WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 2014
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Sawatzke, Daleiden, Potter and Borrell present.
Daleiden moved to approve the 10-07-14 County Board Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
Lee Kelly, County Coordinator, petitioned onto the Agenda Items For Consideration B, “Committee Of The Whole Meeting RE: Elected Department Heads Salaries.” Borrell moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Daleiden, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Daleiden, second by Potter, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
A. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer To Technology Committee:
A. Office 365
B. Project Updates
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested approval of a resolution conveying tax forfeit land to Prairie Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association. The tax forfeit parcels are common areas around the townhomes. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #14-63 recommending to the Commissioner of Revenue conveyance of PID #118-209-001070 to the Prairie Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association, Inc. by quit claim deed. The motion was seconded by Borrell. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, indicated the property is located in Otsego. It was requested that future resolutions of this nature include the location of the parcels along with the PID number. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
The claims listing was reviewed. Daleiden referenced a claim on Page 4, Help Systems IL LLC ($910.00). Hiivala said this is a cost associated with a sequel server for computer systems in the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office and should be funded from line item 6260. Potter moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit, for a total of $284,307.35 with 161 vendors and 277 transactions. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried unanimously.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 10-08-14. At today’s County Board Meeting, the Board discussed information presented to the Committee on the possible sale of the equipment located at the Compost Facility. Sawatzke said the waste stream has drastically changed since the late 1980’s (there are more plastics and contaminants in waste). Even if the Compost Facility were running today, in the end there would not be a viable product because of that. He said he supports getting rid of things that the County will not use and thinks the County has a responsibility in ownership of the property. With regard to selling the equipment at the Facility, Borrell suggested consulting with other contractors who may have different pricing structures. Daleiden said the County Attorney’s Office will be involved in those discussions. Sawatzke said another factor to consider is whether the equipment will be hard to remove without taking a portion of the building down (i.e. trommel screen). He said the County already uses the Facility for such things as hazardous waste collection and recycling and thought with the equipment removed from the Facility, the County may be able to do more with the space. He also suggested contacting various scrap metal places to determine the highest value for the Zuk. Daleiden made a motion to approve the 10-08-14 Building Committee Minutes and recommendation, seconded by Potter, carried 5-0. The Minutes of the Building Committee Meeting follow:
I. Compost and Recycling Facility Equipment.
Stephens introduced Borchart and Johanson, who toured the Compost Facility on 10-07-14 to assess the value of individual pieces of equipment. Borchart said the plant is in amazingly good shape. There is no deterioration or evidence of abuse. However, the plant will not function in its current state. Daleiden said the County does not intend to update the plant. The idea is to find a person or entity that can use the equipment, or scrap the components.
Borchart said most of the equipment is saleable. Johanson suggested using the services of a broker when selling to buyers in other countries.
Borchart said the conveyor belts are all saleable. The trommel screens are fine. The most demand items are the two balers. Johanson said the biggest problem is equipment that hasn’t operated for a long time. The normal life expectancy is 15 to 20 years.
Daleiden asked for an estimate of the net return to the County. Borchart said he did not have that at this time. Johanson said they need to spend more time on the site and look at the screens and bearings. Daleiden asked whether they get a commission when a piece of equipment sells. Borchart gave the example of selling a piece of equipment for $1,000. Assume it takes $400 to remove this equipment and load it for shipping. That leaves $600. Borchart’s commission would be $100 and the County would net $500. Borchart said trommels could sell for $25,000 and may cost $20,000 to remove. The net return to the County may not be much. Daleiden asked if it would be better for the County to sell the equipment for scrap to make more money. Borchart said the County will make more money selling usable equipment.
Johanson asked about plans for the building. Potter said it is a single purpose building and would be hard to retrofit. He asked Borchart and Johanson to provide an itemized list of saleable equipment in the Compost Facility with estimated sales and shipping costs. The Board needs to know what can and can’t be repurposed.
Borchart said he would buy the hangar buildings and then take them down. Johanson asked him if he would buy all three buildings. Borchart said he would. Daleiden said the County is not sure yet whether they can sell the buildings.
Johanson suggested looking for local buyers for the equipment. He asked whether the scale in front is for sale. Potter said the County has no use for it. Borchart said he could sell that immediately. Potter said the full County Board has to approve of the sale before any transactions transpire. Borchart said the scale would be worth more as it sits to a buyer of the property.
Daleiden said the County Attorney has to be involved as well. There was a discussion regarding limits on bidding.
Johanson asked about the Zuk. Borchart said the County would get scrap value based on weight.
Recommendations: Obtain estimates on the general value of the Zuk. Borchart and Johanson will provide a list of equipment at the Compost Facility with estimated sales prices.
(End of 10-08-14 Building Committee Minutes)
Lee Kelly, County Coordinator, and Tammy Bigelow, Human Resources Director, presented information on the PERA Correctional Plan and Social Security. Kelly said this item was before the County Board on 8-19-14. At that time, the Board voted to support a referendum using a “Majority Vote” for employees in the Correctional Plan. PERA’s initial plan was that all counties would express their preference, and then all counties would use the method favored by the majority of counties. Since that time, several counties did not indicate a preference and pushed for PERA to meet with Social Security to discuss options. Social Security agreed to allow each County to individually determine whether they would use the “Majority” or the “Divided” method. Since many outstate counties had already expressed preference for the “Majority Vote” method, PERA has decided to make the “Majority” method the default choice for counties that do not register a voting preference. Each County Board has the option to select the “Divided Vote” method and inform PERA of their choice. Initially, PERA said the vote would take place from 12-01-14 through 12-31-14. By law, notice of the vote must go out 90 days in advance of the last voting day. This would require that notices to be sent by 9-29-14. Larger counties with more correctional employees were concerned about the short timeframe, so PERA moved voting to January with final votes cast by 1-30-14. This moves the deadline for notices to 10-30-14. The Wright County Board has the option to maintain the “Majority Vote” or elect to do the “Divided Vote.”
Bigelow said if the “Majority Vote” is selected and the referendum fails, all current members hired after 1999 and new hires will not be eligible for Social Security. For that reason, many counties have proceeded with the “Divided Vote” as it is then the employee’s individual choice and new hires will also be eligible for Social Security. Sawatzke said both AMC and PERA recommended the “Majority Vote” in August. Bigelow could not say whether AMC or PERA had changed their recommendations but has the sense that AMC has pulled back. This is a hot topic with counties. Bigelow said there are about 46 eligible employees in Wright County that can vote. Capt. Pat O’Malley attempted to educate those employees on this topic and informally polled them. The result is indicating that most are voting to maintain Social Security. However, she said that members may vote differently when it comes to the private ballot. If an employee chooses not to vote, it is a considered a “no” vote. Bigelow would recommend the “Divided Vote.”
Borrell said if the County approves the “Majority Vote,” then everyone would be on Social Security. Bigelow said that is correct, if it passes. Husom said that Correctional Officers were placed on Social Security when their positions were created in 1988. She would not want them to lose their benefits as they have been paying into Social Security for that time. Bigelow said that is a potential if the Board supports a “Majority Vote” and if the referendum fails. Some employees who have been paying into Social Security could lose some. That is what the “Divided Vote” would correct. Borrell said if the County approves the “Majority Vote” and they vote for Social Security, no one will lose their Social Security. Daleiden said if they go with the “Divided Vote,” each person can make their own choice. There will be some additional work for payroll at the onset associated with the “Divided Vote.”
Daleiden made a motion to rescind Resolution #14-55 (approved in August, 2014) and to adopt Resolution #14-64 designating the “Divided Vote” voting procedure for the Correctional Service Employee Retirement Plan Referendum. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Capt. Todd Hoffman, Sheriff’s Office, requested the Board approve the 2015 Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Enforcement Grant. The Grant will be used to reimburse deputies wages during enforcements such as DWI, speed, distracted driving, etc. The total of the Grant is $51,340. The County has a matching requirement of $1,610 for the purchase of equipment. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #14-65 authorizing participation in the 2015 MN DPS TZD Grant. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Fred Bengtson, DNR Area Wildlife Manager, said the DNR is proposing to purchase 62.23 acres in Section 16, T120N, R24W, City of St. Michael, with the purpose of establishing this area as an addition to the Pelican Lake State Wildlife Management Area (WMA). In addition to wildlife habitat conservation goals, WMA’s are open for public to include hunting, trapping and hiking. This parcel is an important portion of the primary lake outlet route for the Pelican Lake Enhancement Project. The State will make PILT payments to Wright County for this parcel. Bengtson said they have an option signed with the landowner. They have been working with City staff in trying to keep the property acquisition in line with their desires, and he feels they have met that. He restated the parcel contains the proposed outlet route through it, and there are signed options for areas to the east down to St. Michael Meadows. The landowners have requested a variance for a two parcel split, which was approved by the St. Michael Planning Commission. He thought the City would be voting on that tonight.
Bengtson provided an update on the Pelican Lake project. They have begun the process for obtaining bids on the Pelican Lake outlet. A pre-contractor meeting occurred on 10-13-14 with bids due 10-17-14. Bengtson anticipates the start of construction for the gravity outlet portion in several weeks with a deadline the end of December. The pumping portion will be the following year. The goal is to reduce the Lake level so that the facilities can be constructed for the pump station. Borrell asked how much the gravity flow will lower the Lake with no more precipitation. Bengtson anticipates this at about 4’ given the current level of saturation. The long term level will be lowered by about 3’ but the gravity structure is capable of bringing the water level down about 4’. Sawatzke asked why pumps are needed. Bengtson envisioned only using the pumps once every 10 years for management draw down (winter kill of rough fish such as bullheads). He said the pumps will allow them to conceivably take the Lake about 9’ down from where it is now. That would still leave two areas in the Lake at about 3’ to 4’ of water.
Husom asked whether the City of St. Michael is in favor of this. Potter responded that he has been in contact with Steve Bot and Mark Weigle from the City of St. Michael and said they support this request. Potter moved to adopt Resolution #14-66 approving the purchase of 62.23 acres in Section 16, T120N, R24W, City of St. Michael, with the purpose of establishing this area as an addition to the Pelican Lake State Wildlife Management Area (WMA). The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Discussion followed on land use. Bengtson stated the land will be open for public use. In response to Daleiden, he said that with prairie grassland areas there is re-growth of trees. Farmers may be allowed to use the land for hay or grazing (about every five years). The farmer keeps the hay in exchange for cutting. There will not be long-term cropping. They are looking to buffer the area. Bengtson said part of the land contains a drained wetland basin. Their hope in the future is to acquire enough acreage to restore the 30-40 acre basin. That is in the plan for the Pelican Lake Project for water quality treatment downstream through the City. He thought the City would also favor that considering the water quality issues they are trying to resolve for the MPCA.
Husom asked whether there are any additional parcels involved. Bengtson said this action will complete the outlet. In the meadows downstream, there is one parcel (180-acre) that is needed to restore that basin. Currently, they have all of the parcels either in City property or DNR State WMA except the one parcel. Their goal is to make that work in the next 5 years. The City would like to see that as well for water quality measures. Husom said there is so much Park and DNR Land. However, the City is in favor of this and they are the local authority. Bengtson said they tried to keep the footprint as small as possible per the City’s request. He feels they have honored that request. The motion to adopt Resolution 14-66 carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, said based on County Board action of 9-23-14, he is submitting the Contract with Hagen Christensen & McIlwain (HCM) Architects for approval. The Contract is for consulting services for design services for the new Public Works Facility. The document has been reviewed by Asleson. Sawatzke referenced the scope of the work and asked whether the impound lot and evidence building are part of this project. Hawkins said that is optional and directed the Architect to split those out in case the County Board did not want to proceed. Page 16 of the Contract shows this as an option and identifies the cost. The Board questioned the $93,000 cost of the design for the new Sheriff’s Impound Facility. Hawkins said it will include such things as the building, fencing, and grading.
Capt. Todd Hoffman said he has not seen the bid on the design of the building. He said the Sheriff’s Office will need assistance with the design of the building. There will be needs such as HVAC, electrical, interior walls, storage, and heated rooms. Sawatzke asked if the Sheriff’s current storage facility was part of the last Public Works project. Hoffman said it was not. He thought it may have been presented to the Building Committee. Sawatzke asked whether an engineer was hired at that time. Hoffman was unsure as he was not involved with the project. Sawatzke asked Hawkins whether he could recall. Hawkins said the Highway Department was not consulted and was unsure how that evolved. Daleiden suggested going with a design build on any companies that construct this type of shed.
Hoffman understands that something must be done with the impound lot and storage before proceeding with the Public Works Facility. He asked if this would be something that could be delegated to the Building Committee so the process continues forward. Husom thought the Public Works Facility project is slated to begin in September, 2015 and completed in 2016. Hawkins said the move of the Impound Lot needs to be at the front end of the project, but the construction of the new Public Works Facility would likely start in July. Site work will be completed by the Highway Department personnel. Hawkins said ideally the impound lot could be moved yet this fall or early next spring to keep things on track.
In response to Sawatzke, Hoffman said the proposal is to increase the size of the Impound Lot Storage Building from just over 10,000 sq. ft. to 16,000 sq. ft. Sawatzke asked whether the Impound Lot Storage Building could be dismantled and reconstructed at another location. Hawkins said the plan is to repurpose the Impound Lot Storage Building for Public Works storage use. What needs to be moved is the impound lot and fencing. Grading is planned in the area where the cars and fence are located. Sawatzke said the impound lot could be moved but the Sheriff’s Office could still utilize the Impound Lot Storage Building for a period of time. Sawatzke said given that, he did not think the new building would have to be done prior to the construction of the Public Works building. Hoffman said in the original plan, the back side of the building was going to be part of that fencing structure because of the way they utilize the facility. If the Board decides to move the impound lot right away, the amount of fencing required would be increased. Hoffman said the desire is to incorporate the Impound Lot Storage Building with the fence similar to what it is now.
Borrell suggested referring this to the Building Committee to discuss potential firms that could provide design build services. Potter and Borrell agreed the $93,000 cost for design could go a long way towards fencing and the Impound Building. Hoffman stated that only part of the Building will be heated, and there will be concrete flooring throughout. He obtained rough estimates of about $300,000 for the steel, concrete, electrical and heating. Plumbing will not be required. The lighting and security was not included but he thinks that will be required.
Daleiden made a motion to remove the Sheriff Impound Lot Facility and the existing Public Works Building remodel from the Contract and to send those to the Building Committee. The motion was seconded by Borrell. Borrell asked whether the motion includes approval of the Contract. Husom said that would be a separate motion. The motion carried 5-0.
Daleiden made a motion to approve the remainder of the Contract. He asked whether this will be done in stages. Hawkins said that is correct. Daleiden asked whether the schematic design approval is required before proceeding with design/development. Hawkins said that is correct. Daleiden asked whether there will be Commissioners involved in the design/development phase. Hawkins said Kelly has indicated there will be an organized Owners Committee established. Borrell said there should be discussion on the building, size, and the flow from one building to another. Hawkins said those types of issues will be part of the schematic design. Husom questioned Daleiden on whether the motion is to approve the schematic design. Daleiden clarified the motion is to move forward with the Contract in phases. It would not move forward without approval by the County Board of the schematic design. The County Board will make the decision on when to move to design/development. The motion was seconded by Potter.
Sawatzke referenced Page 16 of the Contract that relates to schematic design. He asked for clarification from Daleiden on whether the Board would have to have to approve that before getting to the next component of design development, for example. Daleiden said that would be correct. Sawatzke posed the scenario of the County being unsatisfied with the architect at the end of the schematic design phase. He asked whether the County has the option to change to a different architect at that point. Hawkins referenced Page 15 of the Contract, Article 9.5, which states, “The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days’ written notice to the Architect for the Owner’s convenience and without cause
Sawatzke referenced Page 9 of the Contract which is a listing of additional services not provided. Below are the items that were discussed:
Landscaping Design. Sawatzke thought Landscaping Design is something the Architect usually provides and has never seen this omitted from prior County projects. He asked Hawkins what will be done for landscape design. Hawkins said the footprint of the building and the parking lot is included. Sawatzke said it appears the County will have to pay for some sort of landscaping, whether it is grass or trees. He asked who is responsible for the design and why that is not included. Daleiden thought the Parks Department could assist with that. Sawatzke does not recall a project that did not include the landscape design around the building. Hawkins said the County will contribute site grading to the project.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Sawatzke said the post-occupancy evaluation is also included on the list of things not covered and asked what that refers to. He asked whether there is an expectation that the architect, once there is occupancy, would evaluate if something is not right. Hawkins was unsure whether the post-occupancy evaluation was provided for the existing Public Works Building.
Site Evaluation and Planning. Borrell referenced site evaluation and planning and said that is something that is needed. Daleiden asked whether that was included with the first project with the other company (looking at the best location for the building). Hawkins said that has been completed and is included in the Master Plan Study.
On-site Project Representation. Sawatzke questioned how that differs from construction observation. Hawkins said the construction manager will be responsible for much of that and will be offering services for construction as well. Borrell did not feel the architect needed to be involved with construction observation if there is a construction manager. Sawatzke thought maybe that would be needed. Borrell did not feel they did for $185,000. He suggested paying the architect so much per hour. Sawatzke said from his perspective, the architect is doing on-site project representation when they are on site observing. He was confused why it says they are not providing this when they propose to charge the County $185,000 for that service. Hawkins said they do have construction services but the on-site representation is handled by the construction manager. That is a separate contract that will be presented to the Board.
As-Designed Record drawings. Sawatzke asked for the definition of the as-designed record drawings and whether they will be provided to the County. Hawkins said the drawings provided to the County will reflect the building as constructed. There will be changes and those will be included in the as-builts.
Sawatzke referenced the schematic design and asked if the fees are not-to-exceed figures. Hawkins said they are and are listed on Page 16 in Article 11 as attached Exhibit B. Sawatzke referenced the concept for the shop. Hawkins said design options will be provided and discussed as part of schematic design. Hawkins said once the Owners Committee is organized, there will be a kick off meeting with the architect, key staff members, and a couple of Board members. Borrell asked whether the figures outlined on Page 16 for design development, construction documents, etc. are based on conceptual ideas and asked whether the figures will be adjusted if the project is downsized. Hawkins thought that would be the case. The RFP reflects the number of hours estimated for each task. Borrell said he understands there will be an opportunity for input on the project. Sawatzke said in his history with the County, architects want to charge more than the original proposal. Hopefully the County can be successful with this project in keeping them within the range provided. Daleiden said that is why it is important that the Commissioners are involved in the first part of the schematic design. Sawatzke asked Hawkins to make sure the Commissioners are involved in the schematic design process. The motion carried 5-0.
Hawkins presented a resolution which would approve a speed zone study on a segment of CSAH 5 (appx. 2.802 miles from 67th St. NW to CSAH 39) and on a segment of CSAH 39 (appx. 10.525 miles from CSAH 75 to TH 101). Hawkins said the City of Annandale is asking the County to look at a transition zone heading north into Annandale on CSAH 5. The speed limit is currently 55 mph and then changes to 30 mph. On CSAH 39, the last speed zone authorization was completed in 2002. Hawkins said there have been significant landscape changes, there is a new interchange with TH 101, and there has been development. The thought is a transition zone. The speed limit is currently 50mph. Sawatzke asked whether there is a chance the speed limit could raise through the study, particularly in the case of CSAH 39. Hawkins did not think this would happen. Currently, the speed limit is 50 mph in an urban area. Sawatzke said in the past, there have been situations where speed studies have been requested to lower a speed limit, and the result was an actual increase in speed limit. This happened on CR 42 in Otsego north of Target. The speed limit was raised from 30 mph to 40 mph based on speed study results. Hawkins explained that in a speed study, the State monitors the traffic and the 85th percentile of what traffic is traveling the road at is generally what is determined to be the safest. Sawatzke recalled a MnDOT presentation on this process and he said it made sense. What causes accidents is not so much speed but variances in speed. For example, if everyone drives the same speed it is relatively safe. However if drivers’ speeds vary, that is when the problems occur. Traffic pulling out may not know how to judge the speed of the traffic as it is varying, and that is when the danger occurs. Hawkins said that people may not see signs and so drive to the condition of what they feel is comfortable. He said if a 30 mph speed limit sign is placed in an area where people are comfortable or conditioned to travel 50 mph, then there will be variances in speed which causes the problem. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #14-67 approving a speed zone study on a segment of CSAH 5 and on a segment of CSAH 39. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
Kelly said at the last County Board Meeting, a Committee Of The Whole Meeting was set for 10-21-14 at 11:00 A.M. to discuss elected officials’ salaries. He requested moving this to November based on a request from one of the elected officials to wait until after the election. Sawatzke said he was inclined to move it to December. At that time, he expects the County may have a better idea what type of salary increase the general employee base could receive based on union negotiations. Potter made a motion to cancel the 10-21-14 Committee Of The Whole Meeting at 11:00 A.M. and to reschedule it for 12-02-14 at 11:00 A.M. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Daleiden.
Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates.
1. Potter said that last week an email was received from the State indicating the Corridors of Commerce project on I-94 from Hwy. 241 to CR 19 was included in the $1.4 million awarded in environmental, planning, and mobility.
2. Potter said an agreement has been reached between the City of Monticello and the County Highway Department on the TH 25/Hwy. 75 design. That agreement will be presented to the County Board at a future date.
3. Workforce Investment Board Legislative Breakfast. Husom attended this on 10-10-14 along with a number of legislators. Discussion included how to encourage young people to vote. One suggestion was to mentor kids, making them aware of their responsibility and that it is their constitutional right. It was also suggested that parents mentor their children.
Accurate USA $121.50
Aggregate & Ready Mix MN 1,000.00
Albertville Body Shop Inc 1,220.22
American Society of Civil Eng 255.00
American Tower Corporation 11,980.13
APEC Ind. Sales & Services 2,438.29
Asplin Travel Plaza/Kirk 120.00
At & T National Compliance 225.00
ATRIX International Inc 1,272.50
Bestfriends Veterinary Clinic 228.78
Bob Barker Company Inc 143.80
Boyer Truck Parts 1,988.61
Brock White Co LLC 745.00
Bryant/David J 580.00
Bryant/Kathleen M 580.00
Buffalo Auto Value 198.18
Buffalo/City of 93,654.42
Buhler Inc 1,800.00
Bureau of Crim. Apprehension 8,310.00
Bureau of Crim. Apprehension 120.00
Central McGowan Inc 232.71
Clearwater River Watershed 2,493.21
Climate Air 228.92
Compass Minerals America 12,689.27
Corporate Payment Systems 2,570.10
Cottens Inc 2,829.57
CST Distribution LLC 2,015.37
Dell Marketing LP 5,913.45
Design Elect. Inc-Cold Spring 1,295.72
Farm-Rite Equipment Inc 149.14
Fishnet Security Inc 916.00
GCS Service Inc 640.01
Gopher State One Call 210.35
Granite Electronics 462.30
Granite Pest Control Services 266.00
Green Interiors 450.00
Gundersen Natl Child Protection 125.00
Hassan Sand and Gravel 160.00
Help Systems Il LLC 910.00
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 5,960.99
Integrated Fire & Security 613.00
Intereum Inc 3,071.32
Intoximeters Inc 104.75
Knife River Corp. - N. Central 745.00
LaPlant Demo Inc 597.78
Lynn Peavey Company 816.75
M & M Express Sales and Serv. 761.05
Martin Marietta Materials 109.29
Menards - Buffalo 311.24
MEND Correctional Care LLC 18,213.73
Meritide Inc 2,668.75
Mies Outland Inc 258.09
MN Counties Comp. Coop. 16,030.52
MN Monitoring Inc 209.25
MN Sheriffs Association 535.00
Morphotrust USA Inc 657.62
Mumford Sanitation 1,081.44
O’Ryans Conoco Marathon 135.00
Office Depot 2,055.36
Office of MN IT Services 2,100.00
Omann Brothers Inc 489.22
Pictometry International Corp 1,500.00
Powerplan OIB 579.09
Prairie Lakes Youth Programs 950.00
Ramada Hotel 673.04
St Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc 140.80
St Michael/City of 7,062.20
TCC Distributors 1,160.00
Thompson/Janet A 240.00
Trueman Welters Inc. 504.46
Twin City Seed Company 1,900.25
University of Minnesota 815.00
Voss Lighting 253.40
Warning Lites of MN Inc 146.50
Waste Management-TC West 2,224.64
Wright Hennepin Electric 1,982.90
Wright Soil & Water Cons Dist 271.78
25 Payments less than $100 1,076.38
Final total $284,307.35
The meeting adjourned at 10:31 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 3, 2014.