WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 5, 2013
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Sawatzke, Daleiden, Potter and Borrell present.
Borrell moved to approve the 10-22-13 County Board Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried unanimously.
Daleiden moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0.
The Consent Agenda was reviewed. Daleiden requested removal of Item A4, “Appoint Lee Kelly As County Coordinator, Eff. 11-05-13”. On a motion by Potter, second by Daleiden, all voted to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda:
1. O/T Report, Period Ending 10-11-13.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 10-26-13.
3. Approve Law Enforcement Contract For The City Of Montrose.
5. Refer Special Projects Administrator Position To Personnel Committee.
6. Refer Discussion On Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) To Technology Committee.
1. Approve Abatement, PID #215-012-000040, Lowell & Barbara Johnson (Rockford Twp.).
1. Approve Memo Of Understanding For The Storage And/Or Purchase Of Sand/Salt And/Or Salt For The 2013/2014 Snow/Ice Control Season With The City Of Cokato, City Of Albertville, City Of Waverly, French Lake Township, And Cokato Township.
D. HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacements:
A. Financial Worker, Adult Financial Services Unit.
B. Mental Health Professional/Social Worker III (Therapist).
E. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer Information Technology Space Expansion Plan To Building Committee.
1. Refer Surveyor Department 2014 Fee Schedule Changes To Public Hearing.
Daleiden brought forth discussion on Item A4, “Appoint Lee Kelly As County Coordinator, Eff. 11-05-13”. Daleiden wanted to announce the appointment to the public. Kelly has served as Interim County Coordinator since 6-06-13 and was recently selected to fill the County Coordinator position. The Board extended congratulations to Kelly. Potter moved to appoint Lee Kelly as the County Coordinator, effective 11-05-13. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Joe Jacobs, Wright County SWCD, requested signatures on the FY 2014 & 2015 Natural Resources Block Grant (NRBG) Agreement in the amount of $105,465 (through 6-30-15). The 2013 Legislature appropriated funds for the NRBG to assist with the implementation of Comprehensive Local Water Plans, the Wetland Conservation Act, Shoreland Programs, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems, County Feedlot Permit Programs, and Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems. Daleiden moved to accept the NRBG and to authorize signatures on the Agreement. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
Steve Berg, Emergency Management Director, requested the Board authorize signatures on the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) 2013 Grant Agreement in the amount of $59,374.00. Annually, the 87 Minnesota counties are awarded funds through the EMPG for the purpose of developing and maintaining state and local emergency management programs. Each county must provide a 50 percent hard match and abide by a non-supplanting stipulation. The performance benchmarks that are both specific and measurable must be met by the counties. Berg said this is the maximum EMPG amount that can be received. Wright County won’t necessarily get this amount if the match is not met. The EMPG period runs from 1-01-13 through 12-31-13. Berg said the EMPG funding is distributed in three ways: Base rate (where all counties receive the same amount), population, and real estate value. The Agreement is being sent to Wright County for signatures. Once signed by the State, Wright County will receive an executed copy. Husom moved to authorize signatures on the EMPG Agreement, seconded by Borrell. Borrell asked about matching funds. Berg explained that the Grant will cover expenses such as salary. The documentation includes performance benchmarks. Berg stated there are other things that must be met as well.
Daleiden referenced Item #10, “Participate in the scheduled Winter Hazard Awareness Week and Severe Weather Awareness Week campaigns. Participation in other public education efforts on emergency management is strongly recommended.” He asked if this is something that is done. Berg stated that annually there is a State-wide promotion put on by Emergency Management and Homeland Security. It started yesterday and ends on Friday. It was advertised by radio and newspaper. This has been done for the past four years. A County-wide awareness day will be held in Clearwater on 12-07-13 from 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. This is a public event that involves vendors working with fire safety, recreational patrol, snowmobile clubs, and MnDOT (those dealing with winter awareness and safety).
Daleiden referenced the last page of the handout that reflects the following three bullet points:
•Develop a county-wide all hazard mitigation plan.
•Develop a donations management strategy on how donations will be handled during a major disaster.
•Develop a debris management strategy for implementation after a major disaster.
He asked whether these items have been completed. Berg said the Hazard Mitigation Plan was completed in August, 2009. The other two items have been completed as well. The Mitigation Plan is up for renewal in 2014. Berg will present to the Board a request to update the Plan. As part of this, a risk assessment is completed on things that could happen (weather events, hazardous materials). They work with cities and townships to obtain input on what they would like to see mitigated. The goal is to reduce the effects of the hazard or eliminate it all together. Husom asked whether the Hazard Mitigation Plan fits in with COOP (Continuity of Operations Planning). Berg said there is a relationship but they are separate. The motion carried 5-0 to authorize signatures on the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) 2013 Grant Agreement in the amount of $59,374.00.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested approval of an application for a State grant to fund PRISM (Property Record Information System of Minnesota). The State has made significant changes in the way information is reported to them. In order to meet this new requirement, the tax program vendor will complete some reprogramming. The total cost of reprogramming is unknown at this time. By approving the application, Wright County will be in the pool of the other Minnesota counties to receive funding to help pay for the costs of reprogramming. Borrell moved to approve an application for the State Grant to fund the implementation of PRISM. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried unanimously.
Hiivala presented a listing of suggested assessments to be levied against benefited landowners on the following ditch systems for expenses incurred from October, 2012-October, 2013. Other counties will be billed for their portions of Joint Ditch expenses.
County Ditch #7 (655), $94.85 (SWCD)
County Ditch #10 (658), $100,000.00 (Wenck/Redetermination)
County Ditch #16 (663), $2,305.23 (Repairs/SWCD)
County Ditch #19 (666), $189.69 (SWCD)
County Ditch #22 (669), $470.00 (Rinke Noonan)
County Ditch #24 (671), $794.73 (SWCD/Postage)
County Ditch #28 (674), $27.10 (SWCD)
County Ditch #30 (676), $59.05 (Beaver Dam/Postage)
County Ditch #31 (677), $1,093.28 (Rinke Noonan/SWCD)
County Ditch #38 (681), $9,908.08 (SWCD/Repairs/Redetermination)
County Ditch #41 (684), $338.74 (SWCD)
Joint Ditch #4 (687), $365.50 (Carver Co./Postage)
Joint Ditch #11 (688), $797.40 (McLeod Co./Postage)
Joint Ditch #14 (689), $10,275.66 (Wenck/Improvement/Redetermination)
Joint Ditch #15 (692), $21,664.26 (Clean out/Rinke Noonan/SWCD)
Hiivala asked that the Board set an interest rate on the assessments of 2.33% per MN Statute 103E.611. Hiivala called attention to County Ditch #10 and said that assessments will be limited to $100,000 in 2013. The balance will be assessed to landowners next year. Hiivala asked that the Board approve the assessment listing and then letters will be sent to benefited landowners. Daleiden asked about those ditches with small expenses and the cost associated with sending letters to those landowners. Hiivala said the intent will be to add assessments to property tax statements for assessments under $50. Landowners on a specific ditch may receive a letter on the assessment while others may only have the assessment added to their tax statement. Landowners with assessments over $500 for one parcel will be given the option to spread payment over multiple years. Sawatzke said he does not recall the State setting the interest rate. Hiivala said last year the Board was presented with MN Statute 103E.611 setting the interest rate at 4%. Since the expense is only for a portion of the year, the interest rate for these requests would be at 2.33%. Potter moved to approve the 2014 ditch assessment listing along with the interest rate of 2.33%. The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Discussion followed on the interest rate for property owners that pay over multiple years. Sawatzke asked whether the 4% would be charged. Hiivala said that would make sense per Statute language. However, other counties have charged 2.33% for years. Sawatzke said Hiivala will need to determine the correct interest rate to be charged. The motion carried 5-0.
Hiivala requested approval of a new tobacco license for ECig Logic LLC (City of Monticello). Borrell moved to approve the license, seconded by Daleiden. The motion carried 5-0.
Hiivala said the County previously adopted a resolution that was sent to the DNR classifying tax forfeit property as conservation vs. non-conservation. He has since been notified that in addition to classifying tax forfeit property as conservation vs. non-conservation, the County needs to include assumptions on the conservation land. These assumptions tell the State what the County would do with the property if the State does not take it. There are four codes that can be added to the conservation classification, of which Wright County can only use two of them. The majority of parcels will always qualify under Category 1 (the County will reclassify the parcel as non-conservation and sell it). The other category is 4 (the County will sell the property but only by obtaining special legislative authority to do so). Of the list of nine parcels classified as conservation that were presented to the DNR previously, all but two will include Category 1. The two parcels that have more than 150’ of lake front will be classified as Category 4. The State has reviewed the list but will not provide response until the County adds the assumptions.
Hiivala said Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, drafted a resolution which includes the listing of parcels and the Category assigned. Category 1 parcels will be reclassified as non-conservation and sold. Category 4 parcels will require special legislation to sell.
103-125-002050 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd.2(a) (1)
103-125-002070 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd.2(a) (1)
103-213-000030 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd.2(a) (1)
109-033-000010 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd.2(a) (1)
116-500-044100 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd.2(a) (1)
209-000-352400 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd. 1(a) (4)
209-000-352402 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd. 1(a) (4)
220-000-041101 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd. 1(a) (1)
220-000-041300 classified conservation, 282.01, Subd. 1(a) (1)
Daleiden asked for more detail about the special legislation. Asleson said that Statute requires legislative approval to sell properties with more than 150’ on public waters. If the DNR reviews the list and provides their approval, the parcels may be sold. Special legislative authority requires working with local Legislators to pass a bill in support of the request to sell it. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #13-40, seconded by Borrell, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Borrell moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit, for a total of $1,192,077.77 with 280 vendors and 441 transactions. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, brought forth discussion on a cost sharing request for boundary fencing by a landowner adjacent to Marcus Zumbrunnen Park. Mattice outlined the common boundary on a map. He requested permission to work with the landowner and to complete a boundary survey. The landowners property involves two 80-acre parcels to the south of the Park that are zoned Agricultural. The land is in the Conservation Reserve Program. Once that expires, the land will be used to pasture cattle. There is Statute that allows for this type of request.
Discussion moved to the law relating to boundary fencing. Asleson said the law dates back to the early 1900’s and includes an entire Chapter on Partition Fences. With regard to acreage, he said generally it involves parcels with more than 20 acres. If the parties disagree on the type of fencing, cost, etc., the township board serves as fence viewers. The township board can exempt parcels with less than 20 acres. That part of the Statute also reflects that the DNR is subject to this law, but it does not cite counties and cities. In his past research, Asleson does not see any way to get around this type of request. The fence will be of benefit to the Parks as the County would not want cows on Park land.
Husom asked whether the township will be responsible for half of the cost. Mattice responded that the township is not responsible for cost. If the request to cost share on the fence is denied by the County, then the township will become the mediator. Sawatzke asked about the fencing along the northern side. Mattice thought the landowner would have to work with the property owner on that side. Mattice said the last request of this nature was about four years ago. Typically, a 4-5 string barbed fence is used with an electrical string in the middle. With the last request, the fence was placed on the property line. Mattice does not anticipate the work will be completed this fall. He will negotiate with the landowner on materials and labor. Mattice said he would like to move forward to obtain quotes and work with the landowner. Borrell moved to approve the request. He asked that Mattice keep the Board members updated on what transpires since this is the first time four of the Board members have dealt with this type of request. The motion was seconded by Potter. Sawatzke said that Mattice can bring this issue back to the Board if needed. Funding will be from Budget 100, Site Improvements. The motion carried 5-0.
Bill Swing, Information Technology Director, said that on 9-17-13, the County Board approved the issuance of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the redesign of the Wright County website. The RFP was sent to 29 web developing companies directly and was published in a recognized government RFP site. An evaluation team screened six responses and narrowed the selection process down to three vendors:
Company; Three Year Cost (Upfront & Maint.); Location; Employees/Clients; MN Presence
Civic Plus; $111,369; Kansas; 165/1500; Many counties & cities
Civica; $137,145; California; 16/135; None
CivicLive; $55,000; Ontario, Canada; 55/3000; None
The three vendors presented to the evaluation team and were scored based on specific criteria. The recommendation is to proceed with contract negotiations with CivicPlus in the maintenance and development of the web site contingent upon further successful review of their proposal. Swing said a meeting will be held at 1:00 P.M. on 11-06-13 on proceeding with contract negotiations. Swing said the Employees/Clients ratio is one indicator of strength of the company as it shows how much time and assistance the company can provide to Wright County. Swing said that CivicPlus is well established around the country and is focused solely on government. Several cities and counties are working with CivicPlus on their websites (Anoka, Washington, Crow Wing, and Blue Earth Counties & the Cities of St. Cloud and St. Paul). Swing sees the value of having a vendor with an imprint in Minnesota.
Sawatzke asked about costs beyond the three-year time frame. Swing said the three-year annual cost is $10,824 and the upfront cost is $78,897. The cost will be $10,000-$11,000 each year thereafter. With this vendor, there is the option to freshen up the site in year four. Daleiden said they looked at two Minnesota companies also who work with website design. One was priced at over $300,000 for three years and the other is a smaller company where the concern was experience, size of company, and the potential of being bought out. Part of the process moving forward will be to review the different modules that are available. Swing said they wish to eliminate redundancy of systems. He viewed this as a partnership between Information Technology, the Web Committee, and CivicPlus. Others in the mix are vendors behind core systems for the departments. Daleiden moved to continue with negotiations with CivicPlus, seconded by Husom, carried 5-0. An agreement will be presented at a future date for approval.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, presented a repair request from the City of Delano on County Ditch 34. By Amended Findings and Order dated 7-22-11, the County Board authorized the City to outlet storm water into County Ditch 34. The City is now proceeding with development of an industrial park on the property affected and is requesting to undertake repairs to the Ditch at the City’s expense. Asleson referenced a map reflecting the area involved in Phase I of the industrial development (between Hwy. 12 on the north and east side and the railroad tracks on the south side). The City contacted Hiivala and Saxton once they were close to acquiring the property. The City now owns the property and Asleson understands the area has been annexed into the City.
Asleson said the City is proposing to replace the Ditch system tiles on their property at their expense. Asleson views this request similarly to the requests the County has received from other property owners wanting to complete ditch repair work on their properties. A small portion of the Ditch, just after it crosses under the road, is proposed to be an open ditch as opposed to tile. Asleson contacted Kurt Deter, Rinke Noonan, on whether that would be considered an improvement. He said Deter is increasingly encouraging drainage authorities to classify that type of change as a repair if it does not involve a significant area on a ditch. Asleson referenced the draft Findings and Order, Item #3, which reads in part “…will assist in maintaining the efficiency of the drainage system…” and is taken from Statute. He said that is what Deter suggested in terms of treating this as a repair instead of an improvement. There is a 200’ area where the pipe is very close to the surface, so it would be almost impossible to replace the pipe in that area. It would be easier to maintain in the future if it were an open ditch.
Asleson made the following changes to the draft Order:
Item 1: replace the word “tubes” with “pipes”
Item 4: The sentence will read, “That through the use of storm water ponding and other methods, the City will still need to meet the requirements of the 7/22/11 Amended Findings and Order by reducing the discharge rate from the Subject Property to below pre-settlement levels.
Item 5: That the City has paid the outlet fee required by the July 22, 2011 Amended Findings and Order.
Asleson recognized Jack Russek, Delano City Council, and Vince VanderTop, Delano City Engineer, who were present for discussion. Asleson understands the repairs would be completed next spring at the City’s expense.
Daleiden asked whether the Ditch flows to the Crow River. Asleson said the water crosses under Hwy. 12 and empties into a low area. The Ditch ends in a wetland and the water eventually flows to the Crow River.
Borrell asked whether the City owns the property on the east side of Hwy. 12. Asleson said that is still in private ownership. Borrell asked whether the repairs will impede or change the water flow. Daleiden voiced concern on the effects downstream and asked whether there is an open pipe or a closed pipe all the way to the wetland. Asleson’s understanding is the entire system is tile. He referenced Item #4 of the Order approved on 7-22-11 which reads, “That all existing rights to a drainage outlet are preserved for a property assessed for benefits on County Ditch 34, both upstream and downstream from this industrial development, with those rights to be maintained at least equal to the hydraulic capacity that existed on the date of this Order.” Asleson said the City is required to have the same hydraulic capacity for the Ditch both upstream and downstream.
Asleson said the City has paid the $20,000 outlet fee ordered in 2011. A provision of the 2011 Order is that the money can be spent for repairs or redetermination of the Ditch. He referenced the areas highlighted in yellow on the map and stated that Saxton indicated these were problem areas downstream. Asleson said it may make sense for a portion of that money to be spent for repairs on the Ditch in those areas. That was something the County Board had in mind when the Order was adopted in 2011. Asleson referenced a small area of the Ditch that crosses private property. The City will make repairs to the areas east and west of this portion, so it may make sense to fix the Ditch on that piece of property (appx. 200’) while the contractor is present. Sawatzke asked whether it makes sense to repair that now. Daleiden thought it should be repaired as the piping will be improved from Hwy. 12 all the way to the end of the City’s property.
Sawatzke asked whether there will be less water going into the Ditch than there is now. VanderTop said that would be correct for this property. Sawatzke said the change is that now there will be things of value on this property versus bare land. Even though the water is moving slower, the system has to work. Borrell referenced the tile system between Montrose and Waverly where a mobile home park was built on top of the tile. The costs for repair to that system have dramatically increased because of buildings on top of the system. He asked who will be responsible for the Ditch 34 tile in the distant future when this tile needs replacement. Asleson responded that it is unknown whether this tile will be on the Ditch system in 100 years. Currently, the entire area owned by the City is still on the Ditch 34 system. One of the possibilities would be to remove it from the system but it is a little more difficult when it is located is in the middle of the system. It is a possibility that the City could take this over in the future. As it currently exists, the provisions of the 2011 Order reflect that any repair costs on the system after the $20,000 is spent will be assessed to property owners. The portion that is within the City will be assessed to the City. VanderTop said the City’s benefit went up 3.5%. Sawatzke replied that the other property owners on the Ditch cumulatively went down 3.5%. VanderTop used the map to show what portions are being annexed into the City. The entire property is planned for development but it is being acquired in phases. Sawatzke questioned whether this is on the Agenda today to discuss approval of an open ditch versus a tube. Asleson said the practice has been to present to the County Board requests received from landowners wanting to make repairs to a ditch at their own expense. This specific request relates to allowing the City to complete the repairs at their own expense and 200’ of the Ditch deemed as a repair.
VanderTop provided an overview of the planned improvements. The pipe will be improved in the area where the Ditch is crossed. No improvements will be made upstream. On the other side of the road (200’), the pipe is very shallow and located in a pasture. There are gaps in the tile. Instead of replacing that 200’ with a pipe, he thought it would be most efficient to have a shallow ditch. At the property line, the water would flow back into a pipe. There will also be storm water ponds to hold back the runoff from the development. They will grade in an emergency overflow so that even if the pipe would plug, the water would be able to get through the system. This would build redundancy into the system. VanderTop said he would like to rely on Saxton for his opinion. Borrell said it appears the City will put roads over the tile. He asked what will happen if a repair is needed in the future will the City be responsible for that repair or will it be the responsibility of the entire Ditch. VanderTop said the City previously indicated that they have taken ownership of the maintenance on that property. Repairs will be within a City owned out lot or easement. Improvements elsewhere would be shared equally by all property owners. Borrell asked whether it makes sense to run the tile line so it will not be located under buildings. VanderTop restated repairs will be located on out lots and easements. There will not be buildings, parking lots, or anything over these pipes. They don’t want to change the hydraulics of the Ditch such that they are holding back flow which will impact properties. They want the system to be efficient but they can’t send more water downstream either. He said downstream they will not be doing any improvements and it will remain wetland. They will make sure the pipe under the road is the same capacity, elevation, and diameter. Daleiden asked for the diameter. VanderTop said the different tiles vary from 12” to 21”. Concrete pipes will be used. Some of the City’s storm sewer may be PVC.
Potter made a motion to approve the Findings and Order for County Ditch 34 and to authorize the Board Chair to sign the Order. The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Asleson plans to make the changes to the Order as explained previously. The main change relates to Item #4 referencing the 7-22-11 Order and that the City needs to meet the pre-settlement discharge levels. The motion carried 5-0.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 10-23-13. At today’s County Board Meeting, Husom moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0:
4th Floor Security (Laid Over From 10-09-13).
Swing said he looked at two options for panic buttons for Court Services and the Attorney’s Office.
One option is similar to a solution Brown County implemented. In 2008, when someone dialed 911 from a County facility, the display in Dispatch showed the building, floor and department name from which the call originated. The Sheriff’s Office did not move the panic buttons to the Law Enforcement Center (LEC). The Courts and judges utilized them. Granite Electronics originally installed the panic button system. Swing wants to leverage the existing system to accommodate the request by Court Services and the Attorney’s Office.
Swing said there are boxes sold commercially to connect the panic button to a landline for $489 per line. He said this isn’t feasible, as it is difficult to connect to a 911 call.
Swing said the current panic button system could be extended to the Attorney’s Office, Court Services and Veterans Services departments. The ability to expand the system in the future is an important consideration. Swing said the duress system they are investigating is one the County can expand as needed. He distributed a graphic from Granite Electronics that illustrates how the system would work (see attachment). Currently, when a judge pushes the panic button, it transmits a pre-recorded message over the 800 MHz radio. The objective is to notify the bailiff in the hall of the Courts area. Dispatch at the LEC is not notified.
Dan McCoy, Granite Electronics (Granite), said the current system has the capability of notifying Dispatch, but was initially set up to alert only the bailiff. The system is expandable and flexible. McCoy said an optional monitoring function could be added. In that case, once the panic button is depressed, an email alerts everyone in the department that an incident is occurring. The alarm also notifies a bailiff or designated respondent. McCoy said this function could be integrated into the existing system.
Swing asked MacMillan if he preferred that the alarm notify the bailiff, Dispatch, and employees in the department. MacMillan said he would like the bailiff and Dispatch to be notified. He said typically bailiffs have responded, but they may be busy now that they are relocated to the Courts area. His main concern is to get a response. He deferred the final decision regarding who is notified to the Sheriff’s Office. His primary concern is that he and the Attorney’s Office are assured that the alarm is sent, received, and an immediate response generated. He did not have a preference regarding whether the alarm goes through 911 or the bailiffs.
Hoffman expressed apprehension about using the old panic button system. He said currently bailiffs are on a separate channel. If an incident occurs in Courts, the alarm only sounds on their radios (vs. Dispatch). The Bailiffs are now located in the Courts area. If the bailiffs are the primary response to other areas in the Government Center in addition to the Courts, there may be a false sense of security that they will be able to respond. Hoffman asked whether the bailiffs are responsible to notify Dispatch via another channel. He also wondered who would call the Buffalo Police Department or the Sheriff’s Office. Hoffman asked whether the intent is to have bailiffs respond to after-hours calls. The License Bureau staff would also like panic buttons installed, as they have extended hours on Thursdays. Hoffman said the Board mentioned recently that perhaps the bailiffs should not work late on Thursdays anymore. In that case, if anyone presses the panic button after hours, the bailiffs will not be present to respond.
Hoffman said if the system changed so that the alarm is transmitted via the main channel, it will be very disruptive of day to day Dispatch functions. The main response channel is blocked until the alarm is stopped. Hoffman said if the alarm goes to Wright Hennepin Security (WHS) or another external agency, Dispatch will not be disrupted. McCoy added that the alarm will go to Dispatch via either the monitoring or the integrated dispatch console.
Daleiden said all that is needed is a simple push button to go directly to 911. The goal is an immediate response. Hoffman said currently the alarm goes directly to the radio. MacMillan said he was fine not having the alarm go to the radio. Hoffman said he had no preference regarding whether the alarm goes to 911 or WHS, as long as it is not tied directly to the radio.
Daleiden reiterated that the goal is to press a button, sending an alarm to 911 or WHS and also the bailiffs when there is an incident occurring on the fourth floor.
MacMillan asked the cost of the Granite system illustrated in the handout. McCoy said approximately $30,000. Daleiden said that was too much. MacMillan asked whether the $30,000 included the entire Government Center or just Court Services and the Attorney’s Office. McCoy said it covers everything in the diagram (Court Services, Court Administration and the Attorney’s Office). Hoffmann said if only those three areas get panic buttons, the rest of the County departments will soon request them. There was discussion about the number and location of panic buttons needed in each department.
Potter asked whether a button could be wired to the telephone that goes to 911. Swing said the voice vendor could not accommodate the panic button system. Daleiden asked Swing to have Chad Davis talk with them again.
Daleiden asked if the Granite system would work with the judges’ existing system if used in Veterans Services. Hoffman suggested asking Granite to provide a less expensive proposal utilizing a box with 64 inputs, and then compare that proposal to WHS.
Hayes said Human Services has a wireless system. WHS monitors it all the time. Buffalo Police are notified as well. WHS makes a person available to talk with Dispatch, as Dispatch does not accept recorded answers. Swing will talk with Stearns County about their system. He advocates a consistent system that may be expanded.
Daleiden suggested contacting the phone manufacturer first. Swing said the voice vendor is the first place to go. They are the engineering consultants. The voice vendor could not arrive at an easy solution.
Swing said there are two solutions: utilizing either Granite Electronics or Wright Hennepin Security.
MacMillan suggested getting quotes from Wright Hennepin Security, the Brown County vendor, and a new bid from Granite Electronics. Swing will also talk with CenturyLink one more time. The Building Committee can meet again on 11-13-13 with quotes and the number of panic buttons needed. He would prefer wireless buttons, but would accept hard wired ones if they are more economical. Hayes said the buttons should be discrete, especially for clerical staff.
MacMillan asked whether the bids would encompass the entire Government Center. Daleiden said every department would probably request panic buttons. MacMillan said he did not want the project to get bogged down while waiting for other departments.
McCoy said Granite will provide a platform that can accommodate more than just the needs of the fourth floor. Swing would like to leverage this for the future. He added that Veterans Services can tie into the Courts panic button system. McCoy said a dialer could be added to the box in Veterans Services. Buttons could be added to the bailiffs and a 911 phone call at less cost.
Daleiden turned attention to the second request for bullet resistant glass and fiberglass panels. MacMillan asked to have those items bid separately versus the way it was originally bid by Ernst General Construction, Inc. (see attachment).
Hayes said there are ten levels of bullet resistant materials. He researched the type at the receptionist stations in place at the LEC. Hayes said the current level of bullet resistance is Level 3 enough to stop a 44 magnum bullet. He asked the contractor to get the specifications at the LEC and investigate how to apply them in Court Services and the Attorney’s Office.
Hayes said another request is to upgrade the door. It is currently not bullet resistant. The door is composed of two layers of wood with gypsum in the middle. Hayes said the door is a key element to preventing access by a shooter.
Hayes said the specifications regarding the wall under the reception counter are similar to the LEC, which was accomplished at reasonable cost. Daleiden said he would like to know the individual cost for the glass, the fiberglass panels, and the doors.
Hayes moved to the request for lockers. MacMillan said he would like the standup lockers in the former Jail area. Hayes said that would not be difficult. Daleiden asked Hayes to get a quote for relocating the lockers to Court Services.
1) Obtaining a quote from Wright Hennepin Security, the vendor used by Brown County and Granite Electronics for a panic button system.
2) Ernst General Construction, Inc. to separate the cost to install bullet resistant fiberglass panels across the lower section of the steel framing from the cost to install bullet resistant glass across the upper section of the steel framing in Court Services and the Attorney’s Office.
3) The relocation of lockers from the former Jail lobby to Court Services.
(End of 10-23-13 Building Committee Minutes)
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 10-23-13. At today’s County Board Meeting, Daleiden moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0:
I. POSITION OPENINGS
A. Temporary Employee In Highway.
Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, notified Kelly that the position is no longer needed.
B. Full Time Employee In Veterans Services/Nuclear.
Reese said the Wright County Veterans Services Office has approximately 16,000 veterans on record. In addition, assistance is provided to members of the National Guard and Reserves. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, veterans are receiving letters indicating they should contact their local Veterans Service Office to fill out paperwork so they can use the VA System in either Minneapolis or St. Cloud. Reese said her request is to hire an additional full-time employee to assist the Office.
Recommendation: The Committee does not recommend making any staff additions at this time.
(End of 10-23-13 Personnel Committee Minutes)
Potter moved to schedule a Fees-For-Service Public Hearing on 12-03-13 @ 9:30 A.M. Daleiden seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
Lee Kelly, County Coordinator, said the 2013 MCIT Annual Meeting will be held on 12-09-13 as part of the AMC Conference in Minneapolis. The County needs to name voting delegates. At the Annual meeting, the Delegates will be voting on an amendment to the MCIT Joint Powers Agreement and for three seats on the MCIT Board of Directors. Borrell moved to appoint Lee Kelly as the Delegate and Mike Potter as the Alternate. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0. Kelly referenced the draft of the Joint Powers Agreement. The MCIT website provides a strike through version of the changes which largely relate to the name change of MCIT, removing references to services they no longer provide, and language cleanup. It was the consensus that any suggested language changes should be forwarded to Kelly. Kelly said there are three seats open on the MCIT Board of Directors. Sawatzke said any of the Commissioners could apply for those seats. In response to Sawatzke, Kelly said those interested in serving on this Board do not need to be voting delegates.
Kelly presented for approval the policy followed annually for employees on Christmas Eve. In prior years, when Christmas fell on a day other than Monday, the Board approved the Policy regarding operations. This involved allowing County offices to close to the public at Noon on Christmas Eve. Employees were allowed to take a half day off if desired using vacation, floating holiday, or no pay. Compensatory time or flexible scheduling was not an option that could be used for time off. Employees that did not desire to or were unable to take advantage of the time off remained on their normal work schedule.
Daleiden questioned whether compensatory time should be offered as an option. Considerable discussion followed on past practice of not allowing compensatory time to be used on Christmas Eve. Kelly said he discussed this with Tammy Bigelow, Human Resources Director. He understands employees would like to be able to use compensatory time on Christmas Eve. Sawatzke did not want a scenario where compensatory time is banked specifically for this purpose. He did not want an employee putting in extra hours (before or after normal business hours to bank the time) as the employee is then putting in time when they are not available to serve the public. Daleiden did not want to see that situation either.
Bigelow said the employer should not deny requests for use of compensatory time or vacation unless there is a legitimate reason to do so. Borrell thought that reason would be because some departments are unable to accrue compensatory time, so it would be a matter of fairness. Daleiden did not feel it should matter if compensatory time would be used that day, as those employees can use it any other time. He offered the suggestion of allowing employees to use compensatory time on Christmas Eve if it is accumulated prior to November 1st. That way it would prevent an employee from accruing compensatory time for the purpose of using it on that day. Sawatzke asked Bigelow if there has been a scenario where an employee had compensatory time available but not vacation time for use on Christmas Eve. Bigelow was not aware of that situation. She understands that some employees have planned to use their compensatory time on Christmas Eve and found out later they could not. Those employees were pressed to use the compensatory time on a different date prior to the end of the year so as not to lose it. Non-exempt employees can receive a payout for compensatory time but exempt employees cannot. Exempt employees earn compensatory time on a 1:1 basis. She said compensatory time should be approved by an employee’s supervisor or department ahead of time.
Husom and Daleiden think employees should be able to use compensatory time on that day. Daleiden said with regard to use of compensatory time on Christmas Eve only, if the County were to require that employees accrue the compensatory time by November 1st there should not be an issue. Bigelow restated that the employer should not deny use of compensatory time unless there is a legitimate business reason. Daleiden asked if the County can even state that. Bigelow said she would not advise the County to do this (set a date by which to accrue the compensatory time). Husom agreed. She said if an employee has the option to take compensatory time as opposed to overtime that would be their choice. Bigelow said a supervisor can require that an employer be paid out overtime in lieu of compensatory time.
Sawatzke asked Frank Madden, Labor Law Attorney, whether he agreed with Bigelow that the County cannot deny the use of compensatory time in this particular situation. Madden stated that the standard under FLSA is that unless there is an undue hardship, compensatory time should be provided as requested if compensatory time is allowed at all. The County would have to create some rationale, such as was suggested of not allowing use on that day. Sawatzke asked Madden if he agreed with Bigelow’s recommendation that the Policy prohibit flex time and not compensatory time. Madden said he thought employees should be able to use compensatory time. Sawatzke said he does not want a scenario where employees earn compensatory time for the purpose of using it on Christmas Eve. He said supervisors should understand that it cannot be created for this purpose as it is a detriment to taxpayers. Daleiden said if this type of scenario plays out, they will have an issue with the supervisor. It was the consensus the Policy should reflect that flexible scheduling is not an option for Christmas Eve. Daleiden moved to approve the Christmas Eve Policy as amended. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0.
Allina Health EMS $190.00
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 20,080.46
American Prob. & Parole Assoc. 300.00
Ameripride Services 236.72
AMI Imaging Systems Inc 950.00
Anesthesia Assoc. of St Cloud 346.62
Annandale Rock Products 784.26
Anoka County Corrections 8,153.00
Anoka County Sheriff 24,714.30
Applied Industrial Technologies 293.85
Aramark Services Inc 14,156.33
Association of MN Counties 1,356.93
Bob Barker Company Inc 3,863.68
Bolton & Menk Inc 2,165.00
Bond Trust Services Corp. 450.00
Bonk Masonry Inc/Gary 1,350.00
Boyer Truck Parts 2,025.56
BP Amoco 2,652.36
Brock White Co LLC 929.20
Buffalo Hospital-OTPT Comm. 925.93
Buffalo/City of 4,995.40
Burdas Towing 323.83
Carefree Lawn 340.00
Cenex Fleetcard 490.53
Center Point Energy 417.26
Centra Sota Coop. - Buffalo 53,462.13
Centracare Clinic 186.59
Centracare Health Monticello 824.90
Central MN Emerg. Physicians 214.36
Clearwater Township 1,019.20
Climate Air 2,235.54
Cokato/City of 1,000.00
Comm. of Transportation 4,348.24
Constellation Justice Sys. 1,470.00
Corinna Township 1,002.60
Cub Foods 305.22
Delano Rental Inc 112.70
Dental Care Assoc. of Buffalo 245.00
Diamond Mowers Inc 1,025.15
Diamond Surface Inc 18,852.87
Dkore Welding 125.00
Edocument Resources 9,215.00
Election Sys. & Software Inc 2,356.59
Elk River Municipal Utilities 150.00
Erickson Builders & Co. Inc 5,190.50
Ernst General Construction Inc 857.00
Exceptional Outdoor Services 523.43
Expert Automotive & Towing Inc 144.28
Federated Co-ops Inc 320.41
Franklin Township 2,083.30
Glunz Constr. Septic Serv. LLC 130.00
Grand View Lodge 404.00
Granite Electronics 232.49
Hancock Concrete Prod. LLC 2,115.68
Hanover/City of 1,122.60
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 2,665.93
Holiday Inn - St Cloud 129.84
ID America 181.10
Image Builders 130.09
Integrated Fire & Security 1,213.19
Junction Towing & Auto Repair 135.73
Karels Towing 180.61
King Com Cable Networking 2,797.00
Knife River 90,008.21
Lake Region Coop Oil-ML 234.05
Laplant Demo Inc 902.07
M & M Express Sales and Serv. 203.85
Maple Lake Township 970.40
Maple Lake/City of 996.20
Marco Inc 6,467.18
Marysville Township 1,015.45
Mathiowetz Construction 371,249.79
Menards - Buffalo 472.33
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc 13,669.31
Middleville Township 584.40
Midwest Protection Agency Inc 6,834.20
Milana P Tolins LLC 100.00
MN Assn of County Surveyors 100.00
MN Monitoring Inc 8,665.50
MN Native Landscapes 200.00
MN Onsite Wastewater Assn 340.00
MN Safety Council 558.80
MN Sheriffs Association 280.00
Monticello/City of 4,283.00
Montrose/City of 1,267.60
Morphotrust USA Inc 447.17
Morries Parts & Service Group 303.72
National 4-H Council 337.40
Nelson & Associates/Neil 4,500.00
North American Salt Co 32,404.13
NE Wisconsin Technical College 525.00
Northern Green Expo 521.00
Office Depot 2,945.40
Olson & Sons Electric 660.56
Pavement Resources Inc 3,206.25
Performance Kennels Inc 110.30
Plastocon Inc 476.37
Pope Douglas Solid Waste 596.70
Potter/Michael J 434.50
Powerplan OIB 343.40
Reese/Genell K 165.00
Regional Diagnostic Radiology 212.32
Rockford Township 2,758.90
Rockford/City of 2,569.90
Royal Tire Inc 4,753.43
Russell Security Resource Inc 191.25
Ryan Chevrolet 1,662.97
Safety Signs 215,680.03
SHI International Corp 232.63
Silver Creek Township 1,939.00
South Haven/City of 323.00
Southside Township 1,306.30
St Cloud Hospital 192.40
St Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc 264.70
St Michael/City of 10,424.50
Steve O Septic 300.00
Symbius Medical LLC 125.82
Thompson/Janet A 400.00
Total Printing 1,087.99
Traffic Marking Service Inc 126,215.36
Transcend United Technologies 941.64
United Parcel Service 123.19
Univ. of Minn./CCE Registration 190.00
Vance Brothers Inc 1,506.94
Verizon Wireless 335.99
Voss Lighting 1,041.39
Walmart Store 01-1577 940.87
Walter Stephens Jr Inc 506.12
West Sherburne Tribune 132.00
Westside Wholesale Tire 699.60
Winter Equipment Co Inc 2,604.07
Woodland Township 529.00
Wright County Highway Dept 7,848.23
Wright County Surveyor 280.70
Wright Hennepin Electric 1,491.38
Xcel Energy 1,665.25
Zacks Inc 698.59
Ziegler Inc 158.17
33 Payments less than $100 1,714.14
Final total $1,192,077.77
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 25, 2013.