if this was a replacement position, and expressed mixed feelings about approving this request. O’Malley responded that the position is budgeted and not a replacement. He continued that at last year’s budget negotiations there was an understanding that once the Classification Study was done, the matter of filling this position would be addressed.
Sawatzke asked Norman his recollection of this issue. Norman replied that he had not been informed regarding this request. He said in 2009 several positions that were budgeted were held open. This budget request precedes that time frame. Norman said he checked the budget yesterday, and did not see the position listed. He added that the second page of each Department budget shows a listing of personnel. He did not see any vacancy in Corrections. He advised further research into the matter. Norman said positions in other Departments were also held open in the last few years. Other Department Heads should have a chance to plead their cases. He did not think it appropriate to set one Department’s request as a priority over the others. O’Malley said they discussed this position with the Board during the last budget session. One of the issues was a potential change in the job description and classification of the position as Holdover Attendant or Office Technician. Corrections felt the position should be reclassified as a clerical position. He stated Corrections agreed to wait until the Classification Study was completed. Now that it is done, they would like to fill the position of Office Technician II.
Sawatzke expressed agreement with Russek. He moved to amend the motion to refer the matter to the Budget Committee Of The Whole (COTW) meeting in August. That would give Norman time to review the budget. The COTW will then be able to determine whether there is sufficient funding for the position. Eichelberg accepted the amendment. Thelen said Norman will be able to give the status of last year’s budget at that time. The motion carried 5-0. Sawatzke asked Norman to provide the Board with a copy of minutes from the Budget COTW meeting in 2011 that addressed this issue.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, requested approval of the Wright County/Township Agreement For The Town Road Signing Project Phase 2. Wright County was one of two counties in the State to be awarded a grant to replace all Township signs. Phase 1 is nearly completed, and they are almost ready to implement Phase 2. According to the Phase 1 consultant yesterday, there are five Townships left to inventory. Fingalson said all plan sheets are submitted to the townships. Estimated completion is targeted for next week. He said it takes a great deal of work to put the plans together. Phase 1 involved the contract between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the consultant hired to do sign inventory and plan development for each Township in the County. Phase 2 will involve a contract between the County and a contractor who will be hired to furnish and install all the signs according to Phase 1 specifications.
Fingalson said he will present the Wright County/Township Agreement For The Town Road Signing Project Phase 2 Agreement (Agreement) at the Township Quarterly Meeting on 7-11-12. He spoke with Kyle Hartnett, Attorney, Minnesota Association of Townships. Hartnett told Fingalson the Association approved the Agreement. He directed the attention of the Board to Page 1, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement under Article 1 Purpose. Fingalson said all 18 Townships signed a commitment to participate in this Project in 2010.
Fingalson read the Agreement. There will be individual Agreements between each Township and the County. Once all the Township Agreements have been returned, they will be brought to the County Board for final approval.
Fingalson suggested the wording under Article 1 Purpose, Paragraph 2, Line 5, the wording in parentheses be changed to read: (“Hereafter referred to as Signs”).
Another revision Fingalson suggested was to change the wording under Article 1 Purpose, Paragraph 2, line 8 from “simple sign” to “sign.”
Referring to “Article 2 Roles and Responsibilities” beginning at the bottom of Page 1, Fingalson said Townships should be able to accomplish Phase 2 (the removal, replacement and installation of the signs) for approximately 20 percent of the total cost. The County will be reimbursed by MnDOT, who will in turn be reimbursed by the Federal government. Fingalson said that is the benefit of this Project. Even though both Federal and State funds were available for Phase 1, more than $1 million is available for Phase 2.
During Phase 1, many Townships were adamant that all signs be replaced even those considered “nonessential.” Subsequent information provided to the Townships stressed the installation and maintenance costs for signs. The more signs on the roads, the higher the cost to the Townships. The Agreement states that the Federal government will incur “up to eighty percent (80%)” of the cost of Phase 2 work. He said that could mean they ultimately pay only 78 or 79 percent, for example. The final determination of the Federal government contribution will not be known until the sign inventory is done.
Sawatzke asked whether every Township will get the same percentage of the contribution. Theoretically, Sawatzke continued, if one Township wants a nonessential sign, that could affect the amount other Townships pay. Fingalson agreed. He referred to Item D (1) b on Page 2. He suggested changing the sentence in that item to read: “An estimated twenty percent (20 %) of any additional general administrative and overhead costs paid by the County to the Contractor pursuant to the Phase 2 work, divided by a number equal to the number of signs.” Fingalson said dividing the cost by the number of signs is a more equitable way to determine the amount each Township will pay versus by the number of organized towns.
Agreement Items D(1)a and b under Article 2 Roles and Responsibilities, reads:
The Township’s cost share of Phase 2 shall be an amount equal to:
a. An estimated twenty percent (20%) of the actual payments made by the County to the Contractor pursuant to the Phase 2 work to the extent such payments relate to the removal, replacement, and installation of Signs within the Township, plus
b. An estimated twenty percent (20%) of any additional general administrative and overhead costs paid by the County to the Contractor pursuant to the Phase 2 work, divided by a number equal to the number of organized towns within the County.
Sawatzke asked Fingalson the total cost to be divided between the Townships. Fingalson said $200,000. Sawatzke said that is an average of $10,000 to $12,000 per Township. Fingalson said yes. Sawatzke said it is preferable to make this decision prior to knowing how many signs each Township will have. Fingalson said both the County Board and the Townships have to be comfortable with the Agreement. Sawatzke said relating the charge per Township to the number of signs reflects actual costs. Thelen asked for confirmation that the cost per Township would be $12,000. Fingalson said it might range from $8,000 to $12,000 per Township. Thelen asked whether this information was given to the Townships before they were informed of the 20 percent administrative cost figure. She added that the Townships are aware the Federal government would pay up to 80 percent of the sign replacement. She wondered whether they knew about the extra $8,000 to $12,000 they will be charged for administrative costs. Fingalson said the Townships were aware of this. He wants the Townships and the County Board to be comfortable with this Agreement with no surprises. One Township is resisting the process because of changes in Federal laws, but that does not change the need to replace signs. Fingalson said this is an opportunity for all Townships to get new signs and posts that meet crashworthy tests at 20 percent of the cost.
Sawatzke asked Fingalson to clarify that Item D(1)a under Article 2, Roles and Responsibilities refers to the cost of signs and labor to replace the signs, and to specify the services rendered in Item D(1)b. Fingalson said the County is entering into a contract to furnish and install all signs recommended in Phase 1. Phase 2 is the installation phase. Item D(1)a includes the removal, replacement and installation of new signs. D(1)b covers the mobilization cost and general overhead administrative costs. Sawatzke asked Fingalson to explain to whom the term mobilization refers. Fingalson said that refers to the company doing the work. He explained that every project bid has an item called mobilization. It encompasses an overhead cost to bring equipment to a site. The term in this case refers to the mobilization of the company hired to furnish and install the signs. Sawatzke said in the future this will be bid as one large Project. Fingalson said yes, and it will cover all 18 Townships. By that time, the Townships will have received the list of recommended signs. Once installed, the Townships will be responsible to maintain them.
Eichelberg clarified that the wording in Item D(1)b should be changed to “signs” versus “organized towns” as discussed previously. Thelen said the mobilization and administrative costs are high. She added that the cost of signs for Maple Lake Township under D(1)a is $14,400. An average of $12,000 in additional administrative and mobilization costs seems high. She said the total cost for signs for Maple Lake Township is approximately $78,000. The Township would pay $14,000 or $15,000 for their 20 percent. Adding $12,000 under D(1)b makes the Township’s cost at about $27,000. Fingalson stated the $78,000 figure is for Phase 1. Thelen replied that their estimated cost for signs that need to be replaced is $14,400 or 20 percent. She said the additional $12,000 for administrative costs is fairly substantial. She was not sure Maple Lake Township officials were aware of the administrative cost. Thelen added that overall, however, the Townships are paying much less for signs under this Project due to the assistance from the Federal government. Sawatzke asked the total cost of the mobilization. Fingalson said the total cost of the program is $1.1 million for both Phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 is almost completed. He said the 20 percent cost for each Township is about $10,000 to $12,000. Some Townships will pay as low as $9,000. The County has already received the bill from MnDOT for $38,000 for Phase 1. Fingalson said the County paid that invoice and billed the Townships for their individual portions. All have paid except one Township.
Fingalson said furnishing and installing signs in Phase 2 costs more. The 20 percent portion incurred by the Townships will be an estimated $10,000 to $12,000. Sawatzke asked Fingalson to clarify whether that included both Items D(1)a and D(1)b. Fingalson said the cost included both. He reiterated that mobilization is part of the cost of the Project. Sawatzke commented that he thought Fingalson suggested Item D(1)b would cost Townships an average of $10,000. Fingalson said he did not mean to convey that impression.
Fingalson explained that Items D(1)a and b are all part of the costs to the County. D(1)b refers to the mobilization and overhead costs. Sawatzke asked again for Fingalson to clarify that Items D(1)a and b will cost the Townships about $11,000. Thelen said that in the case of Maple Lake Township, the $14,000 figure stated previously includes Items D(1)a and b. Fingalson said that was correct. Thelen suggested revising Item D(1)b to read: “Included in D(1)a is an estimated 20 percent (20%).” Fingalson thought that was already in the Agreement. Thelen said the current Agreement verbiage implies there are two 20 percent figures. Sawatzke said together they add up to the 20 percent figure the Townships will pay.
Fingalson read Item D(2) on the bottom of Page 2 that states:
“In addition to the Township’s cost share of Phase 2, the County may invoice the Township for and the Township will pay within 45 days of receiving such invoice, general administration, supervision, maintenance, and other overhead or incidental expenses that are not eligible for federal participation. Said costs will be based on a time and material basis and must receive prior authorization from the Township.”
Eichelberg asked how much each Township paid back to the County. Fingalson said they paid an average of $2,000 or a total of $38,000. Eichelberg said the remainder of those dollars of approximately $10,000 to $12,000 will be paid after Phase 2 is completed. Fingalson said they estimate the 20 percent figure to be about $10,000 to $12,000 per Township.
Fingalson read Item D, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement:
“The County will invoice the Township for the Township’s cost share of monies paid by the County pursuant to the Phase 2 work. The Township shall make payment to the County within 45 days of receiving an invoice from the County. If the Township does not have the funds to pay the County within 45 days, the County shall offer a two percent (2%) per annum rate loan to the Township until which time they pay back the funds.”
Fingalson referred back to Item D (2) on Page 2 that states the County may invoice a Township for the expenses listed previously. His understanding is that the County Board would not want to receive any compensation for time the Highway Department spends on this Project. Fingalson said the Department will donate that time to the Project.
Fingalson read Item E (1) on Page 3 of the Agreement:
“The Township will cooperate with the County and the Contractor with regard to Phase 2. Such cooperation will include, but not be limited to:
1. Making personnel available to the County and the Contractor.”
Fingalson said the original Agreement stated the Township will make personnel available to the contractor. Once the bids are opened, the Department will have one large preconstruction conference and invite all the Townships and contractors. Fingalson said the conference would be held either this fall or in 2013. The selected contractor will draft a schedule with a timeline stating when they will be working in each Township. Bill Cordell, Senior Engineering Technician, will meet at smaller pre-construction conferences with each Township. Fingalson said the Department does not have the luxury of utilizing Cordell or other staff to inspect signs in every Township. Cordell will meet with each Township prior to the commencement of the Project and review their obligations. Each Township will need a maintenance person to oversee this Phase of the Project. The Highway Department will review their progress at the end of each day. Fingalson said this Project will involve a great deal of work. Every two weeks the contractor will submit a list of work completed to date. The Department will submit a partial payment claim to the State and eventually get Federal reimbursement. This arrangement will maintain a cash flow for the Project. The County will bill the Townships for 20 percent of their portion of each invoice. Fingalson said the Townships need to be involved because ultimately they are responsible to make sure the signs are installed properly.
Fingalson read Item E (2) on Page 3 of the Agreement:
“2. Conducting an annual inspection of all signs and subsequently providing a certified report to the County in a form satisfactory to MnDOT.”
Fingalson explained that the Townships will get a listing of their sign inventory. Each sign will be checked off as it is inspected. At the end of each year, the Townships will submit a statement to the County Highway Engineer verifying the signs have been inspected and are consistent with established standards. If signs are vandalized, the Townships must replace them. Fingalson said it is possible that a Federal audit may take place in five years. If a Township doesn’t maintain their signs, the County will be required to reimburse the Federal government and then invoice the Township.
Fingalson referred to Item E (3) on Page 3 of the Agreement regarding Township responsibilities:
“If a future federal audit reveals that maintenance of the Township signs is deficient and does not meet the required standards, the federal government may request and be entitled to proper and appropriate reimbursement, as determined by the extent of the deficiency. In this instance, any financial responsibility identified by the Federal government and charged to the County (the financial agent for the Project) will be assigned to the Township responsible for the charges resulting from its own sign maintenance deficiency.”
Fingalson said if a Township has a penalty or a reimbursement, the County would have to pay it but then collect from the Township. Mattson asked if an attorney would be present at the Minnesota Association of Townships meeting on 7-11-12. He was concerned that all Township representatives understand the Agreement language. Fingalson said the Township Association attorney generated the original Agreement. The Department has modified and simplified it.
Fingalson read Item F, Items 1 - 11 on Page 3 of the Agreement regarding the County’s responsibilities that encompass “administrative and construction services at no cost to the Townships.” Fingalson wanted to clarify that this clause conforms to the Board’s wishes that the Highway Department perform these functions at no charge to the Townships. Fingalson distributed a three page document to the Board that outlines the County requirements as part of a Federal Delegated Contract Process. Fingalson said it is his understanding that the Board expects the Highway Department to provide the services stated in Item F to the Townships at no charge. He said the County benefits by getting new street signs at intersections of County roads.
Mattson asked whether the County or the Township is responsible for damage or vandalism to chevron signs that were placed around curves on several roads. Fingalson responded that it would be the Township’s responsibility to repair those signs.
Fingalson said if the Board agrees with Items E and F, then Item 2 on Page 2 may be eliminated. Sawatzke said the County went into this Project without charging the Townships. They are County tax payers as well. Thelen said she did not want to add another cost for the Townships.
Fingalson summarized Pages 4 and 5 of the Agreement, which discuss Liability, Breach Of Contract And Remedy. He said both the Township Association attorney and the County Attorney approved the Agreement. Fingalson also discussed details regarding Termination of Agreement outlined on Page 6. If a Township terminates their Agreement, all the Townships could be responsible to reimburse any Federal money received for Phases 1 and 2. Fingalson said this would jeopardize the entire Project, as all 18 Townships must participate. He hopes the one Township that is balking decides to go through with the Project. He does not think they will back out. Thelen asked Fingalson to clarify this point with the Townships. Fingalson replied he has signed statements from all 18 Townships acknowledging their commitment to this project. A Township wishing to terminate would have an uphill legal battle in his opinion. Thelen asked whether State representatives will attend the 7-11-12 Minnesota Township Association meeting. Fingalson said he believed so.
Fingalson summarized the Agreement changes discussed previously:
• Under Article 1 Purpose Paragraph 2, Line 5, the wording in parentheses should be changed to read: “(Hereafter referred to as Signs”);
• Eliminate the word “simple” under Article I, Paragraph 2, Line 8 before the term “sign inventory;”
• Change the verbiage under Item D (1) b, Lines 3 and 4 to read: “divided by a number equal to the number of signs.”
• Eliminate Item 2 on Page 2.
Fingalson said Highway Department staff will make the changes to the Agreement. Russek moved to approve the Agreement with changes, seconded by Eichelberg. Thelen asked if the Board should hear from the Townships before approving the Agreement, since they will be paying for it. Fingalson said the Association of Townships attorney created the Agreement. If the Townships point out a minor detail, the Board may change it. Fingalson said he is suggesting that the Board sign the Agreement only after the Townships sign. He explained that he will discuss the Agreement at the Association meeting tomorrow night and send it to them. Once all the Townships sign the Agreement, the Highway Engineer will request County Board approval at a regular County Board meeting. Sawatzke said they were making a motion to present this Agreement to the Townships. The motion carried 5-0.
Fingalson then turned to his request to approve the Agency Agreement with MnDOT and Resolution # 37 for the TH 55 Corridor Coalition. He summarized the history of this request. In 2001 the Coalition hired a consultant to manage the activities of the Coalition, send out meeting requests and keep the website up to date. Fingalson explained that Wright and Hennepin County employees do not have time to perform those activities. The consultant contract terminated 6-08-12. Eighty percent (80 %) of the cost for TH 55 issues are paid by Federal funds with the money earmarked for the TH 55 Corridor Coalition. The Coalition needs to select another consultant. Wright County is the lead agency and tracks the financial aspects for this Project. Fingalson said the Board must decide whether to accept the Federal funds. Twenty percent (20 %) of the Project is paid for by the dues collected by the Coalition. He said there is enough money to pay this for the next three years. The Agreement accompanying the Resolution allows MnDOT to act as an Agent for the County and to accept the Federal funds for this Project. The County may then proceed with selection of a consultant, hopefully in the next few weeks. He said this is a standard agreement regarding preliminary engineering for all Federal projects.
Eichelberg moved to approve the Agency Agreement With MnDOT and Resolution # 12-37 For The TH 55 Corridor Coalition. Russek seconded, and the motion passed 5-0 on a roll call vote.
RESOLUTION FOR THE TH 55 CORRIDOR COALITION
BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as Agent of WRIGHT County to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board Chair and the County Coordinator are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the County to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in “Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 01371”, a copy of which said agreement was before the County Board and which is made a part hereof by reference.
(End of Resolution #12-37)
Russek asked the date of the next Coalition meeting. Fingalson said that has yet to be determined, although it may be 8-03-12. He will advise the Board of the date.
Fingalson said the work currently being done on the TH 55 Corridor is only reclaiming and preserving the existing surface, as well as adding turn lanes for safety. He said MnDOT representatives said even if money is available in the future for a fourth lane, the new turn lanes will be retained.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 A.M.
All Wheels Recovery 128.25
American Tower Corp 11,183.59
Aramark Services 6,301.98
Bauman/Lawrence R 436.50
Beaudry Propane Inc 524.76
Buffalo/City of 439.36
Center Point Energy 774.90
Climate Air 1,660.78
Collins Brothers Towing 235.13
Custom Towing LLC 133.59
Dental Care Assoc. of Buff. PA 254.00
Gilson Company Inc 326.00
Glunz Construction LLC 125.00
Granite Electronics 175.26
Greenview Inc 16,013.51
Helena Chemical Company 256.50
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 1,198.64
Interstate Battery Systems 296.95
Junction Towing & Auto Repair 142.14
Kaplan Professional Schools 850.00
Lacount Sales LLC 356.79
Lawson Products Inc 654.99
Maple Lake Messenger Inc 204.00
Maple Lake/City of 957.60
Matt Legal Services 200.00
Menards - Buffalo 185.88
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc 82,026.42
Milana P Tolins LLC 100.00
MN Board of Assessors 105.00
MN Dept. of Labor & Industry 867.20
MN Monitoring Inc 9,132.75
Moore & Moore Advantage 252.49
Mumford Sanitation 129.87
Office Depot 396.81
Persian Business Equipment 401.05
PMI Computer Supplies 525.00
Procise Solutions 140.00
Richards/Thomas W 300.00
Sand Creek Group Ltd 730.00
Sherwin Williams 291.06
Sirchie Finger Print Lab. 317.15
Synergy Graphics 14,496.88
T & M Towing and Snow Plow 390.10
Trophies Plus LLC 267.19
University Of MN 120.00
Veolia ES Solid Waste MW 333.09
Waste Management-TC West 3,376.75
Westside Wholesale Tire 253.79
Wright County Highway Dept 428.76
36 Payments less than $100 1,616,78
Final total $185,781.59
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Aug. 13, 2012.