Wright County Board Minutes

SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Russek, and Thelen present. Commissioner Eichelberg was absent. Mattson arrived at 9:32 A.M.
Commissioner Thelen called for a moment of silence in honor of former County Commissioner Arlyn Nelson who passed away. Nelson was a Wright County Commissioner for 14 years.
Russek moved to approve the 9-18-12 County Board Minutes. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 3-0.
Sawatzke moved to approve the Agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 3-0.
On a motion by Russek, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: W. Maresh, L. Thingvold, Assessor; A. Gillham, K. Green, L. Pulvermacher, Aud./Treas.; J. Moe, Ct. Serv.; K. Clemence, N. Eldred, Sher./Corr.
2. Tri County Regional Forensic Laboratory Report, August 2012.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented a draft resolution approving a list of Tax Forfeit Parcels and setting a sale date of 10-26-12 at 1:00 P.M. Hiivala said the list of parcels will be on the County’s website. The following was changed on the draft resolution: Last sentence, change from “…and that all sales shall be full payment or the terms set forth on the 2012 List of Tax-Forfeited Land” to “…and that all sales shall be full payment of the terms set forth on the 2012 List of Tax-Forfeited Land.” Russek moved to adopt Resolution #12-55, setting the sale date for the Tax Forfeit Parcels on 10-26-12 at 1:00 P.M. The motion includes the noted change to the Resolution language. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 3-0 on a roll call vote.
On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. The claims listing includes 125 checks for a total of $874,698.17.
Hiivala requested that the discussion on the Engineering Report for County Ditch 10 be laid over until later in the meeting so the representative from Wenck Associates can be present.
Lt. Todd Hoffman, Sheriff’s Office, requested the Board authorize signatures on the 2013 Towards Zero Traffic Safety Grant resolution. A grant was received in the amount of $44,298 to provide overtime enforcement between 10-01-12 and 9-30-13. The grant dollars will be used to provide overtime pay for traffic enforcement shifts for deputies from the Wright County Sheriff’s Office and officers from the Police Departments of Annandale, Buffalo, and Howard Lake. Wright County is listed as one of the top 13 deadliest counties for impaired driving. The Toward Zero Death Grant will be broken up into several different waves throughout the Grant period. The enforcement waves will concentrate on one of the following events: Impaired Driving, Move Over Law, Seatbelt Compliance, Speed, Motorcycle and Distracted Driving. Lt. Hoffman said the only matching funds will be for the purchase of an in-car video camera for $2,300. Russek moved to adopt Resolution #12-56, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 3-0 on a roll call vote.
Lt. Hoffman requested the Board authorize signatures on the VHF Interoperability Frequency Use Agreement. Wright County needs to have the Agreement in place in order to utilize State-owned resources on the Dispatch consoles to communicate with first responders who have not yet transitioned to the ARMER System. In the past, Wright County maintained its own radio for VHF interoperability. The Agreement will allow for de-commission of some equipment. This is a no-cost item. The Agreement has been reviewed by the Wright County Attorney’s Office. Sawatzke moved to authorize signatures on the Agreement, seconded by Russek, carried 3-0.
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 9-18-12. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the Minutes. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 3-0:
Host distributed a booklet entitled, “Audit Presentation, Exit Conference: Communication With Those Charged With Governance Year Ending December 31, 2011.” He also provided a financial opinion letter from CliftonLarsonAllen, and a document entitled “Wright County, Minnesota – Financial Statements And Supplementary Information, Year Ended December 31, 2011” (see attachments).
Host referred to the Audit Presentation booklet, Page 4 that listed the experience of the Audit Team. Sawatzke asked if Host had ever worked for the State Auditor. Host said he worked with that Office for 12 years and 9 with Clifton Larson Allen (formerly LarsonAllen). Host said LarsonAllen and Clifton merged on 1-02-12. Due to the merger, CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) is now the eighth largest Certified Public Accounting agency in the United States. CLA now has the opportunity to be more involved in setting new standards. The same LarsonAllen team is still in place in Minnesota.
CLA is required to submit a letter of opinion to the County after performing an Audit. Host said the letter states it is an “unqualified opinion,” which means that it was clean.
Host directed attention to the Internal Control Findings on Page 8 of the Audit Presentation. He said the County Audit noted three findings that commonly occur in local government. Under the Material Weaknesses category, auditors identified the following:
• Segregation of Duties
• Material Audit Adjustments
• Financial Reporting Process
The definition of Material Weakness on Page 8 reads: “Deficiencies in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement would not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis.” More details regarding the three Material Weaknesses may be found on pages 69 and 70 of the Financial Statements And Supplementary Information document.
Host explained that some departments don’t have enough employees to fully segregate duties. Hiivala responded that this issue may be somewhat mitigated by pre-numbered receipts. Host said even if there aren’t enough people, it is essential to review procedures and oversight. Regarding the financial reporting process, Host said once all data are entered into the County system, auditors compile account totals for further analysis. Auditors discovered a few Material Audit Adjustments, but Host said County staff is working to resolve those issues.
There were no Significant Deficiencies identified for 2011. Host said Significant Deficiencies are not as serious as Material Weaknesses. Host reported two control findings reported last year that have been resolved as noted on Page 70, Items 10-1 and 10-2 of the Financial Statements document.
Host explained that Auditors do two audits. Under the category of Minnesota Legal Compliance Findings, Auditors present an opinion of the County financial statements. Auditors noted that 25 of 45 individual ditch systems exhibited deficit fund balances at year end. Regarding Federal Single Audit Findings, which examine County compliance with Federal grants, Auditors cited one Material Weakness. Host said during Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), one participant did not appear to have income verified in the MAXIS system, which is a requirement to receive benefits. Norman asked if Auditors perform random sampling. Host said yes. Details pertaining to this finding are provided on Page 71 of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information document.
Host said three Significant Deficiencies were identified. They are listed on Pages 72 through 74 of the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information document. The Title 20 Social Services Block Grant is required to submit quarterly reports summarizing expenditures. Host recommended someone review the reports prior to submission and document the review.
Hiivala said Department Heads involved met with the Audit Team and are taking steps to correct these issues. Host said the County has demonstrated a commitment to resolving issues brought to light by the Auditors, and hopefully will continue that trend with the issues discussed at this meeting.
Regarding Medical Assistance Item 11-3 on Page 73, Host said all quarterly income maintenance reports should tie to the expenditures reported in the IFS general ledger system. He said this issue is easily rectifiable. Item 11-4 (also related to Medical Assistance) on Page 74 is a control issue. One in 40 cases did not provide citizenship or qualified alien status documentation.
Host moved to the graphs in the Audit Presentation, beginning with Page 14. He said these graphs were unaudited and the data were derived from the Financial Statements. When all Government Funds are combined, the County has 5.2 months of expenditures in the unrestricted fund balance. Host said that amount is sufficient for operations until tax collections are received. The State Auditor recommends there be no less than five months of expenditures in the unrestricted fund balance. Host reiterated that a minimum of five months expenditures must be available for operations. This fund balance is down slightly from 2010 to 2011, as expenditures in 2011 increased over the previous year. Hiivala said he anticipates another drop in the fund balance for 2012.
Page 15 of the Audit Presentation illustrates County revenues and expenditures. Over the last three years, total revenues and expenditures have been close. In 2011, expenditures exceeded revenues by $2,165,344. Revenues declined and expenditures increased from 2010. The fund balance decreased by $2,017,568. Host said it is likely the fund balance will decrease in 2012 as well. Overall, Host said Intergovernmental revenues decreased about $4.8 million from the previous year. Hiivala commented that State unallotments were the primary reason for the decrease in Intergovernmental Revenues.
Page 16 of the Audit Presentation illustrates historical revenues. Total Tax Revenue is up. In 2006, taxes constituted 42% of Total Revenue and Intergovernmental Revenue was 32%. In 2011 taxes made up 49% of Total Revenue and Intergovernmental Revenue was 29%. Total Governmental Revenue for the County in 2011 comprised 74% of revenue, which means the County gained revenue from other sources. Host said many other counties receive 90% of income from Intergovernmental Revenue.
Host referred to the revised graph on Page 17 of the Audit Presentation, which delineates expenditures from 2006 through 2011. The Highways and Streets Fund expenditures have remained steady during this period. Host said this fund can fluctuate depending on User Taxes and Federal Grants. The Public Safety and General Government Funds incurred slight increases in expenditures.
The graph on Page 18 of the Audit Presentation show consistent revenues and expenditures for the past three years. Host said the General Fund Balance has increased by $2,284,008 (note: Error in text next to graph states $2,2284,008). As of 12/31/11, the General Fund has 7.3 months of expenditures in the unrestricted fund balance. He explained that Auditors look at the entire financial situation of the County to get the most accurate perspective.
Host turned to Page 19 of the Audit Presentation which depicts Road and Bridge Fund Revenues and Expenditures. Expenditures exceeded revenues. Consequently, the fund balance decreased by $789, 536, leaving 4 months of expenditures in the fund balance as of 12-31-11.
The Human Services Revenue and Expenditures graph on Page 20 shows a slight increase in the fund balance of $36,812, but overall remains consistent with the prior year. Host said revenues increased about $400,000 and expenditures increased approximately $1.5 million. There are only 2.6 months in the unrestricted fund balance. This fund receives State grant monies and does not rely solely on taxes for revenue.
Page 21 of the Audit Presentation illustrates County Indebtedness. Host said all debt payments were made to schedule. Compensated balances increased as employees accumulate years of experience and approach retirement. There is a new liability for septic loans payable. The County also received proceeds from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) of $179,000. Hiivala said that is equivalent to the amount the County allocated for this program. Host said the money will be repaid according to a repayment schedule.
Host said the County General Fund is within the State Auditor guidelines. The Road & Bridge and Human Services Fund balances are short of recommended levels as of 12-31-11.
There were several unique issues noted on Page 23 of the Audit Presentation. One was the septic loan program the County entered into with the MPCA in 2011. The County also issued refunding bonds during 2011 in the amount of $1,495,000. Hiivala remarked that those bonds constituted a positive gain. Host said the County implemented GASB 54, which changed fund balance classifications.
Mattson asked which fund reflected Parks and Fair Board expenditures and revenue. He said the County allocated about $70,000 to the Fair Board. Host replied that the Fair Board is a separate entity.
(End of 9-18-12 Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
Hiivala introduced Joel Toso, Wenck Engineering, who provided a PowerPoint presentation on the “Hydrological Study of Wright County Ditch 10: The Effect of Ditch Cleaning on Lake Ann.” The purpose of the Study was to estimate the effects that Ditch cleaning may have on the water level of Lake Ann. County Ditch 10 is located south of the communities of Howard Lake and Cokato and drains into Lake Ann. Toso said County Ditch 10 is everything upstream of Lake Ann. There are watersheds that impact Lake Emma, which is just downstream of Lake Ann. The Study ceased just prior to 12-Mile Creek and Little Waverly. The Study included areas downstream, as Toso said it is important to understand how the watershed with Lake Emma plays in with Lake Ann. The scope of the work included:
1. Compile and review existing data.
2. Collection additional data as needed.
3. Prepare a hydrologic model of the Ditch system.
4. Investigate the impact of Ditch cleaning on the level of Lake Ann.
5. Prepare a report.
Toso said a critical piece is looking at the cross sections of the Ditch (outlined in the report). The level of the Ditch upstream or near the cross sections is either below or near the invert of the culvert. If a ditch is full of sediment, it would be expected that the sediment would be inside of the culverts. Toso said this Ditch system is not too bad at the crossings in terms of sediment. He stated that was an important finding of this survey. One of the key crossings was downstream of Lake Emma. It involves a 9’ diameter culvert under a township road. They found the channel approaching the culvert to be quite clean. This was completed during high flows (June 1st) after a wet period in May. They also looked at the condition of the Ditch (June 12th) which included some high flow conditions. In general, the main section of the Ditch was found to be in a reasonable condition. If it were not in a reasonable condition, they would expect to see a lot of debris and other sediment in the Ditch. Further upstream, there are farm approached sections but that is in reasonable condition. A USGS Topo Map shows the Grass Lake area and how much of the watershed flows to Grass Lake. The Map reflects that most of the watershed is governed by agricultural land use. That information was fed into a model. They looked at total acreage leading to the Ditch. The runoff curve number is something they look at in modeling to determine the runoff which can be generated from each of the watersheds. The time of concentration is how much time it takes for the runoff to reach the outlet point.
Toso said there were wet conditions in May, so they used the April and May rainfall amounts in the model to see if they could generate the Lake level as compared to what they surveyed on Lake Ann on June 1st, when the Lake level measured 989.5. They were out there shortly after the peak on Lake Ann. Toso said they feel the model is calibrated to what they saw in the field. With the model, they looked at the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year floods, as well as April/May, 2012 because of the wet conditions during that time. They looked at existing conditions, cleaned Ditch conditions, and cleaning of the Ditch to include expanding it by 2’ (width). The results reflect that if the Ditch were cleaned, the increase in the Lake level would be a little over 1” for a 2-year event and as much as 3” for a 100-year event (from Lake levels today).
Toso highlighted the next steps:
1. Begin plans for Ditch cleaning. This will require a detailed survey of the Ditch system, ideally during low flow in fall. Ditch cleaning plans may include:
a. Identifying options to mitigate estimated increased water levels in Lake Ann, such as, managing water levels in Grass Lake and other upstream storage areas as necessary.
b. Identifying selected portions of the Ditch system to clean.
c. Identifying actions to improving water quality, such as, using a two stage ditch and/or wetland restoration.
2. Prepare engineering plans and specifications for Ditch cleaning.
3. Obtain bids for the work.
4. Investigate options to maintain flow condition of downstream of Lake Emma.
5. Consider re-determination of benefits (identify the requirements and schedule).
Toso said Item 4 is a key feature. County Ditch 10 ends in Lake Ann. There is no control of what happens beyond Lake Ann and downstream to Lake Emma. Private property owners are involved between Lake Emma and 12-Mile Creek. Toso said it would be beneficial if the County had some way of cleaning when necessary. He suggested an agreement with landowners as something to consider. During the Study, they also looked at options for improving the Ditch by extending the Ditch downstream. A Ditch improvement would include approximately one mile downstream. That would not be enough to reach the main culvert downstream of Lake Emma. Toso said the County will need more than a Ditch improvement to include that area as part of County Ditch 10. The County may want to consider some legal input on that issue. Toso felt Kurt Deter would be able to inform the County on what needs to be done. Toso said with regard to Item 5, re-determination of benefits, this may be a time to do this as it has been a long time. This would also require some legal input.
Russek asked whether a re-determination would need to be completed first if the County would decide to make changes to the Ditch. Russek said according to Kurt Deter, State Statutes reflect a re-determination should be completed if an improvement or change to the Ditch is completed. Russek referenced the outlet to Lake Emma. He asked if the County improves that area, will they need to look at the impacts on Little Waverly. Russek said there is plenty of fall in 12-Mile Creek. Both Little Waverly and Big Waverly Lakes were flooded in 2002 (100-year flood). Russek feels that diverting more water their way should be looked at. Toso said they have a tool to determine what will happen with Little Waverly Lake and also some ideas in terms of mitigating excess flows that may come that way. Toso said the impact of Lake Ann is something that is manageable. It would not involve a half-foot increase; they are talking inches. Toso feels Kurt Deter would have the opinion that the County has the right to clean the Ditch. He stated that legal advice is advisable when it comes to Ditch improvements.
Hiivala stated that based on the presentation, the repair work to County Ditch 10 will have a marginal impact on Lake Ann. There is a 3” fluctuation if the Ditch is clean. The pictures provided today do not include all of the repair work that may need to be done. He referenced members of the audience who are farmers on the Ditch and could speak to some of that repair work. Hiivala said with the presentation today, he feels they could move forward with the repair work. Russek asked whether the County has a request for cleanout. Hiivala confirmed this. Russek stated that the County should take action on that request. Hiivala said the County could put an engineer on retainer for correct design. They would work with Kerry Saxton, SWCD. There are Legacy funds available that may possibly be used to mitigate water quality. His interpretation is that with this presentation, the County is being told they can move forward with the repair. Hiivala said this is an open ditch system, and so a re-determination could bring in the one-rod requirement. Hiivala said they will involve Kurt Deter. He recommended doing what is possible to the Ditch short of an improvement.
Audience members were asked if they had any comment. Dennis Klammer said the largest problem is not really the depth (silt) but the width (grass and trees on the bank). He said that is what is shutting down the creek. The original depth of the Ditch should be able to be determined and he estimated cleanout at 3’-4’. Klammer said the pasture comes right to the edge of the Ditch, and the width is far from what it used to be. He suggested adjusting the width and re-sloping the edges. Russek said the Ditch can be restored to the original size and depth. Hiivala said the petitioners provided photos of the debris and trees in the Ditch. That will be the focus of the repair work.
Russek made a motion to authorize continuing to work with Saxton in an effort to get this resolved. The request has been presented for cleanout and it is the County’s responsibility to complete that. Russek hopes the work will be completed this winter. Hiivala said the motion should include accepting the Engineer’s Report. Russek clarified the motion, stating that dependent on the findings with low impact on Lake Ann for cleanout, that the County move forward with the cleanout request and accept the report from Wenck. Sawatzke seconded the motion. He asked Russek whether Saxton needs to give advice so contractors know what they are bidding. Russek stated that is correct. He felt contractors may also have some ideas to store water upstream. Sawatzke asked what the acreage comparison is between Grass Lake and Lake Ann. Toso stated the area of Grass Lake is similar to Lake Ann and is a wetland area. Sawatzke asked whether an inch taken from Lake Ann would increase the level in Grass Lake by one inch. Toso said it would be a little larger than that as the total watershed to Lake Ann is bigger than going from Lake Ann to Grass Lake. An inch taken from Lake Ann may result in two inches in Grass Lake. Sawatzke asked if there are homes on Grass Lake. Toso said there are not; the impact will be in agricultural property. Sawatzke asked if the area is relatively flat where a couple of inches of water goes quite a distance or whether it is steeper terrain where a couple of inches goes a short distance. Toso responded that the Ditch is steeper on the sides and that is something they could look at. The motion carried 4-0. As Mattson arrived at the meeting during this discussion, Russek explained that the motion is to accept the report from Wenck Associates showing there is very little impact on Lake Ann if the cleanout is completed. The motion authorizes Hiivala to move forward with the request for cleanout as there is a written request. Hiivala stated that he will have Kerry Saxton scope the repair. This will be brought to a future meeting. One of the action items may be to work with an Engineer to mitigate what the best repair will be.
Sean Riley, Planning & Zoning Administrator, said an application was received to place a mobile home on a property pursuant to the Supportive Care to the Frail, Elderly or Disabled Ordinance. The property is owned by Brian K. and Cindy S. Pemberton, PID #216-000-132105 (Silver Creek Township). If allowed, the applicants must go through the processes for building permit, septic, electrical inspection, etc. Once the need for the structure no longer exists (medical hardship), the mobile home will need to be removed from the property. A positive response was received from Wright County Public Health on the need for the structure. Sawatzke moved to approve the request with the conditions set forth by the Planning & Zoning Administrator. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 4-0.
Bill Stephens, Environmental Health Officer, requested the Board authorize the waiver of the tire collection fee for an Amnesty Day Collection at the Wright County Compost and Recycling Facility on 11-01-12 from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. (normal business hours of the Facility). The event will focus on tire collection. Residents have reported that tires have been found in road ditches in front of their properties. Others have stockpiles of tires. Another reason for the collection is the public health issue of decreasing mosquito breeding sites. The reported incidences of West Nile Virus were higher this past season and are no doubt, in part, related to the availability of breeding sites for the mosquitoes. The collection will not include electronics. Planning & Zoning employees will staff the event along with the assistance of the Sentence-To-Service crew. Since the event will be during normal business hours, Stephens is not seeking additional staff hours. Costs will be covered by SCORE funding. Sawatzke asked whether special arrangements have been made with the vendor because of volume of material and the associated cost. Stephens said that he is unable to determine the volume of tires that will be turned in. The costs can range per tire from $1.25 to $12-$15, dependent on type of tire and whether there is a rim. Sawatzke asked whether arrangements have been made with the vendor so the tires are not on site for a long period of time. Stephens estimated the tires may be on site for a 2-3 week period. If an excessively large amount of tires are brought in, it may be longer. The tires will be shred for road projects and playground projects. The metal will be scrapped. Russek moved to authorize the waiver of the tire collection fee for the Amnesty Day Collection at the Wright County Compost & Recycling Facility on 11-01-12 from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried unanimously.
Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, requested the Board authorize Amendment No. 99563-1 (to Agreement #99563) with MnDOT and the City of Albertville for the construction project on I-94 and CSAH’s 19 and 37. The original Agreement was approved at the 2-07-12 County Board Meeting. The Amendment will allow for a lump sum payment of $10,992 by the State to the City of Albertville for additional work/expense that has been identified which relates to a change in pavement design. Mattson moved to approve the Agreement, seconded by Russek, carried 4-0.
The meeting was recessed at 9:45 A.M. and reconvened at 9:55 A.M.
Hawkins presented the 9-10-12 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting (TCOTW) Minutes relating to Grand Castle Estates in Buffalo Township and the 9-17-12 Wright County/Buffalo Township Grand Castle Estates Negotiations Committee Meeting Minutes which was held to discuss road construction and repair. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, provided an overview of the minutes. Mattson asked whether the Board of Adjustment is still involved. Kryzer said there is still an application pending before the Board of Adjustment. As part of this resolution, it is anticipated that Investment Lending Group will be dismissing their petition before the Board of Adjustment. Kryzer thought the hearing is scheduled for 10-05-12. His assumption is that will be continued to November for final action and that it will be dismissed if this all goes forward (as outlined in the Minutes).
Russek moved to approve the 9-10-12 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Minutes and recommendations. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 4-0:
Grand Castle Estates In Buffalo Township
Kryzer said that neither Mike Nielsen of WSB (consulting engineer) nor Buffalo Township officials were able to attend this evening’s meeting, which was called to discuss the road conditions in Grand Castle Estates and the possibility of an assessment process as related to those road conditions for Grand Castle Estates. Kryzer has previously met with the Investment Lending Group representatives, a few property owners, County staff, and the County Board members at a previous meeting. Property owners in the area wanted to have an opportunity to talk with the County Board members, so this meeting was scheduled for that purpose. The County Board will be weighing the pros and cons of what action, if any, they should take to get this road in Grand Castle Estates completed to an acceptable standard (so that Buffalo Township would take ownership of the road). Kryzer said that without assessing blame to either the County or Township, he would like to proceed with discussing the issues. He invited the citizens/residents to speak.
Kampschroer read a letter [Attachment 1] from residents (John and Shannon Hering) of this development who were unable to attend this evening’s meeting. The Herings’ letter expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of action on the part of the County and its elected officials, which they felt led to the resulting poor condition of the road. They feel that they have already paid their “fair share” for an acceptable road when they purchased their lot, and stated that they do not feel that they as homeowners are now or have ever been responsible for the road and do not feel they should incur any further expenses for the completion of this road to an acceptable standard. Scherber responded that she and other homeowners in this development wholeheartedly have the same sentiments as expressed by the Herings in this letter. She said that she is glad that the County has the same goal as the homeowners in achieving a completed and acceptable road in this area. Although it is not a matter of assessing blame, it is a matter of assessing the responsibility to the proper authority, which is not the homeowner.
Kampschroer said that he had spoken with most of the commissioners, and one thing that stands out is that as elected county officials they have failed to stand up for the citizens whom they represent. They have not represented any one of the three homeowners, and each one of them pays a lot of taxes. Thelen commented that the County has not yet entered into an assessment process. Kampschroer said that the development has been left without maintenance for this road and will soon have no snowplowing. He said that he is not under the assumption that there has been a decision, but there has been talk about starting the assessment process. He understands that there has been no final decision, but he would be opposed to any assessments anyway. He can’t believe that elected officials would allow this to go on so long, especially by the elected county commissioner who represents the district in which this development is located. These owners bought the land with a reasonable expectation that they would have a paved, public road. It is still not public and has still not been paved up to specs. Thelen agreed that it isn’t fair if the money has already been paid. She asked if all landowners would be assessed if the process were started, and Kryzer said that he would act on the expectation that all would be assessed some amount, but that is still to be determined. Investment Lending Group wants the assessment to be shared equally by all owners, but the current homeowners are taking the opposite stance and don’t want to pay any assessments. Scherber commented that she didn’t think the homeowners had said who should be responsible for the assessments, but they didn’t think it should be them. Kampschroer said that this has gone on so long that it is ridiculous that they have to come to the County Board, when they are paying $5,000/year in taxes, to ask them to please plow and to stop threatening not to plow. Is this the way this County operates? Scherber said that her first experience with the Township was a welcoming, the delivery of a recycling bin, and the announcement that her road wasn’t going to be plowed. Mountain commented that if the Township continues to plow the road, they will then become the owners of the road. He added that Lending Investment Group has agreed to pay for the plowing of that road this winter.
Scherber asked why this road hasn’t already been finished and taken over by the Township. Sawatzke said that a number of things went wrong, and the developer went bankrupt. The County didn’t walk away from this, and the first the commissioners heard about it was at a TCOTW meeting a few months ago. They can’t help if they don’t know there’s an issue. Kryzer said that this was first discussed at a TCOTW meeting early in 2011, at which time the commissioners discussed the possibility that the County would be funding on behalf of the Township. The Township has not contacted the County with a plan since that time. Kampschroer said that the County didn’t enforce the bond and it lapsed, and Sawatzke said that he is not suggesting that this wasn’t overlooked. However, the township engineer didn’t look at the specs and the bond ran past its deadline. Kampschroer asked if the County should still provide a basic service, and Russek said that when this becomes a public road, it will be a township road not a county road.
Weinberg clarified that Mountain is a lender, not a developer. His company provided the funds for this development and funds for the financing of the bond purchased for the road construction. Investment Lending Group relied on the bond entirely for the completion of this road. He works with a lot of developers, and that’s how it works in both townships and counties. He said that the failure of the company to complete the road to standards should have been an easy fix, because the money had been fronted to get it done and to purchase the bond. When the developer went bankrupt, the lender experienced significant losses also. Now the County wants the lender to kick in another $100,000 because the County let the bond lapse. Who managed it, and who allowed it to lapse? In previous minutes of the TCOTW, the recommendation of the TCOTW was that all costs of improving this road should be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Both Scherber and Kampschroer expressed their disapproval of that recommendation.
Sawatzke asked if any of the neighbors in attendance (not in Grand Castle Estates) wished to speak, and Minkler indicated that he did. He lives at the end of the finished road right before the entrance to Grand Castle Estates and said that he is concerned for the neighbors that bought the property in good faith and who fulfilled their agreements, but who now don’t have a satisfactory road in good plowing condition. He is here to support his neighbors. He knows that the public school buses travel on that road, but he’s not sure that they are even supposed to travel on non-public roads. When the current homeowners bought property in the development, they did so in good faith, and he doesn’t think it is their responsibility to solve this road problem. Hopkins added that he supports the landowners, as they paid premium money for their lots with the understanding that there would be a road in the development, and it’s not fair to charge them anymore than they’ve already paid. Someone else needs to take responsibility for getting that road completed. Gapinski said that he didn’t think it was fair to purchase property and then get assessed later for work that didn’t get done when it was supposed to get done. Sawatzke said that the Township did not notify the County that there was a problem, so they didn’t pull the bond. Gapinski said that the road was supposed to have been built to township road specs, and the Township told the residents that they overseeing the construction. Russek said that if the Township has the road, their specs have to be met and the County has nothing to do with it. The Township is responsible to see that it gets properly built. No one came to the county officials and told them that it wasn’t built correctly yet (in a timely manner). The bond got overlooked because no one came and said there was a problem. Weinberg said that bonds are renewed on an annual basis when they are in favor of the townships and the counties. Though both sides could have checked it, perhaps they did not have the resources to do so. He said that the County needs to look at it annually, to see if it is all right to let it lapse, and Hopkins agreed. Kryzer said that Planning & Zoning held on to the bond in favor of the Township, but Weinberg said that it was in favor of the County as it was held by the County’s Planning & Zoning office. To say that the County didn’t have anything to with it but is now not issuing building permits is disingenuous. Investment Lending Group is not in the process of developing this area but is trying to recoup the loss that is being incurred and to help those who live there. A recent attempt was made to get building permits, and they were denied until a road is built, even though the road has already been paid for and the bond has already been paid for, which they were relying on to make sure the road was properly completed. He thinks the County should take responsibility for it and doesn’t agree that the County should not pay for it. Sawatzke said that there were a couple of other entities involved in this situation, and had they done everything right, the outcome could have changed, but ultimately, the developer is originally responsible for this mess. Kampschroer said that that wasn’t the point. The money was in the file in the safe of the Planning & Zoning office, and if the staff had done the job, the road would have been completed. Thelen said that there was obviously a failure in the system, and Sawatzke agreed that it got overlooked. Thelen asked if the County has a good legal position, and Kryzer said that they haven’t been sued yet. She asked what the rationale is for the County’s position and how it could be shaped so as not to make it look like the responsible party. Kryzer said that he is not here to say that the property owners are responsible and not the County or the Township. He has been given the direction from the County Board and is trying to move forward with their directive. Kampschroer asked if the County was waiting for a suit. Sawatzke said that he is not expecting one, and Scherber said she felt that the homeowners would have a suit. They have been very patient with this issue. Thelen said that all it takes is three commissioners to agree and asked about the assessment process. Couldn’t this be reviewed without agreeing that everyone would be assessed? By beginning the assessment process, everyone could see what they were expected to pay and then come back and agree to pay or not to pay. So far, the County could proceed with the assessment process, pay for the improvements, and then assign assessments to the property owners. The assessment process itself would add between $10,000 and $20,000 to the total cost of the road improvements, and that extra cost could be charged back to the property owners as allowed by law. Mountain said that he would like to see this resolved and is trying to work through the process, but there have been administrative hurdles, and this has already taken two to three years to get to this point. He is hearing from the homeowners that they do not want to pay, and he understands their point of view. This situation is getting to the point where it could be pursued in District Court, but he doesn’t want to go there because it wouldn’t be worthwhile for anyone. The homeowners don’t want to pay and the County doesn’t want to pay. He would like to work out a resolution. Weinberg said that this becomes more and more difficult to understand The process was to try and get an order to get the building restrictions lifted so that they could go ahead and build under the current conditions, and then the road will get built back up, but the County Board of Adjustment won’t issue permits, and it seemed as if members already had their minds made up before the hearing that they weren’t going to allow permits. If it is going to be a township road, why not allow building permits? Sawatzke asked why the County would want 10 families on this road when there are already three families who are not happy with the current road. Kryzer said that the decision to issue permits is not something the County Board has any say over, because the Board of Adjustment is an independent board. Weinberg said that if a resolution could be quickly reached, then no one would have to worry about dragging this issue through court. The fact that residents heard there was a bond in place and now it’s gone, and now the property owners might be assessed $150,000 or more doesn’t bode well. Sawatzke said that he was under the impression that the property owners were willing to pay some assessment but not the whole amount. Weinberg said that the property owners do not want to pay, but if they are assessed they will have to. However, the owner of the seven vacant lots would like to see that the homeowners also pay some. He doesn’t want to pay the full cost because that additional burden would make the lots further unsalable. Trying to unload seven lots with vastly overloaded assessments will be hard to do. Sawatzke asked if there were a hypothetical equal split for all 10, would he be willing to pay for seven equal assessments; and Weinberg said that though he wouldn’t agree with the assessment in the first place, he would go along with that. He said that it is a two-pronged question, should the cost be assessed to the property owners and how much should be assessed to the property owners. Weinberg said that he would like to end this two-year nightmare and be able to start building. He understands the frustration of the current homeowners. Mountain said that the homeowners would object to any assessment, and he would like to get this issue resolved. Hawkins asked if all agreed that all should pay their share for improvements, which were initially built into the price of the lot. The three homeowners paid that full price and the owners of the seven lots did not. Weinberg said that they did pay for the improvements by financing the lots and the bond. Hawkins said that the money wasn’t completely spent. Weinberg said the loan was fully advanced and that’s what was lost. Hawkins said that it sounds like they are suggesting that the county taxpayers should pay for a road that benefits only the lots in a private development. Weinberg said that everyone thought that the bond would cover any roadwork not completed, and said that the County should fall on its sword and take responsibility for allowing this to happen. Protecting everyone by not issuing building permits is actually hurting everyone. By allowing the bond to lapse, the County is responsible for the road not getting done. Thelen asked how the owner of the seven lots paid for the work, and Weinberg said that money was advanced to fully develop the land. It was to pay for everything, including the bond which was the security for the County to rely upon. All of that was paid for by his client *Mountain+. The developer got the money and didn’t use it to complete the road. The bond was an insurance policy and it was in place to make sure that the road got done.
As the current commissioner for Buffalo Township, Eichelberg asked if the owner of the seven vacant lots would be willing to pay for 70% of the total bill in order to complete the road correctly. That would help make the lots easier to sell. Mountain said that he would like to see a firm number. The estimate is $150,000, but the road might have further deteriorated since that estimate was figured. Kryzer said that the total cost of $150,000 includes engineering and inspection costs. Thelen commented that a completed road would increase the value of the lots for sale. If the costs are assessed back to the property, the selling price could include that cost. If this goes into litigation, there could be some big damages. She asked Mountain if he would be willing to reach a resolution by paying a certain amount of money, say seven tenths of the cost, if the County would cover the cost of the assessment for the three occupied lots. That is what the homeowners want, and the owner of the vacant lots would be able to get building permits for building in the spring. She asked if Mountain would contribute 70% if the other 30% were picked up elsewhere, and Eichelberg commented that that is what he is suggesting. Sawatzke said that the County, the Township, and the homeowners are the possibilities, and Eichelberg suggested that this could be worked out. Mountain said that the only way he would agree to this is if it is put in writing what was to be paid and when the road would be done. With no offense intended, he would insist on a signed contract. Sawatzke said that he wouldn’t want it any other way either. Eichelberg said that the biggest hurdle is the assessments for the seven vacant lots, and he would like to work toward resolving that. Sawatzke said that a lot of expense could be avoided if all could come to an agreement, and everyone loses if the assessment process has to be entered. Mountain said that he is willing to try and reach a resolution. Thelen asked if the County stiffs the people already living out there, or if the County is willing to pick it up. Do the three homeowners out there take it on the chin, or do the County and Township take it over? Sawatzke said that perhaps the cost could be shared with the homeowners, and Thelen said that she didn’t think they should pay. Perhaps the County and the Township could pick up the cost for the three lots. Eichelberg said that he felt it was very possible that the three lots could be taken care of by the County and Township and perhaps with the homeowners also. Thelen said that the homeowners should be left out. Sawatzke said that the County could check with the Township to see what they would be willing to pay. Thelen said that she would like to move forward and take care of it. Mountain said that he would like to see the homeowners taken off the hook, and if this could get done this fall or early in the spring and they would be allowed to pull building permits, he would write a check for $100,000. Kampschroer interjected that the County should be paying for all of it, and Kryzer said that even though the bond lapsed, it isn’t the County’s fault entirely. Russek said that the County let the bond lapse, but they only found out that it had lapsed when the Township notified the County that the road wasn’t done. The township engineer is supposed to inspect the road. Kampschroer said that at no time were the homeowners involved in this situation, and Scherber said that they helped buy the insurance to cover it. Thelen said that she would like to see a policy in place to help avoid another situation where a bond would lapse. Weinberg said that Lending Investment Group will write a check in the amount of $100,000 just to get the job done and to get the homeowners off the hook. With an estimate of $150,000 to repair/construct this road, $50,000, or possibly less without assessment costs, would be the remaining portion. Scherber said that the current condition of the road is deteriorating quickly, and there are undulations of the road, spider cracks, and deep ruts are being left by the bus and garbage trucks. The homeowners not only want it done soon, they want to make sure that it gets done properly. Russek said that the consultant engineer would determine what needs to be done to the road, and that it has to be built to township specs in order for Buffalo Township to take it over. Kryzer said that Nielsen (WSB, Inc., consultant engineer) would draw up the specs and the bidding documents. Weinberg said that the $100,000 from Investment Lending Group would be put into escrow, and that this offer is open to the 25th of September. He said that $100,000 is the maximum that they will offer, and they will agree to take care of the snowplowing for the winter. Kampschroer said that if Investment Lending Group is willing to write a check for $100,000, the remaining costs should be worked out between the County and the Township. Sawatzke said that the County hasn’t agreed to do that, but it is willing talk to the Township about it. Thelen said that it sounds like there are at least a couple of commissioners who would like to keep the homeowners out of it, but they will need to wait for County Board action on September 25th. Scherber said that she would like to leave this meeting knowing what the agreement is, and Eichelberg said that he understands that, but this would be an arrangement with another government unit, and they are not here. She then asked that a resolution be adopted, but Kryzer said that the only thing the TCOTW can do is make a recommendation to the County Board. Scherber asked that they recommend that the County pay for any expenses over $100,000. Thelen said that residents should be able to walk away from this meeting with a good sense that the County would like to keep them out of it, and Sawatzke agreed with Thelen.
The TCOTW will make a recommendation for the County Board to act upon on the 25th of September, and in the intervening time, a meeting will be held with Buffalo Township. Weinberg said that Investment Lending Group will contribute $100,000 to the repair/construction costs of this road and will agree to snowplow it during the coming winter, but they insist that the order prohibiting the issuance of building permits for the seven vacant lots be immediately rescinded upon receipt of the money. Kryzer said that the County Board will be asked to rescind the moratorium upon receipt of the money, and it is likely that the Board will also make a decision by September 25th regarding the payment for the remaining costs of the road improvement.
RECOMMENDATION: It was the recommendation of the TCOTW that the Wright County Board of Commissioners vote to accept $100,000 from Investment Lending Group to be applied toward the cost of bringing the road in Grand Castle Estates up to Buffalo Township standards, and that specifications be prepared and that an ad for bid be published for work to be completed late this fall or early in the Spring of 2013, and that the moratorium on building permits for this development be immediately lifted by Wright County Planning and Zoning upon receipt of the $100,000 by the Wright County Auditor.
(End of 9-10-12 TCOTW Minutes)
On a motion by Russek, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the 9-17-12 Wright County/Buffalo Township Grand Castle Estates Negotiations Meeting Minutes:
Grand Castle Estates In Buffalo Township
Greg Kryzer called the meeting to order and gave a brief update of previous meetings that led to the formation of this negotiating committee. On September 10, 2012 the Transportation Committee of the Whole Board met with three property owners of Grand Castle Estates. Two of the property owners also own homes in this development, and the other property owner present was a representative from Investment Lending Group, LLC, which owns seven vacant lots. The property owners wanted to speak to the County Board regarding their feelings and concerns over the condition of the road in the development. During discussion at this meeting, Investment Lending Group offered to give $100,000 to the building/repair of this road under two conditions: 1) That the road be completed this fall or early next year; 2) That the ban on building permits be lifted upon receipt by the County of $100,000 from Investment Lending Group. This will give them the opportunity to begin building early next spring to get more homes in the development. Investment Lending Group gave a deadline of September 25, 2012 for the County to either accept or decline this offer. They also indicated that $100,000 is a firm cap. Wright County indicated that they would talk with Buffalo Township officials to work on a funding relationship. The purpose of the meeting today is to see if Wright County and Buffalo Township can reach a mutual agreement by the September 25th deadline regarding a funding split for the cost of completing the road in the Grand Castle Estates development.
Kryzer said that the estimated cost of fixing this road is somewhere between $150,000 at the high end and $130,000 at the low end. Nielsen said that his preliminary estimate to bring the road up to Buffalo Township standards is $143,700, which does include the cost of the assessment process, estimated between $3,000 and $5,000. Last year, he walked it and marked and measured it, so additional damage since that time might increase the costs. He would like to look at it again. If a feasibility study is not needed, the cost might come down even further. Getting plans and specifications together would be about a two-week process, and then three weeks would be required for advertising for bids. The time of year is a factor as to whether or not it would be advisable to try and get construction done yet this year. Russek said that it might be better to do a bid this fall for early spring construction so that contractors would have the chance to get their first job of the year lined up. Nielsen said that oil prices can usually be locked in during February, and bidding in February might be the best opportunity to get good prices. There would be a two-month time period in the spring to get the road completed. Construction could start as soon as road restrictions are off, and he would give eight working days to complete the project but probably a three-week window to get that done. Russek asked about the base work, and Nielsen said that some of the base work is not in very good shape and is breaking up. He figures that approximately 700 square yards of bituminous would have to be removed. He would like to go back and re-measure and have a survey crew go out there. He also suggested that some bituminous cores be taken to see what lies beneath the surface and to see if extra bituminous is needed. Schmidt commented that Dick Larson’s (Township engineer for the original plans and specs) inspection showed some spots that were as thin as half an inch. Nielsen said that he has not seen that inspection report yet, but Kryzer will get that to him. Schmidt said that the report indicated that different areas varied quite a bit. Nielsen said that he figured that some areas would need patching with three inches of bituminous, and then the entire area would be overlaid with two inches of bituminous. He said that coring samples will help him determine what will be needed for a good product, and he will look at the inspection report to see what that says. Eichelberg indicated that waiting until the spring would work out as Investment Lending Group agreed that they would plow the roads over the winter months. There was some discussion about the expiration date as determined by the snow plowing statute that affects the maintenance work that Buffalo Township is able to do without being required to take over the road.
Kryzer said that the Township and County need to figure out what kind of cost-sharing agreement they could reach with each other, after taking into consideration the offered contribution of $100,000 by Investment Lending Group. Eichelberg asked if the remaining costs would total about $50,000, and Kryzer said that this would be at the high end, unless Nielsen finds something in the report that would raise the costs. Nielsen said that heavier blacktop could result in higher costs, with an estimate of two inches costing about $70,000, and an additional $35,000 if three inches is recommended. However, they would then be able to cut back on the patching thickness. With $11,000 estimated for patching, $5,000 in gravel for patches, and another $5,600 for removing the patches, the costs would even out for additional blacktop. The costs for shouldering are included in Nielsen’s estimate. He stated that he would like to see the report from Larson, or instead take his own borings. WSB has a boring machine and people who could do the job. Larson had nine borings taken, but Nielsen doesn’t know who took them. Nielsen said that he had peeled up some of the surface and it looked like a 1.5 inch depth. Those areas could be dug out and filled with three inches and then covered by a two-inch overlay. Schmidt said that it might be better to spend more to get a better blacktop there, and Nielsen agreed with him. A heavier blacktop will carry more weight, but there also has to be a decent base. The total length of the road is less than a mile, and it will be important to find out what kind of materials are under the road.
Ernesti asked if bids could be limited to certain bidders, and Russek said that a low bid wouldn’t have to be accepted if there were a valid reason to reject it. There was discussion about an overlay project on a Buffalo Township road that had unfavorable results, and Nielsen said that sometimes this can be caused by the contractors, and sometimes the observation makes the contractor do it. Nielsen said that blue tops are used most often when doing a gravel surface, because pavers can be set for overlays using machines controlled with GPS. To get the crown correct, blue tops can be used.
Eichelberg said that he thinks all agree that the road should be completed. There is probably a bit of fault on both sides. It was not engineered and inspected correctly, and because the County wasn’t notified of the situation, they didn’t pull the bond before it expired. Schmidt said that if the bond hadn’t expired, the Township would have had the money to complete the road. Eichelberg asked if the Township felt that it was reasonable to split the remaining cost, and Ernesti answered ‘yes’ and Schmidt nodded agreement. Russek said that he feels that this recommendation could get passed by the County Board. If another action is recommended, the issue could end up in court and cost even more. Schmidt added that this would delay the process even further, and it would be better for everyone to get the process moving. The owners of the vacant lots could sell the lots and then everyone would benefit. Both the County and the Township would see the tax base increase and would be able to collect more taxes on the properties.
Kryzer said that he would draft a Joint Powers Agreement between Wright County and Buffalo Township either today or tomorrow. Wright County will take over the project and retain Nielson (WSB) to handle everything, including specifications, bidding, construction, and inspections. Coolen asked about plowing for the winter so that he can help Buffalo Township’s maintenance person work out the routes. Kryzer said that he will take a look at the statute and see how much longer the Township can continue maintenance on this road before it would be required by statute to take it over. He will include in the Agreement that the Township will take over the road upon the final inspection. Ernesti asked Nielsen if the Township could review the specs he will draw up, and he agreed that this was a fair request. He added that this is a unique situation, and with road specs, one size doesn’t always fit, especially with the different road bed materials. Every project should be looked at individually and specs should be developed according to soil and traffic. Buffalo Township posts their roads at five tons, but specs of the Township are either seven ton or nine ton. They pretty much follow the standards of the County.
The recommendation from this negotiating committee to the County Board is to accept the offer of $100,000 from Investment Lending Group to be applied to road completion costs and to follow through on plans to build this road in Grand Castle Estates to acceptable standards, with the remaining expense to be shared equally between the government entities of Wright County and Buffalo Township. Upon acceptable completion, Buffalo Township will take over ownership this road.
Nielsen will get Larson’s report from Kryzer, check the cul-de-sac, look at the aerial photo, get borings if there aren’t already sufficient records, prepare for bids for February, 2013, and review the specs with Buffalo Township before an ad for bid is submitted.
(End of 9-17-12 Wright County/Buffalo Township Grand Castle Estates Negotiations Minutes)
Relative to the Grand Castle Estates issue, Kryzer requested that the Joint Powers Agreement between Wright County and Buffalo Township for the Joint Construction of a Public Roadway be laid over to the 10-09-12 County Board Meeting. Additional revisions are being made to the Agreement. Russek moved to lay the Agreement over to the 10-09-12 Board Meeting as requested. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 4-0.
Judy Brown, Personnel Representative, said a presentation was made at the last County Board Meeting by Ochs, Inc. on life insurance and disability coverage for employees. Brown said MN Life is the County’s current provider and has the best pricing. Therefore, it is recommended that the County retain the current policy with MN Life. With regard to Short Term Disability (STD) and Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance, it is recommended to stay with the County’s current provider, Assurant. Brown said the cost difference between Assurant and Cigna relates to what employees pay. STD and LTD plans are bundled and cannot be split. If the County switched to Cigna, the employee’s rates would increase for STD and decrease for LTD. There are currently 224 employees with STD coverage and 259 employees with LTD coverage. Therefore, half of those employees would receive an increase in coverage cost and half would receive a decrease in coverage cost. Brown said the savings would be a little over $10,000. Given the County’s benefits package is around $8 million, it was decided that the $10,000 may not be enough to warrant the change. By remaining with Assurant as the STD and LTD provider, all employees will have the same costs as they currently have. Quote requests were sent to 17 LTD carriers and 18 STD carriers. Of those, the majority either didn’t respond or said they could not provide competitive pricing. Russek asked whether the provider for Life Insurance will change. Brown said the County will not be changing and will remain with MN Life. Mattson moved to approve the recommendation to retain MN Life to provide life and supplement life insurance and to retain Assurant to provide Short and Long Term Disability coverage. The motion was seconded by Russek. This will be effective 3-01-13. The motion carried 4-0.
Bills Approved
AAA Reporting Inc $567.45
Active PDF 660.00
Alason McFarland 104.96
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 19,490.50
Allina Medical Transportation 500.00
APEC Ind. Sales & Services 7,287.76
Aramark Services Inc 6,525.32
ARMA International 225.00
Bluetarp Financial Inc 1,282.48
Boyer Truck Parts 325.17
Buffalo Hosp.-Otpt Commercial 810.34
Cameron/Tim 150.00
Center Point Energy 1,277.36
Centra Sota Coop. - Buffalo 30,855.29
Central McGowan Inc 875.40
CenturyLink 705.12
Chamberlain Oil Co 1,964.01
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 32,500.00
Climate Air 786.66
Cokato/City of 350.00
Culligan Of Buffalo 350.00
Delano/City of 578.91
Delano Rental Inc 82,688.73
Expert Automotive & Marine Inc 208.40
Gabriel/Cathleen 200.00
Grainger 398.99
Habisch-Peterson/Annette 116.52
Hancock Concrete Prod. LLC 7,006.73
Herc-U-lift 228.00
Hildi Inc 190.00
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 3,192.12
Howard/Jolanta 100.00
Integrated Fire & Security 451.99
Interstate Battery Systems 605.44
Kustom Signals Inc 196.00
LaPlant Demo Inc 332.50
M & M Express Sales and Serv. 272.48
Marco 303.75
Marco Inc 1,052.70
Marietta Aggregates/Martin 1,764.91
Mathiowetz Construction 593,865.42
Matt Legal Services 100.00
Menards - Buffalo 147.39
MN Counties Comp. Coop. 959.53
MN Fall Maintenance Expo 125.00
Moore Medical 122.75
Morries Parts & Service Group 790.52
Office Depot 1,497.86
Omann Brothers Inc 576.35
Pennington Co. Sheriff’s Office 191.40
Ramacciotti/Frank 100.00
Retrofit Companies Inc 490.35
Road Machinery & Supplies Co 136.47
Royal Tire Inc 7,691.70
RS Eden 1,756.56
Scharber & Sons Inc 100.00
Schmaltz/John 389.72
Stepp Mfg Company Inc 387.43
Summit Envirosolutions Inc 25,498.00
Titan Machinery 1,100.39
Total Printing 1,031.35
Towmaster 1,716.53
Vance Brothers Inc 2,416.12
Veolia Environmental Serv. 14,593.82
West Payment Center 1,065.26
Windstream 214.10
Wright Henn. Coop Elec Assn 5,138.64
Wright Henn. Electric 2,469.86
Xcel Energy 796.62
Zee Medical Service 369.14
30 Payments less than $100 1,378.90
Final total $874,698.17
The meeting adjourned at 10:12 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Oct. 29, 2012.

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

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