WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 2014
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 11-18-14 County Board Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried unanimously.
The Agenda was corrected as follows: Page 2, Item IX 2., change the time of the Committee Of The Whole Meeting from 10:30 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00 A.M. but the Agenda incorrectly listed it as 10:30 A.M. Daleiden moved to approve the Agenda as corrected, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Daleiden, second by Borrell, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Extend Employee Personal Leave up to Three Weeks
B. PLANNING & ZONING
1. DONALD S. BECCHETTI (Clearwater Twp.) Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval of the rezoning of 35 acres from AG General Agricultural and S-2 Residential/Recreational Shorelands to A/R Agricultural-Residential and S-2
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. 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 $295,289.08 with 182 vendors and 340 transactions.
Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, said Wright County took action at the request of Southside Township to abate several nuisances on property located at 10856 Pleason Avenue N.W., South Haven, Minnesota. The nuisances have been partially abated and costs have been incurred which now need to be assessed against the property. The County Board authorized the abatement action in 2013 and the Wright County District Court authorized the abatement and assessment of the nuisances. Kryzer proposed a hearing on the assessment on 12-16-14 at 9:30 A.M. so the assessments can be placed on the 2014 tax rolls. This will provide adequate time for publication and notice to the property owner. Potter moved to adopt Resolution #14-71 scheduling the hearing for 12-16-14 at 9:30 A.M. on the proposed assessment. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 11-19-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, it was requested that the minutes be amended to include “Asleson” listed under “Others Present.” Kryzer said that he attended the MPCA Citizens Board Meeting on 11-18-14. Discussion included the new source separated material composting process adopted by the MPCA for food scraps. He spoke with solid waste officials at that meeting, and they are interested in touring the Wright County Compost Facility to discuss alternatives. Daleiden moved to authorize Board members to attend a Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 12-05-14 at 9:30 A.M. at the Compost Facility to meet with MPCA Officials. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried unanimously. Daleiden moved to approve the minutes as corrected and the recommendations, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The Building Committee Minutes follow:
I. Compost Facility Equipment Update.
Johanson distributed a document regarding equipment at the County recycling facility (see attached). He said the equipment is in good shape. He checked with a number of people who are interested in this equipment. They want to know when it will be available. Johanson said the current market is favorable.
Daleiden asked regarding pricing and the cost to disassemble. K. Borchart said their company has taken apart and sold three plants like the County Compost Facility. Two had the same brand of equipment. They have experience with removing, marketing, and selling this type of equipment. Timing is a concern. Potential customers exist to whom the equipment could be sold quickly. Daleiden asked about the net value to the County. Borchart said getting an exact number would take more time. He estimated that the County would get a minimum of a few hundred thousand dollars.
Stephens summarized, saying there appears to be a market for some of the equipment, although the value will not be the same as the original. Johanson said the timing has to be right. The potential customers with whom he spoke are compiling their equipment. If it takes two years for the County to act, the market might be gone. He added that it will cost money and require logistics to remove the equipment.
Stephens asked J. Borchart if he could provide additional information on the potential value of specific equipment. Borchart said all the equipment is saleable, although he did not have a total value at this point. He said he would like guidelines to go by, and asked whether the County was seeking a particular number. He said the facility would be perfect as a transfer building. The equipment could be sold. Daleiden said the County is not interested in operating the facility as a transfer building. Borchart said the County could lease it. Daleiden said they were not interested in proceeding in that direction.
Daleiden asked Asleson regarding the guidelines to advertise the equipment. Asleson said if the equipment is valued more than $15,000, it has to be advertised in the newspaper and / or County web site. If the equipment doesn’t sell after 90 days, the County may employ a broker to help sell it.
Hayes said the County could sell it to another government unit without having to comply with those directives. Asleson agreed, saying the conditions he mentioned apply to selling the equipment to the general business public.
K. Borchart said the equipment isn’t viable as a whole, but should be sold in smaller units. Asleson said if the County sells individual pieces of equipment valued at less than $15,000 each, they can be sold on the open market. K. Borchart said they can provide documentation that each individual piece is worth $15,000 or less. J. Borchart clarified that Asleson was referring to $15,000 per transaction sale of an individual piece of equipment versus the entire project. Asleson affirmed this. J. Borchart recommended not cutting up the equipment. He said they could take bids on units valued more than $15,000.
Daleiden said in order to move forward, the County will need some indication from Borchart Steel Inc. regarding an estimated net amount the County will receive for the sale of the equipment. He also asked regarding the identity of potential buyers.
K. Borchart said Borchart Steel Inc. should list each major piece of equipment. Potter agreed, specifically related to equipment that may approach the $15,000 threshold.
K. Borchart asked if a County asset list exists on the compost facility equipment. Asleson said it is public information. Johanson said he has a complete list, and just needs to add the values. K. Borchart asked if the estimates they provide will be construed as a commitment or guarantee. Asleson replied that the reason for the estimate is that is required in State Statutes. K. Borchart said he will provide an estimate.
Daleiden said he understood there will be a cost to remove the equipment. The Board needs to know the end value to the County. Potter said taxpayers need to know. Daleiden said the County will need documentation of the cost to remove and ship the equipment.
J. Borchart asked whether the County would sell the building, the electrical service in the building, the conveyors, and other equipment as individual units. Daleiden said the primary goal is to empty the building.
K. Borchart asked about the small building at the site. J. Borchart said it could be broken up into individual components and bid accordingly.
Stephens said there is someone interested in the Zuk who is willing to pay $100 per ton for its components. He said scrap is currently going for $125 per ton, or about $1,800 for the unit. Stephens said the interested party would take the Zuk apart on the site.
K. Borchart said they want to market the entire facility. Johanson asked about the hangar building. Potter said neither that building nor the other building is for sale. K. Borchart said the conveyor would come out. J. Borchart said the goal is to gut the hangar or compost building and leave it intact with no damage to it.
Daleiden said the balers are being utilized now. He asked whether Borchart Steel Inc. would take them and provide others for the County to use, or perhaps trade them. K. Borchart said they have three balers of the same type. J. Borchart said the balers would have to be moved to a more convenient location. He said they were not as interested in the balers.
Johanson asked Asleson what the procedure would be if one customer wanted all the equipment. Daleiden said that could be done on a minimum bid basis. J. Borchart said it would have to be broken into units. Daleiden said if one person wanted it all, the sale could be set up as a bid.
Asleson said he would work with them regarding that scenario. Asleson said it depends on how it is done. An auditor would ask whether the bid was advertised in a publication. The Statute says soliciting bids via the web is authorized.
J. Borchart said sometimes a facility can get damaged through no fault of the auctioneer if many buyers are coming in to pick up items.
Johanson asked how quickly the Board wished to sell the equipment. Daleiden said a matter of months versus years.
Daleiden said they should obtain the price list and bring the matter back to the full County Board.
J. Borchart said they could have the price list ready in ten days. Stephens asked J. Borchart to send the price list to him, and he will bring it to the 12-16-14 Wright County Board meeting. Kelly said Administration would need the Agenda item by 12-10-14.
Recommendation: Present an estimated price list of Compost Facility Equipment from Borchart Steel Inc. at the 12-16-14 Wright County Board Meeting.
II. Sheriff Impound Lot.
Deringer distributed a copy of an email regarding the Sheriff’s Office impound lot and shed. Kelly handed out a two-sided document with aerial photos of the location (see attachments).
Hoffman said the current impound lot has approximately 1900 feet of fencing and covers 4.1 acres. The current shed is 150 feet x 70 feet. (See attached aerial photo).
Hayes referred to the aerial photos and said the east area is already annexed to the City of Buffalo. There was discussion regarding the drainage of that section of the parcel, and its current annexation to the City.
Hoffman said the current site has two parts which include the impound lot and the auction area. The two sections need to be kept secured from each other. The new Public Works Building is converging on the current auction area. Hoffman said he added a proposed fence to the auction area as items to be sold should be secured. Also, auction buyers should not be allowed into the impound lot as items seized as evidence are secured there. Hoffman said the impound lot would be larger than its current size to make room for future growth. The structure of the berm in that location creates a lot of non-usable space.
Hoffman explained the use of the additional shed. There are four sections. The primary area is used for cold storage where evidence technicians leave bulk storage and homicide related items. The Special Investigation Unit stores evidence there as well. There is no heat except in a small area used by the Narcotics Special Investigation Unit (NSIU). Hoffman displayed a diagram of the shed and explained the usage (see attached). He said the State requires the Sheriff’s Office to retain evidence permanently because potentially new technology could provide further information on old cases.
Hoffman said they would like one-third to one-half of the new shed temperature controlled so when employees do not have to work in extreme temperatures. There are two rooms in the shed are heated from mid October until March. Hoffman said several units access the current shed daily.
Hoffman distributed a list of vehicles that are stored in the current shed (see attached). He said one trailer is 24’ x 9’ and is now parked in the lot at the Law Enforcement Center (LEC). Some of the gear associated with this trailer must be stored in a climate controlled space. The ability to park the trailer in the storage shed near the related gear would be more efficient.
Hoffman said heating the shed would require at least one wall. The areas needing temperature control must be defined before dividing up the shed. In addition, because the building is also utilized as a shop, with employees working with chemicals and cleaning fluids, there should be a wash bay or rest room. Daleiden said he preferred that individual areas in the proposed shed have temperature control capabilities.
Hoffman said a well could be installed, as well as a holding tank. Daleiden said they could also stub in for future city water and sewer. Hoffman said the water run is relatively close to the proposed shed. Sanitary sewer is more challenging. Daleiden said it did not make sense to build the shed and not plan for a rest room. Hoffman said they will add that to the proposal for discussion.
Hoffman said the door sizes should be the same as at the Public Works Building, including one for entry into the temperate storage area. The shed will also house the command post, special vehicles and boats and other equipment. The remainder of the new shed would be cold storage.
Hayes asked about floor drains. He said in-floor heating with a zone system would work well. Hoffman said the current shed has a gas wall furnace for one unit. Daleiden said they would need two boilers one as back up or to kick in during extremely cold weather. Hoffman said they are not requesting air conditioning. A number of the units utilize the building either several times per day or for hours at a time.
The proposed shed would be a Morton style building, 200 feet x 80 feet, one-third to one-half of which would be heated and partitioned to accommodate various applications. Daleiden requested a cost figure for budgeting purposes. He said they should figure the cost of in-floor heating for half of the proposed shed, and provide numbers for the fencing. Hayes added that the cost of gates should be included. Daleiden asked for the cost of two gates. Deringer said four gates are needed. Daleiden said to use the existing gates temporarily. Potter suggested installing the fence first. Hoffman said one side of the fenced in area is the wall of the proposed building.
Kelly said they should also consider whether they want to situate the proposed shed farther back on the lot. Hoffman said they will need a turnaround area. He referred to the photo of the site and indicated the drainage system. He did not want the shed located by the property line. They want the impound lot as close to the North and East property lines as possible.
Recommendation: Provide the following cost estimates the December 2014 Building Committee meeting:
1) Cost of the proposed Sheriff’s storage shed (200’ x 80’ Morton style structure);
2) Fencing for the new impound lot (including two gates); and In-floor zoned heat system for half the building.
(End of 11-19-14 Building Committee Minutes)
Launette Figliuzzi, Veteran Services/Nuclear Director, requested the Board approve the annual revision to the Wright County Emergency Response Plan for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The Plan is a collective effort of FEMA, Minnesota Department of Public Safety (Homeland Security Emergency Management), Xcel Energy Center, Emergency Preparedness, and Wright County. Figliuzzi introduced Patrick Mclaughlin, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Administrator for the State of Minnesota, and Amy Hass, the Xcel Emergency Preparedness Coordinator who serves as the Community Liaison for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
Mclaughlin explained that in 2015, various exercises will be completed including a new hostile based exercise required by FEMA to be conducted once every eight years. This type of exercise was held in 2014 at the Prairie Island location. As part of the revision to the Plan, the State put together a supplemental document that will eventually be incorporated into the Minnesota Plan. It is a working document that is exercised four times per year. Another change implemented by FEMA is an in-depth checklist that is compared to the Plan. Mclaughlin said Wright County’s Plan was reviewed by FEMA and they found very little to change. He described it as a good and detailed Plan. Mclaughlin said this is a real credit to the former Veteran Services Director and staff. Hass provided information on a smaller drill that occurred this fall at the Monticello Nuclear Plant that involved the Sheriff’s Office. Further discussion followed on upcoming drills.
Daleiden made a motion to approve the annual revision to the Wright County Emergency Response Plan for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Potter.
A Personnel Committee Meeting was held on 11-19-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried unanimously. The minutes of the Meeting follow:
1. PERFORMANCE REVIEW Jami Goodrum Schwartz.
Based on four reviews submitted, the Committee recommends the overall rating of “Exceeds Expectations.”
(End of 11-19-14 Personnel Committee Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 11-19-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke explained that the Ag Inspector will be contacted to provide a report to the County Board on activities. Although this is required in February through the Contract, it was felt the Board should receive an update prior to extending the Contract. Lee Kelly, County Coordinator, said he expects the written report in the early part of December. It will then be presented to Committee. Sawatzke said the Ag Inspector should be invited to attend that meeting. Sawatzke referenced the Drainage Inspector and said the Board has more involved with the activities of that position. Last year, the County Board discussed the status of whether this position should be contracted or an employee, and the decision was made that it should be a contracted position. Staff should provide suggestions on where clarifications are needed if they have concern. Sawatzke said a number of years ago, a couple of contract positions were forced onto the County as employees and he does not want that to occur again. Staff will review the contract with Young and decide whether language changes are required. Another discussion point was the Drainage Inspector’s use of equipment at the Surveyor’s Office. Borrell said that the Drainage Inspector is currently using his own equipment but the extra equipment at the Surveyor’s Office could be sold or borrowed to the Drainage Inspector. Daleiden understood the Surveyor’s Office wanted to retain the equipment as backup. Sawatzke said it should be revisited whether Survey staff should complete the work or assist the Drainage Inspector with the equipment. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0. The Ways & Means Committee Minutes follow:
I. Ag Inspector.
II. Drainage Inspector.
These two items were addressed simultaneously. The following documents were distributed at the meeting (see attachments):
1) An article entitled “Is Your Contractor Really An Employee?” by the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT);
2) An article by MCIT called “Independent Contractors: Keeping Them Independent;”
3) A document titled “Independent Contractor VS Employee;”
4) “Agreement Between The County Of Wright And Erik Heuring;”
5) “Resolution 14-51 Appointing The Wright County Drainage Inspector;” and
6) “Agreement Between The County Of Wright And Michael H. Young.”
The contracts for the Ag and Drainage Inspectors are expiring at the end of this year. Kelly said he wished to discuss the nature of employee versus independent contractor status with the County Board related to the above contracts to determine whether to continue on the same course or modify the agreements.
Erik Heuring, County Ag Inspector, was appointed in late 2013 for 2014. The County used a contract similar to one drawn up with the former Ag Inspector.
Kelly said the Ag Inspector’s contract requires him to provide an update to the Board in February. The Board did not request this last year because Heuring had just taken on the position in January. Asleson said the contract requires him to provide a report no later than 2-28-15. Sawatzke said the agreement should require an annual report.
Kelly asked whether the Board would prefer to appoint the Ag Inspector to the position, or leave the position as an independent contractor. Kelly said the position should clearly fall within the guidelines for independent contractors. Asleson agreed that it is important to comply.
Kelly said the Drainage Inspector was appointed and is currently paid an hourly rate. He has been allowed to use County equipment and report into County systems. The County also paid for some of his mileage and training at an annual conference.
Sawatzke said he would like the agreement to reflect the expectation that the Ag Inspector would attend the majority of township quarterly meetings. Sawatzke said the Ag Inspector should inform all townships of his contact information. He also needs to consistently communicate with local ag inspectors.
Asleson said he contacted Heuring twice, and it appears he is doing everything required under law. Sawatzke said the former Ag Inspector would go to the townships and report on his current and future activities.
Kelly said many counties have employees fulfilling the duties of Ag and Drainage Inspectors. Traditionally the County has contracted with Ag Inspectors. MCIT would like to see a certain level of insurance on these positions. The County was able to appoint the Drainage Inspector to provide coverage under MCIT. MCIT wanted the County to do so by resolution.
Dahl said they reached out to eight counties. Only four responded. None utilized an independent contractor. If an independent contractor has no insurance coverage, the County will be responsible. Dahl said if the County continues in this vein and the inspectors misdiagnose or fail to perform, the County may ultimately not be able to transfer the risk to MCIT and will be liable for the entire amount of damages. If the County appoints both positions, then their nature and scope may need to be re-evaluated.
Dahl said if the Board hires or appoints someone, the County may provide coverage for that person through MCIT. If the County directs the functions of this position, the Department of Labor could view them as an employee. It is important to protect the County with insurance coverage, and to determine whether the position is an independent contractor or an employee.
Sawatzke felt the Ag Inspector position is clearly an independent contractor. Vergin read from the attached documents that describe the differences between employees and independent contractors.
Dahl said it would be different if the Drainage Inspector provided services for other entities, but the County is his only controlling account. If this position satisfies some, but not all of the tests for independent contractor, it would be subject to the opinion of an enforcement agent.
Sawatzke said the Ag Inspector position is not an employee. The Board does not have a list of his statutory duties, much less control over whether he does them. The Ag Inspector makes a profit and has expenses. He has to file tax forms. If he has no employees, he does not need a Federal tax identification number.
Kelly said the Drainage Inspector is his primary concern. Vergin said of the eight counties surveyed, four responded. They assign the duties associated with this position to existing staff. She said the County could consider seasonal employees. She provided the attached information since the contracts are expiring soon, and this is an opportunity to solidify the status quo or make changes as necessary.
Dahl said if this position fails the independent contractor test, there are consequences. He referred to the attached document mentioned previously, “Is Your Contractor Really An Employee?” Page 2. Possible consequences include paying back taxes, penalties, interest and attorney’s fees, or other liabilities available under certain laws.
Husom said it appears the Ag Inspector passes the independent contractor tests. She said the Drainage Inspector uses some County equipment. Asleson added there is more direction from the County with this position. Dahl referenced the MCIT document, “Is Your Contractor Really An Employee?” that says all of the tests focus on three factors: 1) behavioral control, 2) financial control, and 3) nature of the relationship (Page 1).
Dahl said he believes the County can transfer the risk. He is concerned that these tests are met. Kelly said his intent is to pass the information on to the Board so they have the information needed to make a good decision.
Husom said there are no blurred areas with the Ag Inspector aside from needing a report on what he is doing. The nature of the Drainage Inspector position is to have more contact with Commissioners because he attends the same meetings.
Dahl said it would help if he submitted a fee for service with an hourly rate. An independent contract negotiates his rates. Husom said the Board did negotiate with Drainage Inspector. Dahl said an enforcement agent would want to know if his rates were consistent with other inspectors.
Sawatzke said when they researched the Drainage Inspector position, and other counties paid similar inspectors $30 per hour for independent contractors. Husom agreed, and said he has a lot of discretion and operates independently. The County is not directing him.
Dahl said the concern regarding the Ag Inspector position is the insurance aspect, not whether he is an independent contractor. Kelly said if the County holds the Ag Inspector to the desired standard, he won’t be able to get insurance. Dahl said if the County doesn’t require him to have insurance, there is a risk of a non-compliant finding. Kelly said the County never received his proof of insurance. Asleson said if requested, the Ag Inspector will provide proof of liability coverage.
Sawatzke asked whether in the last fifty years a claim was ever filed against a county related to an Ag Inspector. He asked regarding the potential liability for the County. Kelly said the question is the level of risk tolerance with which the Board is comfortable.
Sawatzke said if there are concerns with the contract, the verbiage can be adjusted. Perhaps the County could sell or rent the equipment he occasionally uses.
Sawatzke said he has no issue with the Ag Inspector position. He would like to verify that the compensation is appropriate. He welcomed staff’s suggestions regarding adjustments to the contract, if any.
Kelly will contact the Ag Inspector to request a report in December. Sawatzke said they would like his report for 2014 to date.
1) Ag Inspector: Schedule a report from the Ag Inspector to be presented in December.
2) Drainage Inspector: Staff will provide suggested changes to the contract language.
(End of 11-19-14 Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
Kelly requested the Board cancel the 11-26-14 Owners Committee Meeting and reschedule it for 12-03-14. Sawatzke made a motion to do so and to designate Daleiden to attend in place of Borrell, as Borrell (appointee) and Sawatzke (alternate) are unable to attend. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0.
Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates
1. Safe Communities of Wright County. In 2016, a roundabout will be installed at the intersection of CR 134 and CSAH 35 in Buffalo. Safe Communities is completing research on distracted driving and have found that distracted driving can be more dangerous than impaired driving. Discussion items also included various forms of drugs and how they are being used in e cigarettes without detection.
2. Economic Development Partnership. Potter attended a meeting on 11-21-14. At the January EDP Meeting, the Greater MSP will provide information on their purpose and story. The EDP website includes information on this meeting.
Advanced Disposal Services $158.65
Ameripride Services 126.19
AMI Imaging Systems Inc 725.00
ANCOM Communications Inc 1,655.00
Anoka Co. Fiscal Services 11,564.00
Aramark Services Inc 16,128.82
Asleson/Brian J 195.00
Barrett Decorating LLC 375.00
Bestfriends Veterinary Clinic 320.36
Centra Sota Coop - Buffalo 15,803.96
Climate Air 68,996.40
Compass Minerals America 30,842.30
CPS Technology Solutions 1,215.00
Cub Foods 121.52
Cummins NPower LLC 1,210.30
Dell Marketing LP 3,231.88
Design Elect. Inc-Cold Spring 2,748.75
Diamond Mowers Inc 388.56
Engel/Dale L 1,500.00
Forestry Suppliers Inc 243.15
GCS Service Inc 952.17
Greene Espel PLLP 256.06
H M Cragg Co 1,575.00
Hewlett Packard 9,557.41
Holiday Inn - St Cloud 224.64
Intoximeters Inc 254.75
JME of Monticello Inc 383.39
Karels Towing 125.00
Marco Inc 643.00
Menards - Buffalo 202.24
Mend Correctional Care LLC 655.68
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc 16,985.70
Midwest Protection Agency Inc 479.40
MN Transportation Alliance 110.00
Morries Parts & Service Group 1,911.66
Motorola Inc 13,527.45
Neopost Great Plains 1,493.40
Norms Wayside 116.04
North Star Awards & Trophies 119.90
Nuss Truck & Equipment 2,087.39
Office Depot 2,463.98
Office of MN IT Services 2,100.00
Otsego/City of 201.37
Precision Dynamics Corp. 708.80
Precision Prints of Wright Co 201.00
Reds Cafe 448.87
Royal Tire Inc 150.64
RS Eden 1,733.65
Russell Security Resource Inc 290.10
Safelite Fulfillment Inc 455.94
Southside Township 1,266.86
Stockholm Township 435.40
Strategic Equip. and Supply Co 131.35
Suburban Tire Wholesale Inc 732.76
Theisen/Cynthia M 116.00
Total Printing 443.50
U. of MN/CCE Registration 945.00
West Payment Center 108.11
WPS Antennas 4,847.05
Wright Co. Highway Dept 40,496.98
Wright Co. Econ.Dev.Partner 10,000.00
Wright Henn. Coop Elec Assn 5,005.36
Wright Hennepin Electric 1,273.54
Xcel Energy 972.45
17 Payments less than $100 930.81
Final total: $295,289.08
The meeting adjourned at 9:51A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Dec. 15, 2014.