Wright County Board Minutes

MARCH 16, 1999

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Mattson, Eichelberg, Sawatzke, Jude, and Russek present.

The minutes of 3-2-99 were approved on a motion by Eichelberg, second by Mattson, carried 5-0.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Agenda Item A11, "Schedule Boy/Girl County Day for 5-4-99" (Norman); Consent Agenda Item B12, "Accept Resignation, Michelle Solvie, Clerk & Authorize Replacement" (Gruber); Consent Agenda Item E4, "Accept Resignation, Eric Pratt, Hwy. Tech I & Authorize Replacement" (Norman); Aud./Treas. Item #6, "Approve Joint Ditch 15 Meeting with SWCD" (Mattson); Item For Consid. #5, "Reschedule Committee Meetings from March 24th to March 31st" (Norman); "Closed Session immediately following the County Board Meeting today RE: FCR Litigation" (Kelly). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Jude, carried 5-0.

The Consent Agenda was presented for approval. Jude requested that Item A4, "Claim, Briggs & Morgan, $3,879.90" and Item B3, "Claim, Buetow & Associates, Inc., $1,824.14 (Fund 34, HSC & PW)" be pulled for discussion. Mattson requested that Item A5, "Authorize Signatures, Certificate of Substantial Completion, KUE Contractors, Inc." be pulled for discussion. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda as follows:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: G. Kramber, Assr.; T. Zins, Atty.; S. Marquette, E. Ross, Hwy.; K. Hayes, MIS.; W. Stephens, P&Z.

2. Claim, Frank Madden & Associates, $9,933.00.

3. Claim, Meadowbrook Insurance Group, $9,264.00.

6. Authorize Attendance. 1999 Local Government Forum: "Navigating the Course", St. Cloud Holiday Inn, 4-12-99, 9:00 A.M.

7. Charitable Gambling Application, St. Mary of Czestochowa (Franklin Twp.).

8. Refer Discussion RE: Building Maintenance Radios To Communications Committee.

9. Approve Recommendations Relating To Job Description Evaluations Reviewed By Hay Consultants.

10. Authorize Payment Of $23,809.81, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Authorize Signature, First Time Home Buyers Program.

11. Schedule Boy/Girl County Day for 5-4-99.

B. AUDITOR/TREASURER

1. Claim, Scott Builders, Inc., $2,025.00 (Fund 34, HSC & PW).

2. Claim, Buffalo Glass, Inc., $43.00 (Fund 34, HSC).

4. Claim, Computer System Products, Inc., $4,494.31 (Fund 34, HSC).

5. Claim, GE Capital, $3,889.38 (Fund 34, HSC).

6. Claim, Indianhead Specialty, $817.07 (Fund 34, HSC).

7. Claim, Emergitek, $390.00 (Fund 34, PW).

8. Claim, Rhodes Lock & Glass, $334.43 (Fund 34, HSC).

9. Claim, Citi Cargo, $275.63 (Fund 34, HSC).

10. Claim, Uline, $141.36 (Fund 34, HSC).

11. Accept Resignation, Judy Ahlm, Payroll Clerk, Eff. 3-22-99 & Authorize Replacement.

12. Accept Resignation, Michelle Solvie, Clerk & Authorize Replacement.

C. ATTORNEY

1. Increase Law Library Fee On Criminal & Petty Misdemeanor Cases From $5 to $10, Eff. 7-1-99.

2. Increase Salary of John McCooley, Law Librarian, from 8.00/hr. to $9.00/hr., Eff. 2-8-99.

D. COURT SERVICES

1. Accept Resignation, Margaret Webb, Part-Time Senior Clerk I, Eff. 3-12-99 & Authorize Replacement.

E. HIGHWAY

1. Set Letting Date For 1999 Overlay Contract For April 6, 1999 at 9:30 P.M.

2. Approve Partial Payment #4 ($91,247.00) To Buffalo Bituminous For Contract 9806 (86-619-19).

3. Set Bid Opening For Seasonal Requirements 4-14-99, Ways & Means Committee @ 10.00 A.M.

4. Accept Resignation, Eric Pratt, Hwy. Tech I & Authorize Replacement.

F. PLANNING & ZONING

1. Authorize Use Of Compost Plant Tipping Floor By SWCD For Tree Distribution.

2. Approve Request To Rezone 20 Acres From AG to A/R, Glen R. Stanberry (Marysville Twp.).

G. SHERIFF

1. Refer Recruitment/Retention Problem In Jail Kitchen To Personnel Committee.

2. Refer Lack Of Availability Of Timely Pre-Employment Physicals To Personnel Committee.

3. Authorize Board Chairman's Signature on the Annual County Boat and Water Safety Agreement.

Jude referenced Item A4, "Claim, Briggs & Morgan, $3,879.90" and stated he would vote against approval of the claim as he has done in the past. He said the Professional Services budget line item was over $53,000 last year due to claims paid to Briggs & Morgan. He stated Briggs & Morgan were hired and lost a court case on behalf of the County. Russek moved to approve the claim as presented, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 4-1 with Jude casting the nay vote. Mattson inquired whether the Board wanted to approve Item A5, "Authorize Signatures, Certificate of Substantial Completion, KUE Contractors, Inc." or whether this item should be referred to the Building Committee Of The Whole meeting scheduled for today. After discussion, Jude moved to refer Item A5 and Item B3, "Claim, Buetow & Associates, Inc., $1,824.14 (Fund 34, HSC & PW)" to the Building Committee Of The Whole meeting scheduled for today. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0.

Gerald Kritzeck, Assessor, introduced Joann Lowrie who was hired as an Appraiser effective February 22nd. Lowrie was welcomed.

Doug Gruber, Auditor/Treasurer, distributed the February Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines for review.

Gruber presented a draft resolution which would establish a postage due petty cash fund at the Post Office. Gruber explained problems incurred during last year's mailing of the property tax statements. Mailing of the statements was outsourced but did not include a forward guarantee so many tax statements came back to the County. The statements then were sorted and remailed. In contacting the Post Office, Gruber learned that for a cost of $.50 each (including postage), the Post Office will forward mail and send updates to the Auditor. Jude moved to adopt Resolution #99-18 establishing a postage due petty cash fund at the Post Office, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

On a motion by Jude, seconded by Russek, all voted to approve a plat, "CEDAR PONDS," as submitted by Carlson Investment Properties, LLP, fee owner, of property described in part as follows: The W1/2 of the SE1/4 of NE1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 121, Rge. 27 and David Charles & Betty Joy Carlson, a.k.a. David Carlson & Bette Joy Carlson, husband & wife, fee owners, and Security State Bank of Maple Lake, mortgagee of the following described property: The E1/2 of the SE1/4 of NE1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 121, Rge. 27; except part of the E1/2 of SE1/4 of NE1/4, Sec. 33, Twp. 121, Rge. 27 as described on original plat, with all outstanding taxes having been paid; green acre liability, if any, has been satisfied; the park dedication fee has been paid (#69619); a road letter of credit is on file w/ the Auditor/Treasurer; and the title opinion as prepared by Timothy L. Young, Attorney at Law, has been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be ready for filing and recording.

Gruber requested approval of a tax forfeit sale for Parcel No. 217-044-001360 located on Lake Marie in Southside Township. This parcel went tax forfeit in 1994. The previous owners of the property, who live adjacent to this lot and whose septic system sits on the tax forfeit parcel, were interested in repurchasing this parcel in 1995. This was not possible as the property was located on public waters. The County received permission from the DNR in 1995 to sell this parcel under a provision which applies to lots with less than 50 feet of frontage on public waters. The former landowners are again interested in purchasing this parcel. Staff proposed that the alternate sales procedure in MN Statutes, Section 282.01, Subd. 7a be used which allows nonconforming lots to be sold to owners of adjacent property under the zoning ordinance. The County is required to provide a 30-day written notice to adjoining properties. Eichelberg moved to approve the request for a tax forfeit sale for Parcel No. 217-044-001360 to be held 4-20-99 at 11:00 A.M. in the Wright County Auditor's Office, second by Russek. The motion and seconded were amended to include as a condition of sale that the sewer system of the adjoining property owner be allowed to remain on the parcel. Motion carried 5-0.

Mattson said a meeting regarding Joint Ditch 15 was held in January. It was decided a meeting should be held with the SWCD to obtain a water management response. Mattson requested authorization for SWCD to call a Joint Ditch 15 meeting, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, said he and the Parks Advisory Board had developed a Parks Strategic Plan and requested that a meeting be set to review the Plan. Mattson moved to establish a Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 4-6-99 at 1:00 P.M. Motion carried 5-0 on a second by Russek. Mattice referenced the Highway 24 project at Clearwater Pleasant Lake and said that excess fill material will be stored on site. This fill material can be used for future projects or by the Highway Department.

At 9:30 A.M., the Public Hearing for Phase II of the DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant, Montissippi Park Development Project, was held. Phase II will include construction of a picnic shelter, play structure and parking/road improvements. Cost for Phase II of the project is $100,000 with a 50/50 match. In response to a question by Jude, Mattice explained that a day use park is generally used by those who live within a 15-20 mile radius. Overnight camps see more usage by people traveling from a further distance. Question arose as to potentially acquiring land owned by NSP. Mattice stated that NSP is involved in EPA hearings and it would be 3-4 years before anything could be pursued in this regard. The Public Hearing closed at 9:45 A.M. The resolution approving the Grant Application was approved on 2-9-99 and today's meeting was held to meet the Public Hearing requirements.

A Building Committee Meeting was held on 3-10-99. On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the minutes and recommendations as presented:

Generator Test Results (Attached). Based on tests performed by Loberg Plumbing & Heating, the Committee recommends that cost estimates be obtained for adding the circulation pumps, ventilation for the EOC, and heat for the Courts area to the standby generator system.

Conference Room Chairs. Hayes stated that three styles were looked at for the Community Room. The consensus of the Committee is to order 130 of the blue cloth chairs at $56 each. Buskey would also like two chair carts so they can be stacked and possibly used in other areas. Recommendation: Approve purchases as requested. Fund out of Site Improvements line item.

Acoustic Quality Problem, Jail Interview Room. Torfin stated that recording equipment was installed but the quality is poor due to the acoustics in the room. Heartland Acoustics, St. Michael, provided some alternative solutions to take care of the problem. The material cost of the best solution is $319 a case plus sales tax. Recommendation: Approve purchase of two cases of material for $339.75, trim and installation. Fund out of Site Improvements line item.

Review Change Orders With Scott Builders, Inc. Scott Builders presented the attached matrix which lists changes for both the Public Works Building and Human Services Center. Recommendation: Withhold any payment requests for Buetow until a Building Committee Of The Whole meeting is held to discuss with them designer errors and omissions.

Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, requested approval of a draft resolution and quit claim deed which would revoke two remnants of CSAH 37 Right-Of-Way to the City of Albertville. This is being done as a result of the improvements made to the intersection of CSAH 19 and CSAH 37. In response to a question by Russek, Fingalson indicated that the Right-Of-Way will not be needed for future County road construction. Jude moved to adopt Resolution #99-19 revoking two remnants of CSAH 37 Right-Of-Way to the City of Albertville, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

Fingalson presented agreements that were discussed as part of the Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 3-10-99. These agreements are with Mn/DOT for improvements being made to TH 12. Mattson moved to adopt Resolution #99-20 approving the Amendment to Mn/DOT Agreement No. 75997, Cooperative Construction Agreement, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Jude, roll call vote was unanimous to adopt Resolution #99-21 approving Mn/DOT Agreement No. 77609, Detour Agreement.

Also reviewed at the Transportation Committee Of The Whole meeting were Cooperative Agreements No. 99-01, 99-02 and 99-03. Fingalson stated changes made at the Transportation Committee Of the Whole Meeting were incorporated into these agreements.

Agreement 99-01 is between Wright County and the City of Hanover for jurisdictional change on CR 146 in Hanover. Changes made to Agreement 99-01 include: Page 3, Item 5, "The County will pave a two (2) inch thick wear course in the year 2000, from the CSAH 19 bridge to Riverview Road"; Page 2, Item 2, "All maintenance responsibilities on CR 146 shall become the responsibility of the City including snow and ice control effective two (2) years from the date of execution of this agreement. The County Highway Department shall continue maintenance responsibilities on this roadway until that date." This agreement does not include the City of St. Michael. Eichelberg moved to approve Agreement No. 99-01 with the City of Hanover, seconded by Jude, carried unanimously.

Agreement 99-02 is between Wright County and Southside Township for jurisdictional change on 80th Street from CSAH 2 to CSAH 3 in Southside Township. The change made to this agreement was on page 3, Item 4, "By execution of this agreement the Township hereby waives their right, under MN Statutes, Chapter 163, Subd. 5a and 5b, for a public hearing on the jurisdictional turnback and two (2) year maintenance period for CR 135." Jude moved to approve Agreement #99-02 with Southside Township, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0. Sawatzke noted that approval of these agreements is subject to approval by the Townships.

Agreement 99-03 is between Wright County and Middleville Township for bridge replacement over the North Fork of the Crow River (SAP 86-599-21). Fingalson distributed an amended Agreement and reviewed changes made which were highlighted in italics. He stated the key change was on page 3, Article 3, which added the sentence "The Township Engineer is responsible for completing and submitting to County Highway Department (for payment to Contractor) the Work Performance forms for partial payments." In addition, the following sentence was added to the same Article, "The County may defer payment of its share of engineering fees until the following budget year if the County's budget cannot provide for these costs." Discussion followed today on the impact this would have on the township budget. It was felt that although the County Highway Department had not budgeted for this bridge replacement at the last budget session, the impact on the County would be far less than that of the Township due to the overall size of the Township budget. Fingalson stated that he does have accountability for projects reflected in the budget. He said the Township just decided to complete the project at their annual meeting held several weeks ago. Regarding safety of the bridge, Fingalson indicated that the bridge has weight restrictions posted and should be safe if these are followed. Consensus today was to remove the second sentence added to Article 3 dealing with deferred payment by the County. Jude moved to enter into Agreement 99-03 with the deletion of the sentence as identified. Motion carried 5-0 on a second by Mattson.

At 10:00 A.M., the Public Hearing to review the Surveyor Department Fees was held. Jerry Uhde, Surveyor, referenced material distributed which outlined the current fees (adopted in 1994), proposed fees and a study of fees in surrounding counties. Uhde explained that the proposed fees do not reflect increases for maps and prints. The increase requested would relate to plat checking. The current fee is $80.00/plat plus $8.00/lot or tract with a minimum of $150.00. Uhde recommended increasing the fees to $150.00/plat plus $15/lot or tract with a minimum of $200.00, effective 4-1-99. The two highest paid employees perform the plat checking and a lot of time is involved. Jude questioned whether a sliding fee schedule should be used with fees being dependent upon what information is presented by the engineering firms. Uhde responded that although this would generate more revenue, it is difficult to administer as the plat checking fee is required before the process starts. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:19 A.M. and the regular Board meeting was reconvened. Mattson moved to approve the new fee schedule as presented, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.

Dennis Moeller, U of M Extension Service, summarized the 1998 Impact Report reflecting work completed by Mississippi Corridor Cluster #20 (Stearns, Benton, Sherburne and Wright Counties). The report outlines main programming efforts offered by staff in the cluster in the areas of Agriculture, Families, Community Planning, Youth and Crime/Violence. Moeller introduced Maribel Fernandez, Extension Educator, who will be working in the area of Livestock Systems.

The County Board recessed at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened at 10:35 A.M. Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, presented a request to adopt the findings and declaration for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Duininck Bros., Inc. (Alama property-French Lake Township). Staff recommendation was to adopt a negative declaration for the EAW (i.e., the project as proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required). The proposed pit is approximately 15 acres of mining area north of the closed Lindala Landfill. The PCA will finalize work on closing the landfill this summer. The EAW for the proposed pit was by petition and one of the primary reasons the Board accepted the petition was due to its proximity to the landfill. The primary purpose of the EAW is to determine whether an EIS is required. The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings if the Board approves the negative declaration at today's meeting.

An EAW was prepared pursuant to MN Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW and respective comments were reviewed in accordance with MN Rules Chapter 4410.1700 to determine if the project had the potential for significant environmental effects. The "Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision" document was drafted. The EAW was completed and distributed on 12-30-98 to all listed on the EQB mailing list and other interested parties. The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on 1-11-99 initiating the 30-day public comment period which expired 2-10-99. Eighteen written comments were received by the deadline. MPCA comments were received just hours prior to the expiration of the comment period. Consequently, a 30-day extension of the response period from the Wright County Board resulted. Today, Salkowski explained that the one area that has not been resolved is the design for the water retention pond which will be reviewed by the SWCD if the permit is approved. It was noted that today's discussion was not a public hearing.

Jude said in the past he has voted both ways on the requirement of an EIS, dependent upon location and zoning. He felt an EIS should be completed in this instance due to the amount of comments received, the proximity of the proposed gravel pit to the unlined landfill, and the potential of groundwater contamination. If the EIS would come back with a negative declaration, he would then be supportive of the gravel pit. Sawatzke and Jude discussed a prior decision by the County Board not to require an EIS in Monticello Township for a 120-acre gravel pit. Sawatzke said in that instance, he felt one should have been required due to size and also proximity to a large residential housing development. Jude responded that the area had been a gravel pit for many years and was not near an existing landfill and so he did not vote in favor of an EIS.

Walter Knutson, property owner within 1000' of the proposed pit, said the well on their property is 60' deep. He was concerned with the depth that Duininck Bros., Inc. would mine and the effect on the aquifer of the water.

Phil Efron, resident in the Pelican Lake area who lives adjacent to the landfill, questioned the Board's knowledge with regard to general compliance issues and reclamation of Duininck Bros., Inc. He questioned whether records had been checked for credibility. Russek responded that the City of Hanover has been working with Duininck Bros., Inc. and continues to renew the contract. Efron referenced the credibility of the EAW as he thought many of the statements were conclusionary. Salkowski responded that the studies referenced were sound and were completed on other pits. Efron said every site is unique and asked whether the pit had been evaluated properly to assure these conditions will be met. Salkowski stated that there is never a 100% guarantee in these instances.

Dick Anderson, resident on Lake Sylvia, questioned the veracity of Duininck Bros., Inc. as when the request for operation was originally submitted to the French Lake Township Board, it was for a 1-year period and now it appears it will be a 5-10 year period.

Bernadette Efron, resident in the Pelican Lake area, referenced land use. She said the area is zoned Ag and that at least 20 houses will overlook the gravel pit and plume. In addition, another neighbor has placed land up for sale with the potential of 20 new homes. Efron said the request to mine by Duininck was changed from a 1-year period to a 5-year period. Efron referenced the "Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision" document. On Item 22, Traffic, Efron said the EAW states a small amount of traffic occurs on this road. She said many people use this road to travel to Annandale and it is used for walking. She felt residents would not be able to use the road in this manner if truck traffic occurred. With regard to Visual Impacts, she took offense to the report stating that this would not affect scenic views. Efron currently overlooks a pond and would instead overlook the pit and plume. She questioned the length of time for mining and the amount of area which would be used. Efron felt if the pit would be approved, that Duininck Bros., Inc. should provide a financial guarantee that things will be as stated and that they will reclaim the area. She felt there were not enough facts in the EAW, that it was highly unsatisfactory and should be redone.

Jan Johnson, part of the Greater Lake Sylvia Association, referenced the landfill and the effect on clean up efforts and finances. Johnson voiced concern with the environmental effect of placing a gravel pit adjacent to the landfill and felt a more in-depth study should be performed to see what impact it will have in the area.

Tom Dunnwald, Attorney who spoke on behalf of the Greater Lake Sylvia Association, distributed a copy of a letter dated 2-9-99 which provided comments on the EAW. He said the greatest concern at this stage is that almost every category had conclusions stated which were unsupported. He referenced Jude's comment in support of an EIS, and Salkowski's statement that the standard for an EIS is whether there is mitigation or potential for any significant impact. Dunnwald said if this can t be answered, that the EIS cannot be denied. Under State Law, Dunnwald said the County Board is the responsible government unit who must make a decision based on State statutes for environmental review. They must decide whether there is enough information to show there would be no significant impacts because of the mitigation done.

Dunnwald referenced the "Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision" document. On page 8, Findings of Fact, the document states that the type, extent and reversibility of environmental factors were considered. He did not agree with the findings, as he said this would be a gravel mining area and that environmental effects would be subject to mitigation either by reclamation or sediment ponds. With regard to Soils (Item 13), it appears that gravel does go down to the water table at various points. Concern was voiced with regard to Duininck Bros., Inc. potentially mining deeper than stated and affecting the aquifer. Sawatzke responded that performing the EIS will not provide any additional information in this regard. Rather the Planning Commission could place stipulations with regard to these concerns. Dunnwald said the problem lies in that the groundwater table has not been identified. In addition, the original EAW said in some instances soil borings encountered clay and wondered what had been found in the other instances. Dunnwald stated that clay covers the aquifer. Dunnwald referenced the Surface Water Runoff (#18) which stated that runoff will be no greater than the original runoff. Dunnwald disagreed with this statement, as he felt that runoff will be different with the change in the use of the surface. The surface will be changed to support the weight of a gravel truck. He said Duininck Bros. Inc. provided the calculations with regard to surface water runoff and is still lacking fundamental detail. With regard to Traffic (#22), it is estimated that traffic will increase to 400 trucks/day. He questioned the impacts of improving the road due to mining of the area and said the report did not address the effect on the road. On Stationary Source Air Emissions (#24), regarding removal particulates from the emissions, Dunnwald felt the response was inadequate. In regard to Dust, Odor and Noise (E11 & E12), the studies cited in the report relate to other pits and would not necessarily pertain to this pit. In addition, the dust issue was not addressed.

In summary, Dunnwald said the Board is the local governmental unit which must follow the State rules established for the EAW. He said in issues such as those being discussed today, there is the potential of being sued by either party. He said people sue when action is taken with no facts to support the decision. In this case, he said the County Board has information from the EAW and comments to review. However, he thought that for the Board to make a finding that there was no significant impact would be unsupportable. Dunnwald said that although the Planning & Zoning Office had not heard back from the MPCA on this issue, that this should not be taken as support of the project as the MPCA has not been proactive in this area. In addition, the letter written in response to the MPCA comments was generated by Duininck Bros. Inc. and does not answer all of the questions. Dunnwald requested that the Board require a more complete EAW or approve the requirement for an EIS. He felt they could not base a rationale decision on the current EAW.

Jason VerSteeg, Duininck Bros., Inc. responded to credibility comments. He said the company has been in the road building business for nearly 75 years and has extensive experience in the operation and maintenance of gravel pits. VerSteeg said the company has stayed on top of the many changes which have occurred in the industry, permitting and regulations. He said when the location was originally considered, the company felt the landfill and gravel pit would compliment one another. One of the reasons supporting this thought was the use of granular materials for completion of the closing of the landfill. They proceeded to apply and met with the Planning Commission and subsequently the County Board in November 1998, where they voted to require the completion of an EAW. While completing the EAW, they worked with the DNR, MPCA and many other state and local governmental agencies. He said most agencies did not have a problem with their proposed operation. VerSteeg said the MPCA did have some concerns and he met with them and worked through the issues. He said most of their concerns related to permitting. They originally were concerned with the potential of their monitoring wells being contaminated with runoff but those concerns were cleared up. Also discussed were the sedimentation basin and a trap runoff to avoid erosion. He said the lowest area they will mine to is a 72.0 elevation, which is 30' above the groundwater table. He said they would be held to what the Planning Commission applies for elevations and conditions. Although some of the answers in the EAW seem conclusive, past data is used and those principles are applied to determine what will happen in the future. He felt the EAW was completed as accurately and completely as it could be and that an EIS would not provide any additional environmental information. In response to a question by Jude, VerSteeg said Duininck Bros. Inc. is not against the environment just because they do not want to complete an EIS. He said it is the law of diminishing returns, how much more should be done to make something valuable.

Al Ostlund, resident of Lake Sylvia, felt an EIS was in order due to many unanswered questions and the effect the pit may have on the lake. He said this instance is unique as the pit will be placed next to a potentially toxic landfill.

Cletus LaTour spoke on behalf of himself and his son, Randy LaTour who both live in the area. At the time they built their homes, the area was not identified for being the location of a gravel pit. He also cited the water which would sit on all four sides of the pit and was in opposition to it.

In response to a question by Jude, VerSteeg stated that the original application was filled out by another employee. VerSteeg did not know if the application referenced a 1-year period, but said mining is usually done over a period of 5-10 years. The area that will be mined is approximately 12 acres, but the parcel was leased for 37 acres. VerSteeg indicated that the plans have not grown from the original 12 acres. Jude responded that when this request was first brought up, it was for a maximum 2-year period and for 6 acres, so that is why people are concerned. VerSteeg said the actual mining area is 6 acres but 12 acres is required including the road. Although he is not sure of the intent of the company, he envisioned 5 years as an acceptable time frame for mining. Duininck then posed a question to members of the public present for discussion. He asked what the operation had to do with the landfill.

Al Peterson referenced the two letters that MPCA had sent to Planning & Zoning with no direct answer. Peterson spoke with the MPCA as late as yesterday and said the MPCA is concerned about the area surrounding the landfill and the effect on the lakes and groundwater. Peterson said he understood that the MPCA wants to purchase the land which is being considered for the gravel pit and use it as a buffer zone. He said they are passive as they feel they can exercise no control. Sawatzke noted the effect the landfill is having on the environment even though it has not taken garbage for years. He said landfills can impact for decades and centuries to come.

Bernadette Efron referenced the letter to Duininck from the MPCA which cited possible hazardous materials placed into the landfill from a train wreck. She felt the city or township could be contacted in this regard. Jude said the key issue is that the landfill is unlined and no one monitored what was placed into it. Duininck referenced the File Transfer Evaluation provided by the MPCA and said the only possible source of contaminants was the landfill. He did not see how the pit will affect the landfill as the water will run away from the landfill. Phil Efron questioned why a company would take the chance of poisoning a community vs. the profitability of a 5-acre area.

Another question was asked why the company would lease 40 acres if they were only using 13 acres. VerSteeg was unsure but stated that when an agreement identifies 40 acres, it usually means gravel can be taken in that 40-acre area.

Salkowski said he was puzzled as to how the gravel mining would affect the landfill, as the gravel is at an elevation above the water level and away from the landfill. He inquired what the Board would want researched if an EIS was required. In response to a question by Jude, Salkowski said the final pond design needs to be reviewed to address the surface water issue. Russek added that if this issue goes back to the Planning Commission, the SWCD will be required to determine runoff, emissions and sediment ponds. He said the SWCD is very stringent in this regard. Salkowski said the primary concern of the MPCA is the surface water runoff into their pond. He said the final design will be reviewed at the Planning Commission level but did not see a problem especially with the area they have to work with. Salkowski said he has been instructed by the County Board for years to support gravel mining due to industry. Lake Sylvia sits in the middle of the largest geological resource in the County and every year there is more demand for the material. He said they could do a better job of policing, but other gravel mining companies feel that Wright County is over involved in regulating. He felt this project did not deserve the completion of an EIS. Al Peterson alluded to the tax base that lake residents generate and that if the lake(s) are affected, property values will go down.

Jude moved to declare a positive EAW therefore requiring an EIS based upon the groundwater, surface water and proximity to the landfill. In addition a response should be obtained from the MPCA regarding the buffer zone as it pertains to the landfill. Motion died for a lack of a second. Mattson provided a map and soil description for the area in question and said the best gravel in the County is in this area. He did not feel the EIS would provide additional information. Mattson moved to approve the following: Based on the EAW, the response to the comments received and the Findings of Fact, the Wright County Board concludes the following:

1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and MN Rules 4410.1000 to 4410.1700, and

2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, and

3. Based on the criteria in MN Rules 4410.1700 the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, and

4. The Wright County Board makes a "Negative Declaration", and

5. An EIS is not required.

The motion was seconded by Russek. Sawatzke said he felt a couple of the issues could be expounded upon, but he did not feel anything would be gained from an EIS. He also referenced the comment that the MPCA was interested in purchasing the land. He said the largest problem he has is with reclamation of the land. He wanted the record to note that he would be in support of a reclamation fund on an acre by acre basis and that the County would be in charge of these funds until the land is reclaimed. Eichelberg said he felt that Planning & Zoning should review and closely monitor the pit. Jude said he was in support of reclamation, but any policy developed should apply to all. He also said he would support mining for a 2-year time frame. Motion carried 4-1 with Jude casting the nay vote.

At the beginning of today's meeting, County Attorney Tom Kelly had requested that the Board meet in closed session immediately following the Board meeting. Due to the Building Committee Of The Whole meeting today and since time is not of essence, he requested that the meeting instead be held following next Tuesday's County Board meeting. The Board acknowledged this request.

A Building Committee Of The Whole meeting was held on 3-2-99. On a motion by Jude, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the minutes as presented. A summary of the minutes follows:

Project Update: KUE indicated that all punch list items would be completed by March 5th and electrical punch list items would be completed by March 2nd. KUE and Engel will need to resolve lighting which was installed differently from the plan. Engel is still waiting to receive door frame wind calculations. Outdoor items still need to be completed. Discussion also involved sealing of the masonry. It was requested that Scotts communicate to Engel the Committee's consensus to have the combustion air intake work done by KUE and according to the provisions of the contract in regard to the O & P percent. Scotts indicated they would do so and attempt to have the work completed by March 5. Scotts are also to bring a specific list of items needing resolution to the Building Committee Meeting on 3-10-99.

Schedule Update: Public Health and the reception area have been relocated to the Human Services Center. Accounting will be moved next.

Voice/Data Update: The data hookup is working well. Swing is doing a study on updating wiring in the Courthouse/Annex and will be presenting costs to replace the wiring at a future meeting. The Committee consensus was to approve a request for a buzzer at the HSC front desk. The cost is $465 and will be taken from contingency funds on the basis that this item should have been initially included.

Courthouse Remodeling: There was preliminary discussion on how to proceed with plans to utilize the space on 3rd and 4th floors which are being vacated by Human Services. Once 4th Floor is vacated, additional discussions will take place in regard to what departments may need to acquire the space.

A Committee Of The Whole meeting was held on 3-1-99. Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Russek, carried unanimously:

Discuss North Fork Crow River Watershed District. Kuseske explained M.S. 103D. He stated there are 43 watershed districts in the State. They have a levy authority up to $125,000 annually. He stated that 80% of the NFCRWD is in Stearns County. They try to coordinate projects with the County and Soil Water Conservation District. Their projects have normally had a 75% cost share for the landowner. They are insured through the League of Minnesota Cities. On ditch matters, the County holds a public hearing and then turns it over to the Watershed District. For our purpose, he said one watershed district along the Crow River would probably be unmanageable. We should look at either a Joint Powers Agreement or Joint Cooperation Agreement. A Joint Cooperation Agreement would not commit County funds to the organization. However, if at some point actual projects are contemplated, it might be better to have a Joint Powers Agreement.

On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to lay review of the Ways & Means Committee minutes and the Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Agreement over to the next County Board meeting.

On a motion by Russek, second by Jude, all voted to schedule a Personnel Committee Meeting for 3-22-99 immediately following the Human Services Board meeting. The meeting will be held for the Performance Appraisal of Don Mleziva, Human Services Director.

Mattson moved to adopt Resolution #99-22, Charitable Gambling Application as presented by the Loretto Lions (Rockford Township). Russek seconded the motion and it carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

On a motion by Mattson, second by Eichelberg, all voted to establish March 31st as the regular committee meeting day (replacing March 24th).

Bills Approved

Abbott Office Systems 379.50

Active Logic Corporation 275.00

City Albertville 1542.50

Alliant Foodservice 1367.78

AMI Imaging Systems Inc 595.57

City Annandale 1158.26

Aspen Equipment co 1194.37

AT&T 1525.68

Atom 179.00

Beaudry Propane Inc 1275.44

Betmar Languages Inc 506.50

Brinkmans Inc 5532.68

Buffalo Clinic 114.00

Buffalo Hospital 10833.34

City Buffalo 16537.15

Cellular 2000 of St Cloud 411.84

Central McGowan, Inc 190.86

Chatham Township 652.75

Clearwater Township 339.10

Cokato Township 395.84

Component Technology 128.18

Corinna Township 2651.80

Cub Foods 510.78

City Delano 2916.25

Karen Determan 110.36

John Dziuk 500.10

Emergitek Inc 3337.06

Facility Systems Inc 2322.12

Mitchell Flemming 300.00

French Lake Township 569.65

Gateway 2000 2564.54

W Grainger Inc 222.90

City Hanover 752.00

Harkers 439.03

Hay Group 806.40

HRAI 100.00

Indianhead Specialty Co Inc 871.07

Interstate Auto 170.40

Klatt True Value Electric 136.77

KUE Contractors Inc 43826.00

Lake Region Coop Oil 12671.81

LaPlant Demo Inc 261.03

Lawson Products, Inc 363.16

M-R Sign Company Inc 396.77

Maple Lake Messenger 148.50

City Maple Lake 646.75

Marysville Township 661.75

Richard Mattson 179.20

Middleville Townsh 899.00

Access Rentals Inc 597.51

Airtouch Cellular Bellevue 1358.00

Albion Township 911.00

American Business Forms 1659.74

Annandale Advocate 374.25

Appert Foods 2106.97

Assn of Minnesota Counties 875.00

AT&T Wireless Services 117.53

Bankers Advertising Co 166.17

Best Disposal Services 498.39

Art Betterley Enterprises Inc 2546.41

Buffalo Bituminous 91247.00

Buffalo Drug 903.22

Buffalo Township 1300.50

Catco Parts Service 875.13

Central Glass 376.00

Chamberlain Oil Co 1516.28

Citi-Cargo & Storage Inc 265.63

City Clearwater 601.25

City Cokato 806.86

Computer System Products Inc 4684.45

CPS Technology Solutions 692.33

Delano Municipal Utilities 123.62

Dept of Labor & Industry 100.00

Digital Biometrics inc 5520.00

Econo Lodge 232.12

Enterprise & Dispatch 186.00

Federated Propane 294.21

Franklin Township 6538.25

G & K Services 1305.35

GE Capital Information Technol 3889.38

Greenview Inc 545.33

Hansen Advertising Specialties 353.76

Jim Hatch Sales Co Inc 726.21

Holt Motors Inc 133.13

Imageware Software Inc 234.27

Information Technology Division 149.35

Chris Jahnke 112.22

Michael Kradz 1000.00

Ladens Business Machines Inc 160.00

Lakedale Telephone Co 349.06

Larson Publications Inc 581.40

Lees Riverside Auto Inc 15500.00

Maple Lake Lumber Co 236.17

Maple Lake Township 605.95

Marco Business Products 3214.59

Masys Corporation 5396.96

McDowall Co 5375.00

Midland Corporate Benefits Svc 370.50

Minnegasco 13050.74

MN Assn of Jail Programs & Srvs 105.00

MN County Attorneys Assn 165.00

Dennis Moeller 190.78

Monticello Township 1012.00

MTI Distributing Co 315.06

National Recreation & Park Assn 167.50

Northern Hydraulics Inc 104.40

Office Depot 2162.47

City Otsego 1180.00

Performance Office Papers 398.14

Photo I 292.33

Reentry Services Inc 226.80

Rockford Township 2167.75

Scott Builders Inc 2025.00

Sirchie 170.05

Snowplows Plus 1171.54

Southside Township 445.00

St Cloud Stamp & Sign 285.24

Star Tribune 378.00

State of MN Intertech Group 419.35

Strategic Technologies Inc 1902.50

Sysco Minnesota Inc 2015.28

Taylor Technologies Inc 147.39

Tires Plus 128.37

Transcor America Inc 1567.26

Adriana Trevino 2950.00

Unlimited Electric Inc 1346.01

Carol Vander Kooi 5770.63

WalMart Store 01-1577 132.99

West ABE Consortium 1200.00

Western Gas Utilities 360.77

Woodland Township 1158.25

Wright Lumber & Millwork Inc 453.63

Zack's Inc 218.36

Zip's Diesel Injection Serv 383.18

Minnesota Chemical Co 165.79

MN Counties Computer Co-op 1499.16

MN County Attys Assn 853.00

Monticello Times 519.20

City Montrose 383.05

National Bushing & Parts 996.19

North Memorial Health Care 410.00

Northstar Repro Products Inc 434.31

OSM & Associates 349.78

Pagenet 521.22

Dave Peterson Monticello Ford 1375.97

Precision Frame & Alignment In 484.00

Rhodes Lock & Glass 334.43

City Rockford 1638.73

Shared Resource Mgmt Inc 570.00

Smith & Nephew 161.23

City South Haven 413.00

Sprint 149.03

City St Michael 5458.19

State of Minnesota 1156.94

Sate Supply Co 118.13

Sy-Ray Plumbing & Heating Inc 132.78

Tactical Alliance Inc 750.00

Technagraphics Inc 360.70

Total Printing 535.43

The Travel Gallery 336.00

Uline 141.36

US West Communications 342.25

Victor Township 1407.00 City Waverly 392.20

West Publishing Co 356.14

Winsted Publishing Inc 879.16

Wright County Journal Press 321.00

Xerox Corporation 538.89

Ziehgler Inc 795.00

Robert Zrust 1300.82

71 payments less than $100 3,645.48

Final Total $368,523.32

The meeting adjourned at 12:09 P.M.

Patrick Sawatzke, Chairperson

ATTEST: Richard Norman, County Coordinator


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

Howard Lake-Waverly Herald & Winsted-Lester Prairie Journal
Stories | Columns | Classifieds | Obituaries
Community Guides | Special Topics | Cool Stuff | Shopping | Home Page