Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 9, 2013
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Sawatzke, Daleiden, Potter and Borrell present.
Daleiden moved to approve the 4-02-13 Wright County Board minutes as presented. Husom seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to amend the Agenda as follows: Items For Consideration #1, “Discuss County Transportation Funding Policy/Consideration of Holding Transportation Committee Of The Whole” (Potter). Potter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Daleiden. The motion carried 5-0.
On a motion by Potter, seconded by Daleiden, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 5-0.
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Performance Appraisals: C. Webb, Hwy; R. Thompson, P&Z; J. Adams, D. Geisen, J. Scheierl, C. Strand, Sher.
2. Approve/Authorize Signatures On A Memorandum Of Agreement With I.U.O.E., Local No. 49, To Allow Donation Of Vacation Time To An Employee.
3. Approve/Authorize Signatures On A Memorandum Of Agreement With International Union Of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, Allowing For Four 10-Hour Days In A Work Week, Third Monday In April To The Third Friday In September, 2013 & 2014.
4. Correct 03-19-13 County Board Minutes To Include List Of Consent Agenda Items.
5. Correct 03-26-13 County Board Minutes To Include List Of Consent Agenda Items.
6. O/T Report, Period Ending 03-30-13.
B. ASSESSOR
1. Approve Abatement, PID# 215-100-184200, Ruth Vail. (Rockford Township)
2. Approve Abatement, PID# 213-100-063300, Michael & Linda Bregenzer. (Monticello Twp)
3. Approve Abatement, PID# 155-500-042101 & 155-500-041201, Wright County. (City of Monticello)
C. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. Approve 2013 Tobacco License For Napa Valley Liquors. (Otsego City)
D. HIGHWAY
1. Bid Openings Scheduled At The Highway Department, Friday, April 12, 2013.
Robert Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said his first item is a request for the Board to approve the contract with Houston Engineering to draft a Technical Memorandum on County Ditch 38. Hiivala spoke with Kerry Saxton, Wright County Soil And Water Conservation District (SWCD), about the proposed Technical Memorandum. Hiivala hoped the Board would table the need to have this contract done. Borrell explained that there are uncertainties regarding how to proceed with County Ditch 38. The main issue pertains to the culvert or tile that crosses under the railroad tracks. Borrell said it is important to determine whether the tile system is viable or has collapsed. Once they verify the situation, the subsequent steps will become clear. Borrell said he spoke with Saxton just prior to the meeting about gaining camera access via a manhole. The equipment they would use to access the system has a 500 foot capacity. Otherwise, Borrell said they would need to get into the system with a backhoe and dig up the tile. He recommended that the Board table the discussion until the condition of the system is ascertained. Daleiden moved to table the contract with Houston Engineering for drafting a Technical Memorandum on County Ditch 38, seconded by Husom.
Hiivala added that Saxton was going to survey the land by County Ditch 38. There are existing tiles just north of the swamp. Surveying will determine whether they can utilize pumping to get into the tiles on the north side of the tracks. Hiivala said he would like a motion to authorize Saxton to do site surveys. The SWCD has already spent 150 hours on the County Ditch system. Sawatzke said the current motion on the table was to table the contract with Houston Engineering. The motion carried 5-0.
Borrell moved to authorize Saxton the time needed to examine the tile that goes under the railroad tracks in County Ditch 38 to determine the viability of the tile system. Husom seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
A claims listing was discussed. Daleiden moved to approve the claims, subject to audit, in the amount of $326,909.67, with 131 vendors and 173 transactions. Potter seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
Daleiden proposed an Employee Suggestion Contest to motivate employees to offer ideas on improving procedures and cost saving measures. First prize is a $250 Visa gift card for the individual with the best cost saving idea. Second prize is a $200 Visa gift card for the individual with the most innovative, realistic idea. First prize for the Department with the best cost saving idea will be lunch cooked or catered by one of the Commissioners (depending on the size of the Department). Daleiden said no money from the County budget is being used for this Contest. Department Heads and Commissioners may not participate. He said the County Board believes that employees are the County’s best asset. This Contest will provide a way for County employees to share more efficient ways to do their work. The ideas will assist the Board when working on budgets, capital improvements, or complying with the Minnesota Accountable Government Innovation and Collaboration Act (MAGIC), should State legislators pass the measure. He and Husom are coordinating the effort. Employees may email their ideas to either Husom or Daleiden. Anonymous suggestions are also welcome. Daleiden moved to approve the Employee Suggestion Contest, seconded by Husom. Borrell liked the Idea Contest, saying some employees are already making suggestions. The contest may also motivate those employees who might otherwise feel too shy to participate. Sawatzke asked Daleiden if they will announce a deadline to submit suggestions. Daleiden said it will be a one-month Contest. The motion carried 5-0.
Borrell said the Land Use Planning Workshop he attended last week in Mankato was informative. He said the two attorneys who conducted the workshop were very competent. Many new commissioners from around the State attended. Sawatzke commented that the Land Use Planning Workshops offer something of interest to all commissioners. Potter moved, seconded by Borrell to authorize County Board members to attend the Land Use Planning Workshop of their choice. The motion carried 5-0.
Fred Bengston, Area Wildlife Manager, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), requested adoption of a Resolution to acquire 45.3 acres in St. Michael as an addition to the Pelican Lake State Wildlife Management Area (Pelican Lake WMA). Bengston said the DNR has been working aggressively on Pelican Lake. His purpose was to discuss an additional parcel adjacent to land already owned by the State, and to seek Board approval for the purchase. The building site was excluded in the transaction. The DNR is purchasing about 22 acres in upland and the balance in restorable wetland that drains into the Lake. They are required to obtain County Board approval on all State wildlife management areas (WMA) where they use State funding.
Borrell asked if the land goes off the tax roll when the DNR purchases land. Sawatzke replied that the land goes off the tax roll, but the State will make Payments In Lieu Of Taxes (PILT). Bengston said the State compensates the County with PILT. The formula is based on the appraised value the DNR pays to the landowner. It is reappraised every five years. Bengston explained that 75 percent of one percent of the land value is made in direct payment to the County.
Potter commented that he toured this property with Bengston and has talked with representatives from the City of St. Michael (City). The City is on board with the purchase. City officials are more concerned that the Project design is sensitive to the environment. Potter said they view the Lake as an asset. There is a County Ditch 21 issue that coincides with this purchase. Potter said the Pelican Lake WMA meshes well with the City’s plan for this area. Borrell asked Potter if he has heard any negatives from City officials. Potter said he has not. Husom asked Bengston to clarify that there are about 400 acres in the Pelican Lake Enhancement Project (Project). Bengston said the figure is closer to 900 acres. He referred to a color map showing existing and proposed additions to the Project. The DNR has a larger parcel on the northwest side of the Lake, and is adding a parcel to the existing section on the south east part of the Lake. The DNR has partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) on land purchases for the last ten years. The USF&WS purchases Waterfowl Production Areas with revenue from Federal Duck Stamp dollars. The primary objective of the USF&WS is waterfowl habitat management. Bengston said the DNR goal for the Project includes waterfowl, pheasants, deer and nongame species. He said they have an excellent working relationship with the USF&WS. The DNR has worked with them on tracts from willing sellers. If a tract becomes available and is closer and makes more sense to the USF&WS, they will work on it, and vice versa.
Borrell asked if the DNR is planning to restore the wetland. Bengston said that is their hope. Borrell asked whether the Project will affect neighboring properties. Bengston said the DNR will survey the land very closely. They hope to at least partially restore the wetland. However, they will not restore the wetland if it impacts neighboring properties. Borrell asked if the neighboring property owners are aware of DNR plans for the Project. Bengston said the negotiations are confidential, but the DNR is planning to meet with them. He said neighboring owners often want a wetland restored, but sometimes they do not. Bengston emphasized that the DNR does not put water on a property that does not belong to the State.
Sawatzke asked whether the wetlands had ever been drained with tile. Bengston said they were drained by a shallow ditch that was dug in the past. The DNR has not explored the private land to the west. There may be some tile lines in there, but from the photos it appears to be a shallow dug ditch.
Husom asked for clarification that the parcel in question is currently a home site. Bengston said the sellers of the land the DNR would like to buy own the home site located to the northeast of the parcel. The site is visible on the color aerial map previously referenced. Sawatzke asked whether the owners plan to continue living on the property. Bengston said they were as far as he knows.
Daleiden asked why the DNR was interested in this site compared to the parcel to the west that is on the Lake. Bengston said they only work with willing sellers who contact the DNR or whom the DNR contacts. They have not received an indication of interest from the owners of the western lakeshore parcel. If they did, Bengston said the DNR would certainly be interested. They are hoping someday that acquisition will come to fruition. The process has been to acquire parcels piece by piece around Pelican Lake. The plan is to secure as much of the shoreline and buffer away from the shoreline as possible. The tract under consideration meets that objective.
Husom asked how the Project would affect fishing. Bengston said the overriding goal on Pelican Lake is to improve the water quality on the Lake. That is their most important objective. Pelican Lake is also a nationally recognized waterfowl migration lake and a designated wildlife lake. Bengston said controversy surrounds the DNR objective on water management. The Lake is now three feet higher than the ordinary high water mark established in the 1980s. Husom asked whether the Lake keeps growing. Bengston said the high point was in 2006 when many County roads flooded. There is no natural outlet to the Lake. There is an eight inch tile line that will drain the Lake when it reaches a somewhat higher level than it is now. The tile line is currently functioning due to spring runoff. However, Bengston said it is a small outlet that is not capable of managing the Lake. Once the Lake level drops about six inches, the tile line will not effectively manage the Lake. Over the long term, the DNR wants to manage the Lake down to the ordinary high water mark. At a later time, when and if they get a winter fish kill (the Lake has a history of winter fish kill), the DNR will do a management draw down. The draw down is contingent on the DNR putting water control structures in place. Currently the Legislature is considering funding that was recommended from the Legacy Fund for that Project. He said they should know in a month or two whether the DNR will receive the funding.
Bengston said the DNR is working downstream on various parts of the Project. Currently they are working in St. Michael on Regal Creek doing stream bank stabilization where the water flows into the Crow River. The work was done this past fall and winter directly downstream from the Crow River on another erosion area. They are working on it in different stages. The DNR is excited about the progress made to date. It has been a long Project. Bengston said the majority of land owners around the Lake support the work being done by the DNR.
Potter said City of St. Michael officials asked him to convey their concerns about the extension of Jamison Avenue Northeast where it intersects south of County Road 35. Potter said that section is an important link for the City as there are sewer lines in the area. The City asked that the DNR be aware of the crucial nature of this intersection as they work near Regal Creek. The City would like to avoid any adverse impact on St. Michael in the future. Bengston said he has spoken with Steve Bot, St. Michael City Administrator, and Mark Weigle, St. Michael City Planner, regarding this issue. He said they are all aware of it. Bengston said the working relationship between the City of St. Michael and the DNR is good. They have built a strong partnership. He assured Potter that the DNR has no issue trying to prevent any important uses planned by the City.
Husom asked Bengston to explain the overall goal of the Project. Bengston said they want to acquire as much of the shoreline as possible to buffer nutrients coming into the Lake. Part of the problem is that Pelican Lake has a relatively small watershed with a fair amount of drainage into the Lake, but no drainage out of the Lake. His goal is three pronged: 1) Acquisition around the Lake; 2) Restoring habitat: Prairie, woodlands, and wetlands; and 3) Working on water control and with private land owners in the near future. Bengston said the goal is to acquire as much shore land around Pelican Lake as possible. The DNR has been told by constituents, hunters and fisherman that the Project is important. The primary goal of the Project is to improve the water quality on Pelican Lake, which improves wildlife habitat and fishing potential. Pelican Lake is one of 49 designated wildlife lakes. The priority of the DNR is to focus on wildlife habitat improvement on the Lake. Bengston said that doesn’t mean the DNR will ignore fishing, but the priority is wildlife habitat improvement.
Borrell asked if the DNR sells wetland credits earned from wetland that is restored by them. Bengston said the DNR policy is not to use wetland credits in their WMAs. The DNR encourages wetland restoration outside of protected areas. They use other funding sources to restore wetlands. When wetland banking first started, the DNR participated. However, the feeling was that the DNR should be doing wetland banks on land that is not State owned or protected.
Borrell asked whether the County could have too many wetlands at some point. Bengston said Borrell was talking to the wrong person. In his opinion, the County needs responsible management of natural resources. Bengston deferred the question to a higher political authority. At the field level, Bengston said he does everything he can to promote wetlands. The DNR does not want to restrict private property use, but the law says wetlands are important and need protection and conservation. He argued that humans are better off in general with strong natural resources. If people value water quality, they must contemplate the quality of the environment they wish future generations to inherit. Bengston considers this paramount. Wetlands filter water and improve water quality.
Husom asked if the DNR was considering expansion of any other WMAs in the County. Bengston said Pelican Lake is the focal point for new wildlife area acquisition in Wright County. There are other WMAs scattered across the County. If a parcel became available with many good attributes for natural resources, they would consider it. However, the DNR does not have unlimited money, so they try to prioritize by adding onto existing wildlife areas, such as shallow lakes with no public land around them. Smith Lake by Cokato is one example, although it has lake access. The DNR is also working on Malardi Lake just northeast of Montrose. Bengston said a WMA surrounds 95 percent of Malardi Lake. Pelican Lake is really the focal point for DNR wildlife in Wright County. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #13-08 To Acquire 45.3 Acres in St. Michael As Addition To The Pelican Lake State Wildlife Management Area, seconded by Potter and carried 4-1 with Husom casting the Nay vote.
RESOLUTION
Review of Proposed State Wildlife Land Acquisition
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 97A.145 Subd. 2, the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources on April 9, 2013, provided the County Board with a description of lands to be acquired by the State of Minnesota for water and wildlife conservation purposes.
Land to be acquired are described as follows:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 120 North, Range 24 West, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the centerline of a Township road known as Hamlin Avenue NE.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 120 North, Range 24 West, Wright County, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 07minutes 30 seconds West along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 630.5 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 08 degrees 14 minutes West 470 feet; thence South 75 degrees 38 minutes East 595 feet to the centerline of a Township road known as Hamlin Avenue NE; thence northerly along said centerline to the intersection with said north line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence westerly along said north line to the point of beginning.
AND
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 120 North, Range 24 West, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 600.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 699.12 feet; thence northeasterly along a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a central angle of 25 degrees 51 minutes 49 seconds, radius of 757 .68 feet, a chord that bears North 46 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East, a distance of 342.02 feet; thence North 33 degrees 16 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 85.81 feet; thence northerly along a tangential curve concave to the west having a central angle of 27 degrees 55 minutes 48 seconds, a radius of 853.63 feet, a distance of 416.12 feet; thence North 05 degrees 21 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 50.11 feet to the north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds West along said North line a distance of 1132.30 feet to the northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 719.25 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 120 North, Range 24 West, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North on an assumed bearing along the quarter line a distance 241.00 feet; thence North 62 degrees 54 minutes East along Township road a distance of 747.00 feet to the point of beginning of tract to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along said Town road on the following described courses: North 53 degrees 36 minutes East 208.72 feet; thence North 37 degrees 36 minutes East 208.72 feet; thence South 32 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 283.55 feet to the northwesterly edge of open ditch; thence South 09 degrees 06 minutes 38 seconds East along said ditch a distance of 42.31 feet; thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes West a distance of 453.00 feet to the point of beginning.
IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Wright County on April 9, 2013, that the State’s proposed acquisition of the above described property be (approved) (disapproved).
If applicable, reason for disapproval:

(End of Resolution #13-08)
Tom McGregor, Albion Township, requested a public meeting regarding the Bertram Chain of Lakes Project (Project) to provide full financial disclosure regarding land acquisition, development and ongoing maintenance of the Project. McGregor said the $20 million Project is in its eighth year with two or three years remaining before completion. McGregor said considering the scope of the Project, very little financial information has been made available to the public. McGregor said the only information available to the public was a funding spreadsheet provided by Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, at the County Board meeting a few weeks ago. McGregor said the spreadsheet by Mattice was just a summary and made it difficult to understand the nature of the Project. He said it also did not address the cost to develop or maintain the Park on an ongoing basis.
McGregor distributed a spreadsheet he created to the Board entitled “Bertram Lakes Information Matrix.” The information he seeks is broken down by major phases of the life cycle of the Project: Part I) Land Acquisition; Part 2) Development Cost; and Part 3) Ongoing Maintenance.
McGregor requested that the County provide the following information:
1) A listing of all parcels involved in all phases of the Project, including future phases, as well as the status of funding, ownership of each parcel, the dates of purchase, and the Wright County Budget Account number used for local grant matches;
2) A listing of Park features already developed or slated for future development, including the estimated cost, the entity responsible for funding, and funding sources. McGregor requested Wright County Budget Account numbers for items owned by the County; and
3) A list of anticipated costs associated with ongoing maintenance of the Park, including equipment, personnel, and supplies.
McGregor explained that Part 1 seeks information down to the Parcel Identification number. He is asking for the total acres involved, market and appraised values of the parcels, the sale prices and funding sources, as well as who will own the parcels once they are purchased.
McGregor said the third request arose over time as he questioned the Project status. He said some people say the Project is almost complete, and others say it is 50 percent complete or less. He asked for clarification regarding the exact nature of the relationship between the County and the City of Monticello as it pertains to this Project. McGregor said the eight-year, $20 million Project has $11 million in funding remaining, and involves $1.2 million in County funding. He summarized by saying he feels an evening public meeting is required with detailed financial information provided to the public a week in advance. McGregor said that will give taxpayers time to digest the status, scope and cost of the Project.
Husom asked whether McGregor had any specific dates in mind for the public meeting. McGregor did not, saying any time in the next few months would be sufficient. Daleiden said the Parks Commission meeting is held in the evening, and could be moved to the County Board Room to accommodate the public. Daleiden suggested the public meeting be held during the 5-13-13 Parks Commission meeting to avoid the expense of an additional meeting.
Borrell asked Daleiden if that would be enough time to gather the data to respond to McGregor’s questions. Daleiden said he thought it would. Sawatzke asked whether the entire Board needed to attend. He felt the presence of the Parks Commission members would be adequate. They could conduct their regular meeting, provide the requested information and offer an opportunity for public input. Sawatzke asked McGregor to clarify whether his goal was to obtain the requested information or have the entire County Board present. McGregor responded that gathering the information was his primary goal.
Sawatzke said Mattice very likely knows the answers to most of McGregor’s questions. He disagreed with McGregor’s statement that the County did not convey adequate information about the Project. However, he conceded that perhaps the information was not presented as efficiently as McGregor suggested. Nevertheless, Sawatzke said the data McGregor seeks has been presented over time in various documents, although not in one spreadsheet. Some of McGregor’s questions ask about unknown events in the future. The County has an overriding Concept Plan. Sawatzke opined that some of those concepts could take decades to implement. McGregor said reasonable planning must have occurred and should be shared with the public along with estimated costs. Sawatzke said Mattice has presented his future vision for Bertram Chain Of Lakes Regional Park to the Board. This vision included potential revenues and expenses, which are projected to balance. Some of the capital costs can also be covered through grants, such as Legacy funding. He agrees with Daleiden that a Parks Commission meeting would be the ideal forum for a public meeting. Daleiden asked whether the meeting would have to be posted. Sawatzke responded that County Commissioners who are not on the Parks Commission may be present, but should sit in the audience and not participate in the discussion.
Borrell said he has previously requested a clear delineation of Project responsibilities between the County and the City of Monticello. He said the City has contributed a lot. At some point, however, the City may want the County to buy the last section, as the majority of the Project will be a County Park, although the parcel lies in close proximity to Monticello. Borrell would like specific designations regarding what responsibilities the City of Monticello controls and which belong to the County.
Sawatzke asked Mattice if he would be able to provide answers to the questions McGregor posed by the 5-13-13 Parks Commission meeting. Mattice said most of the information has been presented. He could probably get the information together in one day. He hoped the data in McGregor’s spreadsheet does not become public, as the numbers are not accurate. He stressed that the numbers presented are scenarios. They do not correctly reflect development costs. The acquisition costs appear to be close, but market and appraised values are not the same. Some of the figures presented are moving targets. Mattice said he will be able to respond to McGregor’s questions with no problem.
Sawatzke asked Mattice how much money has been spent on the Project, aside from the acquisition costs. Mattice said minus staff time, they have not hired any additional people. In 2012, the Parks Department spent $5,000 for seasonal staff to work on trail construction, parking lot and access improvements for the Project. Sawatzke said that would equate to a grand total of $10,000 outside of the acquisition costs. Mattice said since they began working on the Project in the last three years, the County has spent $7,500. Mattice added that every year he has held a public hearing to comply with grant application requirements. The public hearings have included twenty-year projections of ongoing costs and maintenance.
Sawatzke asked Mattice to confirm that he will be able to accomplish a regular Parks Commission meeting on 5-13-13, as well as address questions raised by McGregor. Mattice said he would have the information McGregor seeks. Sawatzke asked whether the information would be made available to the public one week in advance. Mattice asked whether posting the information on the County Parks web page sufficed. Daleiden said it would. Mattice said the 5-13-13 Parks Commission meeting falls on a Monday, and will start at 6:00 P.M. There will be a few guests presenting first that evening. The Bertram Chain Of Lakes Project questions will be addressed at approximately 6:30 P.M.
Sawatzke asked that staff prepare a document in a spreadsheet format similar to the one presented by McGregor. He said Mattice will touch on the three areas in question: Land Acquisition, Development Cost and Ongoing Maintenance, and offer opportunities for public input. The meeting will be held in the County Board Room at the Government Center. Sawatzke reiterated that County Commissioners not on the Parks Commission may be present, but should sit in the audience and not participate in the discussion. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said the meeting is already an open meeting. Sawatzke agreed, as long as three Commissioners do not debate an issue.
Mattice will prepare a matrix with the Parks Commission Agenda so members will be apprised. Potter moved to include a public hearing on the Agenda of the 5-13-13 Parks Commission meeting in the County Board Room to provide financial information for Land Acquisition, Development and Ongoing Maintenance of the Bertram Chain Of Lakes Regional Park Project. Husom seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, requested approval of Agreement No. 13-51 for Beebe Lake Trail Project (SP 086-090-004) with the Cities of Hanover and St. Michael. It is a collaborative effort with the Cities of Hanover and St. Michael, and the County Parks and Highway Departments. Resolution #10-06 supports this Project. Hawkins said funding is now in place that outlines the responsibilities for maintenance and construction. Because the County is a Sponsoring Agency, the County receives $657,000 of Federal dollars. This money will be forwarded to the City of Hanover for construction of this Trail Project. The Beebe Lake Trail Project will be constructed within the right-of-way of CSAH 34, from CSAH 19 in Hanover to the Beebe Lake County Park. Potter moved to approve Agreement No. 13-51 for the Beebe Lake Trail Project with the Cities of Hanover and St. Michael. Daleiden seconded, and the motion carried 5-0.
Potter discussed the County Transportation Funding Policy, and requested scheduling a Transportation Committee Of The Whole meeting. Daleiden and he have spoken with city administrators around the County. They consistently heard requests for the County to update the Transportation Funding Policy, which dates back to 1991. Potter told them he cannot guarantee changes will be made, but he wished to incorporate their input in time for the budget setting process.
Hawkins agreed that the Transportation Funding Policy sorely needs to be updated. For example, Hawkins said there was no discussion of right-of-ways for roundabouts in 1991. About six or eight years ago, the County met with several city administrators, but talks stalled and no progress was made. Hawkins said in addition to updating the Transportation Funding Policy, he would also like the mailbox and sign maintenance policies to be updated. He suggested discussing whether the County Website should be designated as the official County newspaper. Hawkins believes that would be more efficient than utilizing the Herald Journal newspaper, given the delay in publication. He would like to discuss these updates and schedule a road tour to show the Board current and future projects.
Hawkins will suggest a date and present a proposed Agenda for the Transportation Committee Of The Whole meeting at the 4-16-13 County Board meeting.
Potter asked if the Board would discuss the Transportation Funding Policy at this meeting and cover the remaining issues at the Transportation Committee Of The Whole. Sawatzke suggested the Board review the current verbiage in the Transportation Funding Policy prior to making a decision about changes or updates. He is not sure he agrees with the likely proposal that the County should take on more financial responsibility. Sawatzke said six or eight years ago staff compared County transportation funding with other counties. They found the County spent about the same as other counties on transportation. If the County takes on more transportation funding, fewer projects will get done, or the County will have to raise property taxes.
Daleiden said the purpose of revisiting the Transportation Funding Policy is not to change it but to check for needed updates. Sawatzke had no problem with that intent. He said it would be important for the Board to know what is contained in the Policy. Hawkins said the Transportation Committee Of The Whole will meet in early May. It will be a good time to update the Policy. He will get copies of Transportation Policies from other counties as they did in the past. He reviewed the Carver County Transportation Funding Policy recently. They specify projects for cities, and have five year and other development plans. Sawatzke said he would be interested in seeing the Carver County policy. Potter wants the Board to be informed regarding the contents of the Policy.
Bills Approved
Ag Neovo Technology Corp $143.00
Allina Health System 233.05
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 20,038.92
American Tower Corp. 11,575.01
Anoka Co. Corrections 15,870.00
Aramark Services Inc 6,562.86
Bachman Printing 337.13
Beaudry Propane Inc 1,943.63
Buffalo/City of 748.36
Burdas Towing 203.83
Cameron/Tim 150.00
Cartegraph Systems Inc 3,433.29
CDW Government Inc 117.86
Centra Sota Coop - Buffalo 457.39
Central McGowan Inc 206.91
CenturyLink 177.41
Cottens Inc 4,014.01
Donahue Sports Center Corp 9,128.36
Duraco Inc 935.94
Emergency Auto. Tech Inc 847.70
Fleetpride 372.30
Glunz Constr. Septic Serv. LLC 130.00
Granite Electronics 578.85
Harper Brooms 460.09
Highway 55 Trailer Sales 3,000.00
Highway Technologies Inc 286.43
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 132.66
Holiday 19,949.44
Howard/Jolanta 200.00
Impact Proven Solutions 6,891.46
Interstate Battery Systems 261.46
John Nagengast Doors LLC 1,435.00
Karels Towing 106.88
Lawson Products Inc 264.61
MN County Attorneys Assoc. 170.00
MN Monitoring Inc 7,916.00
MN State Bar Association 155.00
MN Technology Training LLC 2,700.00
North American Salt Co 30,260.95
O’Ryans Conoco Marathon 150.00
Office Depot 2,451.45
Open Text Inc 1,394.31
Powerplan OIB 376.62
Precision Prints of Wright Co 173.14
RDO Equipment Co 103,272.49
Regents of the Univ. of MN 32,181.57
Rice/Nicole L 300.00
Rigid Hitch Incorporated 107.38
Royal Tire Inc 1,323.42
Russell Security Resource 1,005.62
Shaded Image 140.00
SHI International Corp 18,789.70
Tennant Sales and Service Co 358.57
Total Printing 267.19
Waste Management-TC West 387.99
Wenck Associates Inc 6,096.03
Whitmore Sales 1,700.00
Windstream 114.76
Woodford/Michael 162.50
Wright Co. Auditor Treasurer 2,100.00
Wright County Journal Press 128.66
Yahoo 116.60
31 Payments less than $100 1,415.88
Final Total $326,909.67
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal April 29, 2013.


Return to Wright County Menu | Return to Government Table of Contents

Herald Journal
Stories | Columns | Obituaries | Classifieds
Guides | Sitemap | Dassel-Cokato Home | Delano Home | HJ Home