WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
MAY 6, 2014
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 AM with Husom, Sawatzke, Daleiden, Potter and Borrell present.
The following changes were made to the 4-29-14 County Board minutes: Page 7, last paragraph, 1st line should read, “Potter understands Wright County shares committee assignments with Sherburne and Stearns Counties but he said timing has always been a concern” (Potter). Daleiden moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0.
Items petitioned onto the Agenda are as follows: Item For Consid. #4, “Discuss Transit” (Daleiden). Potter moved to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Daleiden.
The Consent Agenda was discussed. Potter requested that Item A1A, “Position Replacement, Building Maintenance Supervisor” be removed for discussion. Daleiden moved to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Borrell, carried 5-0:
B. HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacement:
A. Office Tech II, Adult Services Unit.
C. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Position Replacement:
A. Information Technology Director.
B. Network Analyst.
1. Position Replacement:
A. Campground Manager, Schroeder Park.
1. Refer To Building Committee:
A. Repair Of Sheriff’s Office Emergency Vehicle Operation Course @ Wright County Compost Facility.
B. Site Work @ Sheriff’s Firearms Range.
Discussion followed on Item A1A, “Position Replacement, Building Maintenance Supervisor.” Potter suggested the County consider making the position a director of buildings and grounds. The position would still report to the Coordinator. Sawatzke moved to refer the Building Maintenance Supervisor position to the Personnel Committee. The motion carried unanimously on a second by Daleiden.
Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, requested the Board approve two Interim Co-Campground Manager positions at Schroeder Park with an hourly wage not to extend Step 1 and expenses incurred up to $16.05/hour, with funding from 01-521-6101, including retroactive pay from 4-14-14. Mattice explained the Schroeder Park Campground Manager resigned having been in the position since 1978-1979. The Co-Campground Managers have been managing the Park since they attended training on 4-14-14. He asked that the Board allow him to name them as Interim Managers until a permanent Campground Manager has been hired. Mattice said Administration is supporting this request. Sawatzke moved to approve the two Interim Co-Campground Manager positions at an hourly wage of $13.28. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Mattice requested approval to complete an upgrade of the existing Campground Manager house at Schroeder Park. A restoration work budget was provided totaling $9,947.03. Some of the repairs will be completed by staff members and other work will be hired. The list is a compilation of a series of contractor’s quotes. Virtually no improvements have been made since 1979. Sawatzke made a motion to approve the request with a budget not to exceed $10,000, with funding from Budget 100, Site Improvements. The motion was seconded by Potter. Daleiden made a friendly amendment to the motion for up to $10,500 to accommodate any unknown repairs that may arise while remodeling. Sawatzke and Potter agreed to the friendly amendment. Mattice then stated that $500 was already built into the restoration work budget for miscellaneous repairs. The motion and second withdrew the friendly amendment from the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims for approval. Daleiden questioned the $2.51 shipping costs charged to each Department for UPS services. Hiivala explained that UPS shipment costs are prorated to each department and are not charged to the specific department that ships. Daleiden asked how much the County ships by UPS. Hiivala asked that the Board approve the claim to UPS, and he will complete an analysis of UPS costs. On a motion by Borrell, second by Daleiden, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit, for a total of $182,158.50, with 152 vendors and 216 transactions.
Pat O’Malley, Jail Administrator, presented a draft resolution proclaiming May 4-10, 2014, as Corrections Officer and Employee Week in Wright County. O’Malley said that 62 employees are employed in Corrections. Every person that goes to prison spends time at a county jail. The Wright County Jail holds every type of criminal for every type of crime committed. Sometimes their criminal behavior does not cease, and Corrections staff deal with those situations (counseling, custodial, medical needs, etc.). O’Malley said Corrections staff work diligently to follow rules and laws which govern their operation and to keep the County’s liability down. He said to hold a person in custody and keep them from their freedom is a large liability. Borrell moved to adopt Resolution #14-17, seconded by Daleiden, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, said bids were opened on 4-25-14 at the Public Works Building for various Seasonal Requirement Bids (outlined below).
At the request of Hawkins, Sawatzke moved to approve all Plant Mixed Materials and Equipment bids, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The bids received are as follows:
Category: Plant-Mixed Bituminous Mixture Seasonal Bid ($/ton). Budgeted Amount: $334,000.
Name of Bidder; Bid Bond; Item 1 SP 12.5 100; Item 2 SP 9.5 5,500; Item 3 Fine Mix 100
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix, Annandale, MN; n/a; $53.20 (100+ ton/day $52.20); $54.40 (100+ ton/day $53.40); $70.00 (100+ ton/day $60.00)
Hardrives, Inc., Rogers, MN; YES; $45.70 ($45.70); $46.80 ($46.80) $55.00 ($55.00)
Category: Equipment Rental.
18 CY Scraper/hr.: Terning Excavating Inc., Cokato, MN; $165.00/hour, 19 & 21 CY Pull Scrapers & 9520 John Deere Tractor
Dozer/hr.: Terning Excavating Inc., Cokato, MN, $135.00/hour D6K-6 way Dozer & D6R; Jake’s Excavating, Inc., Buffalo, MN, $120.00/hour Cat D-5M, 6-Way Blade w/ Optional Root Rake
Rubber Tired Tractor Mounted Backhoe/hr: No bids
Hydraulic Excavator or Large Backhoe/hr: Terning Excavating Inc., Cokato, MN, $125.00/hour 315 BL; Jake’s Excavating, Inc., Buffalo, MN, $135.00/hour PC 160-7 w/Hyd Thumb & Coupler 40,000#; Juday Excavating, LLC, Buffalo, MN, $135.00/hour Volvo 160 E Excavator
Self-Propelled Pneu Tired Roller/hr : No bids
4CY Front End Loader (4WD pneu. Tired)/-hr: No bids
Motor Grader/hr: Terning Excavating Inc., Cokato, MN, $100.00/hour Champion 740A
Crawler Type Loader (3 CY)/hr: No bids
2 CY Skid Loader (#1650 life capacity): Jake’s Excavating, Inc., Buffalo, MN, $115.00/hour Cat 277C; Juday Excavating, LLC, Buffalo, MN,$115.00/hour Cat 257B2 Skid Steer
1/2 CY Skid Loader (#1650 life capacity): No bids
10 CY Truck/hr.: Jake’s Excavating, Inc., Buffalo, MN, $84.00/hour 12 CY Truck-Tri Axle Hauls 17 ton; Juday Excavating, LLC, Buffalo, MN, $80.00/hour 82 Mack Tandem
10 CY Truck w/Snowplow & Wing: No bids
Self-Propelled Pickup Sweeper/hr.: T&S Trucking, Buffalo, MN, $74.00/hour 2004 Elgin Pelican Sweeper
Trax-Cavator/hr: No bids
247B Rubber Track Loader 1950# Lift Capacity 9’ Dump: No bids
247B CAT All-Terrain Loader: No bids
257 CAT All-Terrain Loader: No bids
(End of Plant Mixed Materials and Equipment Rental Bids)
Hawkins recommended accepting the low bid from Traffic Marking Service in the amount of $290,430.00 for Seasonal Bids for Pavement Markings. Daleiden moved to award the bid as recommended, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The bids received are as follows:
Category: Pavement Markings.
2014 Seasonal Bids, Contract #1403, Engineer’s Estimate: $290,520
Name of Bidder; Bid Bond; Yellow; White; Bid Amount
Traffic Marking Service, Maple Lake, MN; Yes; $11.87/gal (9,000); $12.24/gal (15,000); $290,430.00
AAA Striping, St. Michael, MN; Yes; $12.31/gal (9,000); $12.51/gal (15,000); $298,440.00
(End of Pavement Markings bids)
Hawkins recommended awarding the Seasonal Bid for Sealcoating to Pearson Bros. the low bid at $565,149.04. He said the bid came quite a bit under estimate and would like to add work to the project to reach the budgeted amount. Daleiden moved to approve the bid and that recommendation, seconded by Borrell, carried 5-0. The bids received are as follows:
2014 Seasonal Bids, Contract #1405, Engineer’s Estimate: $716,152.58
Name of Bidder; Bid Amount Breakdown/Grand Total
Pearson Bros. Hanover, MN; Bit for Material for Fog Seal, 64,521 g = .08 / 5,161.68; Bit for Material for Sealcoat, 133,195 g = 2.81 / 374,277.95; Bit Sealcoat, 474,305 sy = 0.37 / 175,492.85; Traffic Control, 1.00 LS = 3,000 / 3,000; Interim Pavement Marking, 26,728 LF = 0.27 / 7,216.56
GRAND TOTAL: $565,149.04
Caldwell Asphalt, Co. Hawick, MN; Bit for Material for Fog Seal, 64,521 g = 1.27 / 81,941.67; Bit for Material for Sealcoat, 133,195 g = 2.53 / 336,983.35; Bit Sealcoat, 474,305 sy = 0.435 / 206,322.68; Traffic Control, 1.00 LS = 8,900 / 8,900; Interim Pavement Marking, 26,728 LF = 0.33 / 8,820.24
GRAND TOTAL: $642,967.94
Astech Corp. St. Cloud, MN; Bit for Material for Fog Seal, 64,521 g = 1.50 / 96,781.50; Bit for Material for Sealcoat, 133,195 g = 1.39 / 185,141.05; Bit Sealcoat, 474,305 sy = 0.77 / 365,214.85; Traffic Control, 1.00 LS = 10,000 / 10,000; Interim Pavement Marking, 26,728 LF = 0.30 / 8,018.40
GRAND TOTAL: $665,155.80
Allied Blacktop Maple Grove, MN; Bit for Material for Fog Seal, 64,521 g = 1.90 / 122,589.90; Bit for Material for Sealcoat, 133,195 g = 2.00 / 266,390.00; Bit Sealcoat, 474,305 sy = 0.48 / 227,666.40; Traffic Control, 1.00 LS = 70,000 / 70,000; Interim Pavement Marking, 26,728 LF = 0.29 / 7,751.12
GRAND TOTAL: $694,397.42
(End of Sealcoating bids)
Hawkins recommended awarding Seasonal Bids for Pavement Preservation to Knife River Corp.-North Central, who is the low bidder at $4,149,733.71. The contract is a combination of State Aid and Local Levy dollars. Because of this, the contract allowed for deletion of a project to stay within the Local Levy budget. Hawkins distributed a handout on 2014 Overlays. The portion of the Overlay Contract identified for Local Levy construction came in over budget by approximately $425,000. This is due to higher mixed prices now compared to when the budget was submitted. Also, when the budget was prepared, the Highway Department anticipated using State Aid dollars for the CSAH 38 project. This can’t be done because CSAH 38 will be turned into a County road. Otherwise, those State Aid dollars would have to be paid back.
Hawkins said the County could award the contract and not include CSAH 132, which would put the Local Levy amount at $1,509,385.06 and that would be within budget. Daleiden asked how that will affect being behind in work. He said Hwy. 12 was pushed back this year, and this would be another one. Hawkins explained that this is a pavement preservation project. It is not a reconstruction project and it does not involve State Aid dollars. Local Levy dollars are used. It would mean the work on CSAH 132 would be moved back one year. Hawkins said the County saved about $215,000 with the Sealcoating bids that could be used toward this project, but funding would still by short by a couple hundred thousand dollars. Daleiden stated that the Highway Department is looking at doing some additional seals. He viewed this as more beneficial as it would eliminate having to do the overlays.
Potter referenced the 5-05-14 Budget Committee Of The Whole Meeting where the 2013 Budget was discussed. He asked whether Highway funds that were turned back could be used to allow these projects to move forward. Discussion followed on how funds in the Highway budget may transfer from year to year based on payments to contractors. Although it may appear there are turn back dollars at the end of the year, those funds may be earmarked for payment on a project and paid the following year. Hawkins said the funds may also be State Aid dollars that have been received and must specifically be spent on State Aid highways.
Sawatzke asked why the Highway Department budgeted approximately $396,000 for the CSAH 38 overlay and the Engineer’s Estimate is $744,341.20. Hawkins said it was a mistake. The assumption was more State Aid and Local Levy dollars would be used for that project. The budget reflects use of State Aid dollars. They anticipated another $200,000 in State Aid, so that would have brought the budgeted amount to $596,000. The other factor is that mixed prices came in higher than anticipated. Hawkins said State Aid dollars will not be used on CSAH 38 as it will become a County Road. Borrell asked whether it will be okay to delay the overlay on CR 132 for one year. Hawkins said it will. Daleiden said $453,000 will have to be budgeted for this next year. His understanding is that work on CR 37 (Federal dollars) is being delayed another year because work on Hwy. 12 is delayed a year. Daleiden would like the Highway Department to look at whether there are turn back dollars from last year that could be utilized.
Hawkins recommended awarding the entire contract. CR 132 would not be worked on to keep within the budget. Daleiden favored approval and then researching funding to complete that work to avoid becoming further behind. Hiivala said Road & Bridge turned back $1.5 million in 2013 but reminded the Board that a good portion of that is deferred revenue. He anticipates the Highway Department will increase their fund balance per the State Auditor’s position. The Highway Department is within the realm of meeting State Auditor’s policies. Sawatzke said the Highway Department is not necessarily turning back $1.5 million. A percentage of that is potentially owed to a contractor for a project that has been completed. Hiivala agreed. He stated that any turn back dollars, whether earmarked or not, will stay in the Road & Bridge Fund. Daleiden asked Hawkins whether he is aware of any encumbrances against the 2013 turn back funds. Hawkins said there will be Federal projects that the money is earmarked for.
Daleiden felt the County should approve the recommendation to delete CR 132 unless there is a way to complete the project this year. Hawkins said they would like to award the entire contract and not complete the work on CR 132. The overlay could be done if funds are available. Daleiden suggested any extra dollars being put toward seal coating. The Board concurred and thought sealcoating work should be completed this year to take advantage of pricing. Hawkins said there is a large backlog for sealcoating. Daleiden made a motion to go with the recommendation to award the entire contract, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The bids received are as follows:
Category: 2014 Pavement Preservation.
Contract #1401, Engineers Estimate $4,268,927.05
Name of Bidder; Total Bid; Percent Over/Under Estimate
Knife River Corp.-North Central; $4,149,733.71; 2.79% under estimate
Hardrives, Inc.; $4,172,364.94; 2.26% under estimate
Duininck Bros. Inc.; $5,097,657.44; 19.41% over estimate
(End of Pavement Preservation bids)
Hawkins said the bids for micro-surfacing came in under estimate. About six miles of work is planned (6 centerline miles or 12 lane miles). Micro-surfacing costs about 25% of an overlay. The majority of work will be on Hwy. 14 but some work will be completed on Hwy. 39 (near Hwy. 8). The County has been doing micro-surfacing for about five years. Hawkins viewed it as a good tool for roads that have heavy traffic and where rutting is involved. It would be preferred to sealcoat a road within 1-2 years of micro-surfacing. Borrell does not like the micro-surfacing end product and suggests the Highway Department continue to re-evaluate the return on investment. Daleiden moved to approve the Micro-Surfacing bid from Astech Corporation, $333,562.86. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0. The bids received are as follows:
2014 Seasonal Bids, Contract #1404, Engineer’s Estimate $355,380.24
Name of Bidder; Total Base Bid
Astech Corp, St. Cloud, MN; $333,562.86
(End of Micro-Surfacing Bids)
Hawkins presented a request to schedule a CSAH 33 Pavement Preservation Bid Opening on 6-06-14 at 9:30 A.M., Public Works Building. Authorization by the State is required to conduct the Bid Opening because of Federal funding. Daleiden moved to schedule the Bid Opening as requested. The motion carried unanimously on a second by Potter.
A Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 4-01-14. The minutes of that meeting and discussion at today’s County Board Meeting follow:
Chairperson Husom called the meeting to order and introductions were made.
2. Update on Public Works Building Master Plan Study
Hawkins explained that the County Board had previously recommended that a space study be conducted by a qualified architectural firm, and that they give a presentation to the TCOTW when they had gathered sufficient information to share about the progress of the study. He added that the three departments located in the current Public Works building had experienced tremendous growth over the past 40 years, at which time the “shop” area of the building was built. [Attachment 2: On File at Highway Department.] He introduced Jerry Hagen and Dan Lind of Hagen, Christensen, & McIlwain (HCM) Architects.
Hagen said that the past few months have been a great opportunity to get to know the Wright County Highway, Parks, and Surveyor’s Departments. He commended the dedicated staff for attempting to do what is right for the people of Wright County. He said that the next step in the process is to come up with a master plan to make the facility better and more efficient. They have studied how to utilize this site or another site and how to accommodate the needs of each of the three departments. They met with every group and staff to understand their needs to do their jobs. Needs have to be put together with what you have in order to discover the options that will best utilize the new facility.
Lind agreed that the Public Works Departments have good staff who really care. They have been pretty involved, and HCM embraces that. He said that they have been great to work with. Lind reviewed that the building was built in 1974, with an office component that has since been replaced (1998) by a 7,800 square foot office addition. He distributed a handout with a summary of the findings. [Attachment 3: On File at Highway Department.] They looked at the condition of that and found out that the walls are in pretty good shape, but the return air system releases heat, melts snow, creating ice dam conditions, which then creates dangerous conditions at entrances. The window system creates heavy condensation on the fames, and the exterior building joints need to be re-caulked. The blocks on the backup wall are poorly insulated, letting heat escape in the soffit area, and there is evidence of rodents along the edges. There are a lot of eight-strip plug-ins, and not a lot of great outlet areas. The toilets in the locker room don’t meet ADA requirements, and there are no shower facilities, as former shower facilities are currently occupied by a washer/dryer. The large conference room/lunchroom is not large enough for some gatherings, and the lunch/break room then becomes unavailable when the large conference room is in session. The file areas are full, both on the ground level and on the mezzanine. The crane in the shop area is not code compliant, which is a safety issue. There is no direct ventilation in the welding area, and the exhaust system in the roof should be immediately overhead. There is some chemical storage that should be located in a separate area, and the ventilation in that area is old. The ceiling of the older portion (1974) is a wood structure roof, which works, but there is not a fire suppression sprinkler system in place, and there should be for safety and to protect the investment.
An aerial view was shown of the current facilities, with a lot of outside storage of equipment, other vehicles, and the Sheriff’s impound lot. Currently, the facility has one underground and two above ground hoists. They looked at future projections, based on expected growth, and it is possible that another mechanic will be needed, which will require another lift. Projecting 10 years from now, it is likely that there will also be more trucks in use. A significant number of vehicles and pieces of equipment are stored at the compost site, which is used as a seasonal swing space. The Parks Department uses about 36,000 square feet and the Highway Department uses about 45,000 square feet. There are a lot of real needs at the current time, such as a real lunchroom, a locker room, and a large conference room which isn’t buried in the back of the building. There hasn’t been a lot of growth in administration, but there has been a large growth in the fleet. Hawkins added that the equipment maintenance people do all the maintenance for the Sheriff’s Department, also, and both hoists are usually in use. There are four mechanics at the present time. Lind said that highest efficiency results when each mechanic has a hoist to use. It is also efficient if vehicles can drive through for routine maintenance, which is not convenient in the present setup. There are a lot of vehicles that should be kept in warm storage because of the hydraulics and because equipment that gets iced up needs to be brought inside to thaw out before it can be used. This will also prolong the life of the equipment. There should be a significant increase in warm storage, from the current 8,400 square feet to 50,000 square feet. The other big growth is in the Parks Department, who store equipment at the compost site and use it for swing space. If things are needed when they are in storage, staff has to get the trailer to the storage area, load it, and take it to the work site. This takes valuable time. If things were kept closer to ‘home,’ efficiency would increase. Sawatzke commented that the Parks and Highway Departments don’t use all the space at the compost site, and things are not closely lined up. Lind said that he measured the areas but did not measure the DNR storage areas. Sawatzke commented that he thinks the current use of cold storage is over exaggerated. Lind agreed that it could be, but he measured the space that is currently being used. He also had each department list off its equipment and took footprints into consideration to quantify all of that, and laid out different options, based on current vehicles and equipment (not area of the compost hanger).
Lind presented three different options, G-1, G-2, and G-3.
G-1 option includes keeping the current site and enlarging it. The impound lot would be moved, the current building would be repurposed for use by the Parks and Surveyor’s Departments, and an additional building would be built on the same site for relocation of the Highway Department. This would allow all equipment to be stored on site (warm storage of 96,000 sf), and minimal renovation of the existing facility would keep all departments functioning with no down time for temporary relocation. There would still be some yard storage for cold storage. Construction costs are estimated at $20,394,483.
G-2 option is very similar to G-1 but with 24,000 square feet less in warm storage for the Highway Department. Construction costs are estimated at $17,124,483.
G-3 option repurposes the existing building for use by all three departments, adds additional space for fleet management and sign storage, and also adds a 72,000 square foot warm storage building to the north of the current building. For this plan to be implemented, the existing fuel island and the impound lot would need to be relocated. Phasing of the project becomes more complex with major renovation of the existing office area, and vehicle storage will be one-quarter mile from the Highway Techs’ office space. Construction costs are estimated at $17,512,281.
The French Lake shop will need investing in/upgrades, and building any of the three options could help prevent this expenditure (if we eliminate that shop location). Some route changes could be made and the French Lake shop property could be sold and the money could be reinvested, saving possibly as much as $1 million by doing this instead of remodeling or replacing the shop.
Even with expansion of warm storage, there will still be some yard storage, but G-1 provides all the warm storage needed. The biggest drawback is that it is the most expensive. There will be an overhead crane in fleet services. The area for fleet services is 17,000 square feet, which includes a wash bay. There are also some mezzanines planned for storage. The temperature would be more comfortable in the large area, compared to current conditions, and would be 55-60 degrees.
The biggest difference between G-1 and G-2 is the size of the warm storage. The smaller storage area in G-2 could meet today’s needs, but there is no room for future growth. Borrell expressed his desire to see a more efficient use of the spacing by parking three deep. This would require the moving of one vehicle if the vehicle in the middle were needed, and this would require many more overhead doors, and they would be open for a longer period of time, decreasing the efficiency of the heating/cooling system. Other than the size of the storage area, the other components of G-1 and G-2 are the same. G-2 is the least expensive. Daleiden asked if the placement of the storage shed could be moved, and Lind that that the elevation changes and flow of water on the site were considered when choosing a collection point. There is a possibility that the ‘boxes’ could be rearranged. He said that this phase of the exercise is more to capture the components of the needs. The next phase is to show how things come and go in the building. The impound lot could go to the property north of the LEC or to the east of the building. Intentions to move the impound lot were for the purpose of separating it from the PWB and locating it closer to the LEC for better efficiency for the Sheriff’s Department.
G-3 would still have a separate seasonally warm storage building, but the fuel island would need to be relocated. There would also be little challenges for yard space and circulation. Another challenge would be to provide proper office area for all departments as well as adding another large conference room. This plan would require almost a gut of the building, so there would more of a phasing challenge from beginning to end of the project, which would become expensive and disruptive to day-to-day operations for all three departments.
Some money could be saved if some site prep work were done in-house. A rep from Krause-Anderson (KA) stated that working in an existing building usually takes more time, is harder working around people, is more inconvenient, and can be tough for employees to work well under those conditions. HCM and KA worked together on Anoka County’s facility, a process that began with design in 2010 and for which construction ended in 2012. Much of the facility was repurposed after gutting. Anoka County has a Phase 2 and Phase 3 for warm storage. They also worked together on Washington County’s facility. They were trying to combine to one campus, but it made sense to utilize the existing campuses and rescue the existing building. That site does not include a shop or storage for Parks or Surveyors.
The economy is on the rebound and costs are on the climb again. Now would be a good time to get out there and get started, but it is also hard to predict where the economy will be in two to three years. Hawkins commented that Wright County has an excellent bond rating, and interest rates are at all-time lows.
Sawatzke expressed his surprise at the estimated costs of construction of a new Public Works facility. He had expected that there would be items above and beyond, but he never imagined it would come to $24 million. He had been aware that the shop had various needs, but he doesn’t think that there is the need to increase the space by four times what it is now. He said that he is shocked by the size and enormity of the proposed building. Wright County already has the biggest pole shed down the road, and it doesn’t matter if vehicles and equipment are kept in warm storage. He reiterated that he didn’t even think that it was possible that a plan would be presented that had four times the space as the present facility. He agreed a few months ago that it was time to look at the shop needs, but he is not happy to where this has led. He is glad to hear that there is still life in the current building. Perhaps the needs should have been addressed sooner so that these current plans would not have been developed to such excess. He was hoping to see something that he could support. He expressed his preference for G-3 with the reconfiguration of the current building. Potter commented that the project should be done the right way to avoid having to do it again. Conditions are only going to get worse. Sawatzke commented that he is not comfortable with the proposed increase in size. Daleiden asked if more information could be obtained, like how many vehicles and plows Anoka and Washington Counties have compared to Wright County. Hawkins said that a lot of information has been presented today and there is a lot to process. He encouraged everyone to review the handouts that were distributed by HCM, and said that he could do the research to compare size of operations with other counties. He added that he felt that a total repurposing of this building would be nothing more than a big band-aid, and that more storage space is needed to properly protect the equipment/vehicles. Husom said that she was impressed that Wright County has seen a population increase of 320% since 1974, but that the equipment only doubled in that time. Sawatzke said that though there is more traffic, there are not necessarily more roads. Hawkins said that even with no more roads, Wright County has more miles than it used to because of the addition of four-lane highways and wider, paved shoulders. Husom said that she needed time to digest the information and asked if there is consideration to or possibility of phasing the program in two or more steps. Hawkins said that there are some options that could be explored, including looking at the feasibility of the compost facility. Though not necessarily politically viable, it might be possible to sell the French Lake shop, save on the cost of updating that shop, and shift the routes to other shops. Borrell commented that he would have liked to have been more involved in the study and research of this project. He would have liked to have seen the other plans that were developed and thinks that all commissioners could provide insight. He would like to consider making improvements/expansion in phases, and Husom agreed. Borrell added that he would like to put money aside for the project rather than borrowing the money, and Daleiden agreed that this would be a good practice, but he doesn’t think that the project should be cancelled because of lack of funds on hand. No action was taken at this time.
3) Review Input and Finalize Updated Cost Participation Policy
Hawkins distributed the minutes of the public meeting that was held on February 12, 2014 for the purpose of receiving input on Wright County’s proposed Cost Participation Policy update, in addition to the draft of this policy. [Attachment 4: On File at Highway Department.] Hawkins showed a screen of the current policy, which was adopted in 1993. Additional items have been added to the proposed policy, because of the changes in construction needs since that time. Hawkins explained that rural designs, regardless of whether they are located in cities or townships, are paid for by the county. Being located in a city or township has nothing to do with who pays for it (for rural designs). The design of the road (urban) is the determining factor. Borrell asked about traffic signals, such as stop lights, and how the cost is split. Hawkins explained that if the stoplight is located in a city, even if the city doesn’t want the stoplight, the owners of the legs of the intersection pay for their jurisdiction according to the proposed revision. Currently, the County requires the City (there are no stoplights in townships) to pay for half of the cost, even when both are county roadways. The recently installed dynamic signing was paid for by federal safety money. There was discussion about where the taxes come from that pay for road projects, and Sawatzke commented that the research shows that agricultural land pays a greater share relative to what it receives.
Steve Bot, City Administrator of St. Michael, said that the county usually takes all eligible items from the grant money that is awarded, so the cities receive none of that benefit. They have a lot of eligible items that don’t get any of the money. Sawatzke said that he understands how that wouldn’t seem fair. He asked if a change in the policy would create a scenario whereby some projects will be favored over others if money goes to the cities. Hawkins said that he doesn’t think this will happen. The CSAH 19 project in St. Michael scored well and got federal money, and the project was more expensive to do because it was four lanes. The upcoming CSAH 37 project in Otsego will be of rural design, so the county will pay for it. Borrell asked if it were possible to add another provision to the policy that would be of a benefit to townships, such as replacement of culverts that go bad. Hawkins said that when a township road comes up to the county road, that culvert is the responsibility of the township. If a county road comes up to a state highway, it is the county’s responsibility to take care of it. In reconstruction projects, the county takes responsibility for the culverts under the connecting township/city roads that are affected by the project, and they are all replaced.
Hawkins explained the changes in the draft policy.
Right of Way: This is based on scope, added right of way for city items (sidewalk, etc.) are city cost. This wasn’t addressed in the prior policy.
Retaining Walls/Retaining Walls in Lieu of Right of Way: Hawkins said that these are located mostly in cities where occasionally a house is too close to the road. The county would pay for 50% of this cost in the cities but would typically pay 100% in the rural areas. Hawkins explained that if the wall were protecting a natural amenity, as the case in rural designs, the county would pay for it, but if it is protecting a manmade structure (such as a house or walk in urban areas), the county wouldn’t pay for all of it.
Clearing and Grubbing; Grading; Aggregate Base and Surfacing: This item used to be 80% county and 20% cities. Hawkins said that he didn’t feel this was equitable, because other counties paid 100% for the road core, so the percentage share was changed to 100% county.
Parking Lanes on 4-Lane or 6-Lane Highways: These will be 100% of the county’s cost when on two-lane highways, per State Aid standards. Enhancements to public street approaches are the responsibility of the cities, as are new public or private street approaches.
Culverts: The county will pay 100% in rural areas on reconstruction projects. When asked who pays when a culvert is bad on a township or city street (not in a construction project), Hawkins said that this is taken care of on a case-by-case basis. The one recently repair on CSAH 8 was the first one in 20 years.
Curb and Gutter: Hawkins said that curb and gutter are an intricate part of an urban drainage system in the city, as are the ditches in the rural areas. He is proposing that the cost be shared 50/50. Both Potter and Bot think that 50/50 sounds fair. Potter said that it is a tough pill to swallow when ditches are 100% the responsibility of the county, but not the curbs and gutters that serve as ditches in urban areas. Sawatzke said that the difference is because thousands of dollars are needed when the drainage is in concrete. Hawkins said that he still supports a 50/50 cost share for this item, and Sawatzke suggested that the cost share could be changed somewhat, but he didn’t think the county’s share should be as high as 50%. Hawkins said that Wright County is on the low end with curb and gutter, and he thinks a 50/50 cost share is more equitable. Hausmann said that there is time to discuss this further, and nothing has changed at this point. Bot commented that the county has changed a lot since 1993, and he thinks that the increase in tax base in the cities should be reflected in the county’s share for curb and gutter.
Concrete Median and Median Curb: The county covered up to 100% of this in the past, but it was always a negotiated item. Circumstances turned out to be different in different projects. Hawkins said that they felt it was best to clarify this participation at 100% for the county. Cities pay for any additional items that are not necessary to the road project.
Roundabouts: This was not addressed in the policy, and Hawkins said that it is typical to have the different legs covered by the jurisdiction of the road authority.
Traffic Control Signal Systems: The proposed policy would assign cost based on the jurisdiction of the road authority for each leg. Sawatzke commented that the proposed policy is more generous than the current one, and Hausmann said that the county is attempting to treat the cities as MnDOT treats the county. Hawkins said that this item has caused more consternation over the years than any other. Bot said that it is tough to swallow when all legs are county and cities are asked to pay for half. Hawkins said that MnDOT pays for those legs that belong to them and charges the county only for the legs that belong to the county. This would be one thing that could address the heartburn that the cities have with the county, and it would be providing goodwill to our partners in transportation in those cities. Hawkins said that he would encourage the assigning of responsibility to the jurisdiction who owns the legs, for both roundabouts and traffic signals.
Rural Intersection Street Lighting: This remains the same at 100% county, but it was not specifically addressed in the current policy.
Decorative/Urban Street Lighting: This remains the same at 0% County, but it was not specifically addressed in the current policy.
Trails & Bikeways Along County Highway: This was not previously addressed but remains the same in practice with 0% county.
Trail/Bikeway Underpass/Overpass: This was not previously addressed but remains the same in practice with 0% County.
Landscaping & Aesthetic Treatments: This was not previously addressed but remains the same in practice with 0% County.
Electronic/Specialty Signs: This was not previously addressed, and Hawkins is proposing a 50/50 split in costs of installation, which runs approximately $7,000 each sign, with maintenance provided by the cities. He expects that requests for these signs will be increasing.
Noise Walls: If and when noise walls are requested, these requests will be negotiated case by case.
Other Items [Not specifically addressed] will be negotiated case by case.
Development Driven Projects: Development driven projects are projects that are not currently programmed in the County 5-Year C.I.P. and will be 100% share of the cities, except when an agreement is reached stating otherwise.
Hawkins said that he would like the TCOTW to make a recommendation so that the County Board could act on it. Sawatzke said that doesn’t see the need to make changes to the concrete curb and gutter item. Daleiden said that he would like to have that be a negotiable item. Sawatzke said that most of the city projects are going to have it, except for those parts located in rural areas. Hawkins would like to see the split at 50/50, with a note that the municipality is responsible for ownership and maintenance of storm sewer. Sawatzke said that he doesn’t think the county needs to bear any of the cost. It is the infrastructure in the city and the compactness of development around it that requires curb and gutter. If not for that, there could be a road with standard shoulders instead of curb and gutter, which costs more. He said that curb and gutter is not necessary in some areas, and it is based on development. Hawkins said that there are areas in town that are urban already, and curb and gutter is part of the drainage system, like ditches are in the rural areas. Sawatzke said that he can see the rational for the county paying half because they don’t have to buy right of way, but they wouldn’t have to buy it anyway. Hawkins said that right of way costs more in the city, and Sawatzke said that there should be enough right of way there now. Hausmann said that new plats for developments have to be approved, and the need for curb and gutter is considered a part of the developer’s costs. Hawkins said that he feels that curb and gutter on our current highways are part of the drainage system. Discussion continued about whether the county should pay any portion of the cost of curb and gutter along a county road in established neighborhoods, and Hawkins said that there is no urgent project that a decision might affect at this time. At Sawatzke’s suggestion, Hawkins agreed to put out a survey to Minnesota counties on that issue alone to see how they handle the cost split for curb and gutter. Hawkins said that this would perhaps give the commissioners a better idea of what is done throughout the state. Once the commissioners have an opportunity to review a summary of responses on this item, they can then decide what they would like to do.
RECOMMENDATION: It was the recommendation of the TCOTW that a survey of other counties be taken on how they pay for curb and gutter and to send this information to commissioners, and to present the revised policy to the County Board for adoption at a future meeting.
4) Review Upcoming Jurisdictional Changes
Wright County has an agreement with the City of Annandale to revoke the 4.4 miles of CSAH 38 and re-designate it as CR 183. In turn, CR 136 (3.23 miles) will then become an extension of CSAH 3, north to the intersection with CSAH 2. [Attachment 5: On File at Highway Department.] This portion will then also be entitled to state aid funds.
There is a segment of CSAH 37 between CSAH 19 and I-94 (0.77 miles) that Hawkins proposes to keep designated as a CSAH so that it remains eligible for state funding. The next 3.24 miles to the east (of that portion of CSAH 37) Hawkins proposes to re-designate as CR 137. The final step in this process would be to designate as CSAH 38 the entire length of 70th Street NE from CSAH 19 to CSAH 42, part of which is the remaining easternmost portion of CSAH 37. [Attachment 6: On File at Highway Department.]
The City of Buffalo is building Settlers Parkway, which will be a connection from TH 55 (at CSAH 34) to TH 25 (south of the current TH 25/CR 147 intersection). The current railroad crossing at CR 147 will be exchanged for a new one at TH 55/Settlers Parkway. The project will begin this year and take two years to complete. In exchange for $100,000, the City of Buffalo has agreed to take over that portion of CR 147 that is located in the city limits. A roundabout is planned for the new intersection at TH 25. Hawkins will be sending paperwork to Rockford and Buffalo Townships regarding their portions of CR 147. This new road should take a lot of traffic off CR 147.
5) Review Federal Funding Project Awards
Hawkins distributed an informational memo from MnDOT [Attachment 7: On File at Highway Department.] regarding FFY 2014-2016 Local Solicitation for Local Funds. He said that Wright County was awarded $450,000 from HSIP funds for construction of a roundabout at CSAH 35/CR 134 and $108,000 for rural intersection lighting in St. Michael on CSAH 35. These awards account for about one-third of the available funds for District 7W. Funds were awarded to the City of Otsego for 2018 for the 70th Street Construction from CSAH 19 to that portion of CSAH 37 on 70th Street. Franklin Township’s request for funding to pave Farmington Avenue was not awarded any funding.
(End of 5-06-14 TCOTW Minutes)
The Board discussed the 4-01-14 Transportation Committee Of The Whole (TCOTW) minutes. Item 3, Review Input and Finalize Updated Cost Participation Policy, included a Committee recommendation that a survey of other counties be completed on how curb and gutter is funded. The recommendation also directed this survey information to be sent to the County Board and that a revised Cost Participation Policy be brought to the Board for adoption. Hawkins said the survey was completed with 49 out of 87 counties responding. Data obtained reflects that 49% pay for curb & gutter at 100%; 9% have a 50/50 funding split; 12% pay nothing; and 30% pay between 0-100%. Daleiden made a motion to approve the 4-01-14 TCOTW minutes, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0.
Hawkins requested approval of a revised Cost Participation Policy for Wright County. The amended Policy includes a 50/50 cost share for curb and gutter. Borrell questioned why someone in another part of the County would want their taxes to fund a particular city’s curb and gutter when a County road goes through a city. He asked if a township wants to put curb and gutter on a section of a County road, would the County pay 50% of that cost. Hawkins said that will depend whether it is urban construction. Sometimes curb and gutter is placed in rural areas to avoid having to buy a house, and the township or cities do not pay any of that as it is a rural design overall. Normally, urban construction projects are funded with Federal and State Aid dollars so there wouldn’t be any Local Levy dollars from any township going towards these projects. Hawkins said the Cost Participation Policy covers urban construction curb and gutter design.
Sawatzke said that during his 23 years with the County, the Highway Department defended the County’s policy that curb and gutter is the City’s expense. If there isn’t curb and gutter required, there would not be a charge for it. He said it is not the fact that it is in a city or township, it has to do with the design of the road. He does not feel the rationale is different today than it was for all those years. Sawatzke indicated he will not vote for the change specifically relevant to curb and gutter. He stated it will increase the County’s cost, and that cost share split will either result in increased taxes or the completion of fewer road projects. Borrell said he is opposed as well. He cited the example of CR 12 and the expense the County would have experienced with cost sharing on that project. He said the projects are in cities and felt that is where the funding should come from.
Potter moved to adopt Resolution #14-18 approving the revised Cost Participation Policy, seconded by Daleiden. Daleiden presented a friendly amendment to the motion to eliminate the 50/50 split for concrete curb and gutter and change it to “by negotiation.” Each project would be judged on its own merit instead of a percentage split across the board. Borrell agreed with that concept but felt it did not give clear direction to Hawkins. Borrell asked if the amendment could reflect, “concrete curb and gutter, by negotiation not to exceed 50%.” Daleiden and Potter accepted that change to the friendly amendment.
Sawatzke asked for an amendment to the motion to change the concrete curb and gutter to 0% County and 100% city and accept everything else in the Policy. Potter said he would not accept the amendment as proposed.
Sawatzke then made a motion to amend the main motion to allow for all the changes, with the exception of those relative to curb and gutter. Daleiden and Husom said there was already a motion on the floor. Sawatzke said the motion to amend takes precedence. Borrell seconded the motion to amend. Borrell cited the CR 12 Project north of Montrose and said the City paid the entire share of the curb and gutter. Hawkins responded that was done under the former Policy. Borrell thought that was the last County road into Montrose, as traveling south would be on State Highway 25. He asked what would happen with costs if Montrose decided to complete a similar project south of the City. Hawkins said that will be up to what State policy is. Husom called for a vote on the motion to amend for the cities to pay 100% of costs for curb and gutter and the remainder of the changes to be approved as presented. The motion to amend failed 2-3 with Potter, Husom and Daleiden casting the nay votes.
The Board then went back to the original motion with the friendly amendment. Husom said that motion, as amended, is to include in the Policy for concrete curb and gutter to be by negotiation with a not to exceed of 50% by the County. Borrell felt this was a step in the right direction but asked Hawkins what he will use for negotiation criteria. Daleiden said that decisions will be based on merit. Hawkins added that there are no urban construction projects planned in the next five years. Borrell said if the motion passes, Hawkins will need direction at some point in the future. It would be unfair to offer different cities different percentages. Hawkins responded that it would be much cleaner to have a something set in Policy, whether by percentage or by contributing flow (drainage areas). Borrell said that could be used as the criteria with a not to exceed of 50%. Borrell said he will oppose the motion as amended as he feels the Policy should remain as it is and that more direction should be given to the Highway Department. Hawkins expects that what is negotiated for the first city will be looked at by each city negotiated with thereafter. He said it would be helpful if there was an established number in the Policy.
Sawatzke asked about the contributing flow factor. He asked whether the Policy should reflect, “contributing flow, not to exceed 50%.” Hawkins supported that language. Sawatzke said he may vote for that change, although he prefers the current Policy. Potter asked for clarification on the change to the motion. Sawatzke said that the motion would be to amend the Policy to reflect, “percentage of County contributing flow, not to exceed 50%” for curb and gutter. Potter and Daleiden agreed to accept the amendment to the motion on the floor to include “percentage of County contributing flow, not to exceed 50%.” The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 4-28-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0. Borrell understands the position was offered to the candidate and it has been declined, so the position will be re-posted. The Committee Of The Whole Minutes follow:
I. Drainage Inspector Interviews.
The Committee reconvened the meeting recessed on April 22nd. The committee discussed the qualifications of each of the three candidates interviewed and reviewed the proposals that were received. The committee discussed the tasks they expected this position to complete.
One candidate did not provide a desired compensation amount in their proposal, or provide a formal quote at the time of their interview on April 22nd. Hiivala was awaiting this information, but had not yet received it. The committee desired to offer the position to this candidate.
Recommendation: Offer contract to selected candidate at a compensation of $35 per hour. If candidate does not accept, re-post the advertisement for a Ditch Inspector with compensation listed at $25-35 per hour.
(End of 4-28-14 Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 4-29-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Daleiden moved to approve the minutes and recommendation. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Potter. The Committee Of The Whole Minutes follow:
Assessor’s Office Staffing.
The Deputy Assessor has announced his desire to retire. The Deputy Assessor position will need to be filled. The Committee discussed the need to overlap employment of the new and current Deputy Assessor positions for two weeks to provide an opportunity for instruction. The rationale for this action is because the Deputy Assessor is currently serving as the Acting County Assessor.
The Committee agreed to backfill vacancies if the Deputy Assessor position is filled internally. Temporary help may also be needed. Sources for that assistance were discussed.
Recommendation: Acknowledge the retirement of the Deputy Assessor effective 7-31-14. Advertise internally for the Deputy Assessor with the start date to be two weeks prior to the retirement date (overlap of two week period with two Deputy Assessors).
(End of 4-29-14 Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
A Deferred Compensation Committee Meeting was held on 4-29-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The minutes of the Deferred Compensation Committee follow:
1. Request To Withdraw Funds Due to Hardship.
The Committee reviewed an employee’s request to withdraw funds. It was determined that the circumstances met the criteria for withdrawal.
Recommendation: Approve request to withdraw funds from the Deferred Compensation Program.
(End of Deferred Compensation Committee Minutes)
A Technology Committee Meeting was held on 4-30-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Daleiden moved to approve the Technology Committee minutes and recommendations. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Borrell. The Technology Committee minutes follow:
I. Funding of Technology.
Swing distributed the Agenda and a 14-page document with data for each Agenda Item (see attachments). Swing said the first page, entitled “Agenda Item #1: Funding of Technology,” shows Technology Capital Improvements as of 8-27-13. The top half of the page represents data presented to the Budget Committee Of The Whole at that time. Bob Hiivala, County Auditor/Treasurer, completed the bottom half of the page afterwards. Swing said the Capital Technology Fund does not tie the Information Technology Department (IT) into a particular calendar year.
Swing said the second page reflects Capital Improvement Technology Fund expenditures as of 4-29-14, including the County web site redesign. Daleiden asked Swing to clarify that the County will spend $860,000 on Technology Capital Improvements in 2014, yet only $54,000 has been spent to date. He added that at that rate, this Fund won’t need additional money until next year.
Swing said the expenditures are related to the major projects listed under Item II on the meeting Agenda. These have been delayed long past their projected completion date. Swing said the money for them stays in the Capital Improvements Technology Fund. He said the goal of this meeting is to keep the Committee updated on how the funds are being spent and to provide an update on project status.
Swing said he would like to schedule a Technology Committee Of The Whole meeting to present the high level strategic initiatives for the County.
II. Brief Update On Major Technology Projects.
Swing referred to the third page of the handout, entitled “Agenda Item #2: Brief Update on Major Technology Projects,” and the fourth page, titled “2014 Electronic Document Management System Project Schedule.”
A. Web Site Redesign.
Swing said IT is redesigning the County web site. He said whatever information is posted on the current web site will be on the new one. For the most part, Swing said the rest of the changes involve a redesign of functionality to create a platform for the County.
Jobe asked whether the annual fee outside the original cost to redesign is in the budget. Swing said $34,000 covers the up front costs and maintenance for each of the first three years. Jobe asked whether the money is in a special fund, or transferred into the fund at the end of the year. Daleiden said the money was set aside last year. Kelly concurred, adding that one million dollars was transferred from reserves into a special Capital Improvements Technology Fund.
B. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS).
Nelson said some projects have specific deadlines like the Stellent Conversion, which falls under Land Records. Borrell asked about Stellent. Swing said that is the old imaging system. The County is transitioning to OnBase. IT will transfer the data from the drive to a vendor. West asked whether the transfer has begun. Swing said it has not. He is meeting with them on 5-5-14. He plans a meeting with the Land Records Department as well.
C. Sheriff CAD / RMS.
Swing referred to the top half of the first page, saying the first three Enterprise initiatives listed, as well as all Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) and Remote Worker projects, are high priority initiatives that benefit all County Departments. Referring to the Department Specific lists on the same page, Swing said OnBase is the glue between the Sheriff’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS). Swing said he thinks they are about a month away with the interface. Nelson said they are also trying to prioritize the interfaces.
Daleiden said he hoped negotiations will be completed by the end of May. He asked if CAD/RMS will go live in July. Swing said implementation will begin later in 2014, with a goal of 2015. The actual signature on the contract is at least a month out.
Swing said the cost of streaming will go up with the redesigned web site. Currently the fee is $50 per month. That will increase to $5,000 per year once the redesign is complete; however, it will buy the County the ability to integrate into the new web site. Daleiden said it will be easier to find and search.
Swing explained that there will be four items under each meeting date: Agenda, Minutes, Packet, and Audio/Video. The user can sort by dates.
Daleiden said he expects Department Heads to take ownership with Board Action Requests so that Administration staff can more easily assemble the Board packets electronically.
Jobe asked if the electronic Board packets will appear similar to those on the Stearns County web site. Kelly said it will be similar, but different. Jobe said the Stearns County web site shows the Agenda and PDF documents. Swing said Jobe was referring to the IQM2 solution chosen by Stearns to post electronic Board packets and stream meetings on the Internet. Wright County decided not to spend that much money on a solution. Swing is eager to see how the new web site design will accommodate electronic Board packets.
Daleiden said the new web site design has the capability to do so. Department Heads who are currently receiving paper Board packets will no longer receive them. Swing said all Departments should be engaged in the process. Daleiden reiterated that it will be up to Department Heads to submit Board Action Requests electronically. That is not the function of the Administration Department. West asked whether the deadline will be firm. Daleiden said the Board will provide direction to the Administration Department. If a Department misses the deadline, they will have to attempt to petition the item at the next Board meeting. He warned that they should expect questions from the Board regarding tardy submissions. Everyone will have to take ownership in order to make the electronic Board packet process work. Daleiden said the Administration Department has enough to do.
D. Human Services Voice (Phone) Upgrade.
Swing said the County needs a significant infrastructure upgrade to improve customer service. Specifically, Swing said the County needs a Call Center that allows Human Services management and possibly other Departments to monitor how phones are answered. Daleiden said it will itemize which employee answers the call, which calls go to voice mail, and which calls get rolled to various extensions. Borrell said that would be very valuable. Daleiden said it is expensive. Borrell said it’s worthwhile if employees are able to do their jobs better and be more accountable. Swing said this is an important item. The county needs the upgrade to improve compatibility. The current state of the County’s voice system is old. It was already earmarked for the Capital Improvements Program in August of 2013. The upgrade must happen before a Call Center can be implemented at the end of the year.
Daleiden asked if the Sheriff’s Office uses a similar system. Swing said yes. Borrell’s concern was that the front lobby receptionist refers callers to the Human Services Department, who then get voice mail. Daleiden said it will be a great tool for all Departments.
Borrell asked if the Sheriff’s Office has a different phone system because of 911 Dispatch. He said people often dial extension 3900 at the Government Center and ask for the Sheriff’s Office. He asked whether that went right to their voice mail system. Howell said it goes to their front desk person.
Borrell said he often gets voice mail when he calls County Departments. He said he never gets voice mail when he calls the Sheriff’s Office. He would like to make that work for Human Services. Swing said there is more to it than the technical piece. It’s also about what the employee is doing.
Nelson said more configuration needs to be done with the Call Center. Swing wondered whether it would be possible to eliminate hard phones at employees’ desks. Daleiden didn’t see how that could be done unless phone calls could be monitored for accountability via the computer. Borrell wanted supervisors to be able to monitor calls. Calls could roll to various assigned team members. If a call goes unanswered, the manager gets a report. Jobe said at least the caller is guaranteed that a person will answer. Borrell said callers should get a live person at a generic Department number.
Partlow said in defense of Nelson and Hayes, the Remote Worker project was delayed because the initial bid presented at budget time came back $60,000 higher than originally quoted. Partlow said they are exploring in-house options before proceeding. Swing concurred, saying they are trying to carve out pieces internally to satisfy the needs of remote workers. Partlow said they have a choice because they are set up with some capabilities to work mobile, but it does not function ideally. The product they considered would serve 20 employees at an annual maintenance cost of $300,000. Daleiden said the cost was too high.
Swing said the key to this connectivity is delivering the application on the tablet with signatures and the detail the Social Worker needs. The application involves the vendor. Daleiden asked if Swing was looking at different vendors. Partlow said they currently use Citrix to access mobile applications. However, the product the Child Protection Unit uses doesn’t work well with Citrix. She said they work with a large number of organizations that each target different areas. There are many differences between providers.
E. Auditor-Treasurer E-Invoice & Plat Worksheet.
Swing said records management is very important. He said IT is planting a seed with the Plat Worksheet that documents work flow. This initiative stems from the need to centralize County records storage. IT is establishing the process and work methods at this time.
West said they have completed the business document and work flow in the Department. She said they haven’t designed how it will work. They are trying to decide whether to use Sharepoint, OnBase, or another system. She said records retention requirements vary.
Swing said the process is different. IT is working with the business unit. He said the business unit must define the requirements. IT automates the process. Swing said IT will set the ground rules for records management and retention. This project is really needed. West commented that it will be nice to have a platform for future projects.
West said there are many documents the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office should image. For example, she said contracts for deed did not need to be recorded in the past. West scanned them as a precaution. Now they are required to be recorded. Jobe asked if she scanned them using OnBase or Sharepoint. West asked whether they should store records that require permanent retention in Sharepoint or OnBase.
Swing said OnBase exists for the work flow of key processes. The Sharepoint side is an unstructured environment. There are certain documents on the Sharepoint platform that should be archived. OnBase deals best with retention processes.
F. Property Tax and Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA).
Swing said the Xerox Property Tax and CAMA initiatives are important as well. They are driven by a multi-county effort which will be significant.
Jobe asked whether CAMA is still moving forward. West said Denise McCalla, Property Tax Administrator / Chief Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, is the lead on this project. They are hoping to go live in September 2015.
Recommendation: Informational only.
III. 800 MHz Radio Agency Fee For 2015.
Swing referred to the fifth page of the handout, entitled, “Agenda Item #3: 800 MHz Radio Agency Fee for 2015.” He said the fee has been $75 per radio for several years. The chart mentioned above shows how it fits into the total budget. Swing said at $75 per radio, the County recoups $40,000 or 24 percent of the total budget for this line item. The sixth page of the handout, “800 MHz Radio 2014 Budget Allocation,” illustrates the distribution based on radio counts to various agencies. Swing said Howell and he looked at Sherburne County’s distribution, and they feel $75 is a fair number.
Howell said the difference between the County and Sherburne County is that Sherburne programs all the radios. The Sheriff’s Office wants to help support the infrastructure within the County. Swing said they would like to keep the fee at $75. Daleiden asked if all the cities are on board. Swing said they are.
Borrell said some school districts have requested the radios. Howell said that was permissible, but the cost is prohibitive. They discussed the logistics and cost of providing radios, related supplies, and training.
Swing said his department handles the financial side of the 800 MHz radio program. The charge back estimates for 2015 are prepared. After the County Board approves it, IT will prepare the distribution and budget for 2015. Daleiden asked if next year’s budget will be approximately $130,000. Swing said there won’t be a huge increase. Jobe asked if the County rents the towers. Swing said yes, on an annual basis. The most bothersome aspect to the tower rental, Swing said, is the escalator clause of 3.5 percent.
Recommendation: Maintain the $75 per Radio Agency Fee for the 800 MHz Radio program.
IV. Technology Services Agreement With Corinna Township.
Swing referred to the seventh through fourteenth pages of the handout, entitled, “Service Level Agreement Between Wright County & Corinna Township For Access to Planning & Zoning Records Residing on Wright County’s Network (Agreement).”
Swing said the idea is to give Corinna Township (Township) access to the Planning & Zoning Department data system. Prior to this, the County had not allowed access to an entity outside of County Departments. This Agreement would set a precedent. Riley said the Agreement allows access to a database of all files and permits scanned related to Corinna Township. The result is that the Township may access the Planning & Zoning system to access data instead of having to call the Department. The Township initiated the request.
Borrell asked whether the County should make this available to Stockholm or Middleville Townships. Riley replied that when asked, those townships preferred the existing process. Riley clarified that this access does not include all the other data in the Planning & Zoning Department system. The only information the Township may access are scanned land use and building permits.
Swing said the redesigned County web site will be a critical way to provide information to the public. Borrell said he would like other townships that do their own Planning & Zoning to have the same opportunity as Corinna Township. Daleiden said cities may use City View software. Townships also have access to it. Riley said records are requested for a reason. If this arrangement with the Township works, other townships may want to tie in as well.
Swing said the perspective is on collaboration. How can the County share resources? Some resources are currently shared with the City of Buffalo. The web site is critical. All applications are going to a web-based format. Riley said the Agreement is more about giving Corinna Township access to Planning & Zoning records. Jobe said there is a licensing cost to the Township associated with this Agreement. Swing emphasized that the first six month of the Agreement is done on a trial basis. The outcome is undetermined at this point. The Agreement will be reassessed, including costs, in January 2015. The Agreement could be modified at that point.
Borrell asked whether the Township can share their new data with the County. Riley said potentially they could. The Township will have access to files at the point in time they gain access. Riley said whatever data they input would be helpful for the County to access. He added that townships don’t have access to the City View system. The County issues a permit on City View and Corinna would have access to it. Nelson clarified that the County would give the Township read only access. Riley said that was correct.
Swing said once the County web site is redesigned, there must be a discussion regarding ways to deliver services to cities and townships. Nelson emphasized that this Agreement is intended as a pilot program. City View has a web interface that has the tools being discussed. IT will look at them as these projects move forward. Swing said remote users present a challenge regarding control.
There is no cost for the trial period starting 7-01-14.
Jobe asked whether there will be a separate login for specific people in the Township. Nelson said internal testing needs to be done. IT will provide directions regarding how to run Citrix software. They can run it from anywhere, secured to each user’s credentials.
West said the Township asked her whether they could access their property tax cards when they began operating on their own. Currently they have access with Beacon. At this time, the Township people ask for access to the transfer history of properties. If they have access to the Recorder’s site, they can look at everything against the property. The Auditor/Treasurer looks at property transfers. West said it’s easier to look at the tax card versus looking through all the records. She was not sure what level of security Beacon offers.
West said she assumed those records will eventually be switched to OnBase from Stellent. Jobe said they see the data internally, but he doesn’t think even a subscriber can view the property tax card. Daleiden said if the Township can access the information, the number of calls should decrease.
Swing said the above information is a snapshot of technology projects. He asked the Board how the County can leverage its infrastructure to deliver a better technology experience. Daleiden said Swing should provide the Board with information regarding what is needed now and in the near future.
Kelly asked for suggestions regarding the best way to replenish the Fund. He did not want to spend the million dollar fund over four years. Should it be brought back to one million dollars, or funded X dollars per year? Swing said Hiivala wants to maintain the fund. This will be discussed as part of the 2015 budget process. Swing also said once the IT Department is up to speed, they will be able to move these projects along faster.
Recommendation: Informational only.
(End of 4-30-14 Technology Committee Minutes)
Husom said Judge Kathy Mottl has requested a Committee Of The Whole Meeting to meet with the 10th Judicial District. The purpose would be to tour the Courtroom facilities and discuss facility and security issues, including courtroom wheelchair accessibility. Because of the wheelchair accessibility discussion, the District has requested the County Coordinator and Risk Manager be invited to the Meeting. Sawatzke moved to schedule the Committee Of The Whole Meeting with the 10th Judicial District on 5-27-14 at 10:30 A.M. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates:
1. Borrell said the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers are making strides to take over the control of waters of our country. Efforts have already included an effort with the Supreme Court relating to overstepping the Clean Water Act. Borrell said the groups are supposedly in charge of navigable waters, and they are now indicating that any water that drops anywhere becomes navigable water. They have lost a couple of Supreme Court rulings, but are working to change rules so there is no uncertainty that they control waters of the country. Borrell understands there are counties that are passing resolutions in opposition of this power grab by the Army Corp of Engineers and the EPA. Borrell is opposed to what is happening. He feels Wright County has done a good job of protecting wetlands and waters. Borrell spoke with the Highway Engineer previously on this topic. The Highway Engineer referenced delays and costs associated with following the regulations of the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers. Borrell does not want those groups to have any more power. Public input is being accepted until July. AMC is addressing this as well. Potter said there is no Statute of Limitations for the Army Corp of Engineers. They can go after things that have happened in the past. Borrell said the average permit through the Army Corp is taking 388 days at a cost of thousands of dollars.
2. Region 7W Early Intervention. Potter said a speaker presented information on fetal alcohol syndrome at the last meeting. That information has been passed along to the Human Services Director.
(End of Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates)
Daleiden provided an update on transit in Wright County. He understands that Tri Cap will be sending a letter indicating they are not interested in working with Wright County on transit. Some of the cities have gotten together to work toward forming a Joint Powers with Trailblazer for transit. Daleiden suggested that the County and cities work together to form a Joint Powers to approach Trailblazer as a service provider for 5311 transit. At this point, he did not feel Wright County has other options. Husom added that Trailblazer is working to provide transit service to Functional Industries as of 7-01-14. Her desire is to make amends with the McLeod and Sibley County Commissioners because Wright County works with them on other things and in support of the cities. Borrell said what Trailblazer is offering to cities appears to be better than what was offered to the County. Daleiden said that service is different as it is being provided in specific cities. He did not feel it will work as well and it may be confusing. He supported the County stepping up to provide a transit system that will work for everyone, not just particular cities. It would be viewed as an investment for the future.
Daleiden thought a Joint Powers Agreement between the County and the cities might bridge things and get them moving. Borrell said early on when Trailblazer was negotiating with cities, some wanted Trailblazer to work with the County. Once the County got involved, he said the message was take it or leave it. Daleiden said the Joint Powers Agreement that is being worked on between the cities and Trailblazer offers service for specific cities in the Joint Powers Agreement. He did think the cities were getting a better deal as the services are quite restrictive and the service does not cover a lot of area. He thought that is why the price came down. Borrell said that one of the things they tried to negotiate was to get something that will serve the cities. No matter if this is a County-wide system or not, there will be parts of the County that are not served.
Husom has heard from a few cities that they desire for the County to be involved with the Joint Powers Agreement. Sawatzke is okay with exploring that concept, as that is what he originally wanted. He agreed with Borrell that what is being offered to the cities is economically more advantageous.
Sawatzke was contacted by Midwest Transit Services who provides similar transit in Maple Grove and Hennepin, Washington, and Ramsey Counties. Their main transportation facility is located just outside of Wright County in former Hassan Township, and another building is owned in Buffalo. Midwest Transit Services is interested in speaking with Wright County on transit options at a significant cost savings. Sawatzke said it is unfortunate that Wright County did not hear from this company 2-3 months ago. Sawatzke said Midwest Transit Services indicated they could provide service by 7-01-14. Borrell said the email lists a cost of $48-$52/hour. Sawatzke said he asked the company whether that cost includes everything (dispatch, administration, etc.) and it was confirmed it does. The company has 40 buses. He said they have a tremendous amount of experience and are in the closest proximity to the County.
Borrell suggested meeting with Midwest Transit. Potter did not think the County had anything to lose by doing so. Daleiden said he didn’t understand why MnDOT didn’t bring this source forward as an option. Sawatzke felt this company would meet MnDOT’s criteria for partnering. Daleiden said this would be a contract service, not a partnership. Sawatzke said the County could partner with a private agency. The County would not be a member of that Board but would purchase services. Daleiden said it is worth pursuing if the company provides 5311 transit services.
Daleiden made a motion to have Potter and Sawatzke meet with Midwest Transit, along with city representatives, at their earliest convenience and report back to the County Board at their next meeting. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0.
Ace Auto Upholstery 140.00
ACME Tools 199.97
Ameripride Services 201.19
Anoka County Sheriff 21,743.56
APEC Industrial Sales & Serv 372.00
Aramark Services Inc 7,383.55
Boyer Truck Parts 112.56
Brock White Co LLC 148.38
BTR of Minnesota 275.26
C Walker Trucking 4,740.00
Cenex Fleetcard 1,851.38
Center For Ed. & Emp. Law 159.00
Centra Sota Coop - Buffalo 35,793.41
Chatham Township 805.00
Cokato/City of 924.60
Craguns Lodging and Conf. Ctr 292.30
Croteau Plumbing 3,529.72
Elk River Municipal Utilities 119.28
Emergency Auto. Tech Inc 552.50
Fishnet Security Inc 1,432.60
Franklin Township 1,902.40
Frontier Precision Inc 23,390.00
GCS Service Inc 278.44
Glunz Constr. Septic Serv. LLC 130.00
Granite Electronics 445.55
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 2,245.71
Interstate Automotive 125.00
Karels Towing 164.00
Loberg Electric 1,995.06
M & M Express Sales and Serv. 389.52
Maple Lake Township 830.80
Marco Inc 3,097.70
McMaster-Carr Supply Co 172.78
Menards - Buffalo 380.74
Mid-America Business Sys. 120.00
Midwest Protection Agency Inc 479.40
Minnesota Dept. of Human Serv. 268.26
MN Asphalt Pavement Assoc, 200.00
MN Assn of Co. Probation Ofcrs 500.00
MN County Attorneys Assoc. 125.00
MN Department of Commerce 650.00
MN Sheriffs Association 120.00
MN Transportation Alliance 515.00
Montrose/City of 1,135.80
Morries Parts & Service Group 296.49
National 4-H Council 133.65
Nelson Auto Center 23,670.61
Nelson/Laur. J. & P. Allegra 3,217.00
Office Depot 741.99
Olson/Dale A and Ione E 4,201.00
Performance Kennels Inc 103.20
Persian Business Equipment 160.00
Ratwik, Roszak,& Maloney 264.00
RCM Specialties Inc 643.86
Rockford Township 2,847.40
Royal Tire Inc 4,561.40
Russell Security Resource Inc 137.00
Ryan Chevrolet 187.67
Safelite Fulfillment Inc 174.24
Sawatzke/Evelyn V 9,000.00
Schneider Corporation 3,372.00
SCM Engineering 150.00
State Supply Co 261.01
Trueman Welters Inc. 106.87
35 Payments less than $100 1,456.73
Final total $182,158.50
The meeting adjourned at 10:49 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal June 2, 2014.