Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2017
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Vetsch, Daleiden, Potter, and Borrell present.
2-07-17 COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
The Minutes were corrected as follows: Page 17, Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates, #7, should read, “Safe Schools, Rogers” (Husom); Page 18, Advisory Committee/Advisory Board Updates #9, the first sentence should read, “Daleiden and Vetsch attended a meeting on 2-03-17 at Bertram Park” (Vetsch). Daleiden moved to approve the Minutes as corrected, seconded by Husom. The motion carried 5-0.
AGENDA
Daleiden moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Potter. The motion carried 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
Husom moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by Potter, and carried 5-0:
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Claim - Madden, Galanter & Hansen LLP, $7,310.55
B. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Commissioner Michael Potter’s Signature On The Waiver Of The 30-Day Notification Requirement For The City Of St. Michael’s Proposed Modification Of The Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District No. 6-1
C. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Board Chair Signature On Revocable License For VA DAV Vehicle Parking
D. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Signatures on Teamsters 320 - Courthouse Labor Agreement
E. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. Approve Claims As Listed In The Abstract, Subject To Audit, For A Total of $591,622.10 With 127 Vendors And 228 Transactions
F. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. Approve Procurement Card Transactions, Period Ending 1-31-17, Total of $17,931.79
2. Approve Fleet Card Transactions, Period Ending 1-31-17, Total of $17,026.64
G. HIGHWAY
1. Refer to Personnel Committee Highway Accounting Efficiencies
H. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer to the Technology Committee:
A. Digital Redaction Demo
B. Project Status Updates
I. SHERIFF’S OFFICE
1. Accept & Sign The MN DNR 2017 Boat & Water Safety Grant, $18,695.00, Grant Period 1-01-17 Through 6-30-18
TIMED ITEMS
TONY RASMUSON, COUNTY ASSESSOR
Introduction Of New Employee – Melissa Manke
Rasmuson introduced Melissa Manke who was recently hired as an Office Technician in the Assessor’s Office. Manke was welcomed.
Schedule The 2017 County Board Of Appeal And Equalization Meeting
Rasmuson explained the County Board of Appeal and Equalization may meet on any meeting day in June after the second Friday in June and for up to ten meeting days. The Board must also hold at least one meeting that does not recess or adjourn prior to 7:00 P.M. or have a Saturday meeting in lieu of.
Potter moved to schedule the 2017 County Board of Appeal and Equalization Meetings for 6-12-17 at 4:00 P.M. and 6-13-17 at 11:00 A.M. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0.
VIRGIL HAWKINS, HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Approve Annual Resolution Regarding Spring Load Restrictions
Potter moved to approve Resolution #17-12, seconded by Daleiden. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. Hawkins stated the map will be posted on the County’s website and sent to the cities and townships.
BOB HIIVALA, AUDITOR/TREASURER
Approve December Revenue/Expenditure Budget Report
Daleiden moved to approve the report, seconded by Vetsch, and carried 5-0.
Approve 1-17-17 COTW Minutes
Potter moved to approve the Minutes, seconded by Husom, and carried 5-0. The COTW Minutes follow:
I. Discuss County Ditch 7,13,18 and 38
Kryzer opened by stating that Wright County Staff had met on December 13th, 2016 to review and make a plan for how to proceed with our drainage systems in 2017. Mainly today we would like to discuss County Ditch 7, 13, 18, and 38. We came up with the recommendations, noted in the memorandum I furnished the board. The ditches listed, came up as the ones with the most pressing issues and where staff felt action could be taken on these ditches right away and be up and going by April.
Kryzer stated that the County is drainage authority for a number of ditch systems and are responsible for maintaining them. Landowners can petition us for a repair, the drainage authority can initiate a repair up to a certain dollar amount. All of the costs of our repairs get assessed back to the benefitted property owners. So, if your property is benefitted by a drainage system, there is a percentage that you can be assessed and it gets assessed to everyone along the ditch system. The original benefits determined do not always reflect the reasonable present day land values and many of our public drainage systems have not been updated for decades. A redetermination will create a sense of fairness within the watershed by creating a system whereby every acre of land in a watershed that receives benefits pays for that benefit.
Another issue is some of our drainage system records establishing the alignment, or profile are lost or otherwise incomplete. The drainage authority may, by order, reestablish records defining the alignment or profile.
Repairing or maintaining a ditch means we are establishing it back to its original as built profile. An improvement of a drainage system usually provides new drainage not previously provided by the existing ditch and requires a different process. Today we want to discuss repairs and maintenance on the systems.
County Ditch 7 is almost entirely located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Cokato. There is unincorporated section of land at the inlet of this system, which is located just to the west of the Cokato city limits.
Mike Young stated that he had completed elevation and function inspections of the system. One thing that I did notice on this system during the inspection is that there are large parts of this system that are over-dug. These areas are never going to drain uphill. It appears unauthorized repairs and improvements have been completed on this system.
Kryzer stated that since the majority of the system is in the City of Cokato, and we understand that there is some history with prior City Administrator and prior County Board. Before we engage in any improvements, it might be beneficial to approach the City of Cokato to determine their interest in transferring the control of County Ditch 7 to the city.
Borrell stated that there is other issues; it was my understanding that the City of Cokato had installed a control structure, to reduce the flow, routing the ditch through the city storm water system. Young stated that there is a concrete structure, with a manual shut off, that goes into the storm sewer and goes all across Cokato and then meets up with Joint Ditch 15.
Landowner Harlan Anderson was present and gave some history of County Ditch 7. Hiivala stated that Mr. Anderson and Steve Rice have a higher percentage of benefits on this system and pay for a majority of any expenditures.
After further discussion the County Board decided to follow staff’s recommendation to select a delegation of drainage authority members to meet with the City of Cokato to discuss the possibility of transferring control of County Ditch 7 to the City of Cokato. The county does have the original as built profile on this system. Daleiden recommended that the City Engineer also be present for the meeting.
Hiivala recommended that we conduct an Informational meeting with the City of Cokato where the public would be able to attend also if so desired.
County Ditch 13: is located primary in Buffalo Township and drains to Pelican Lake. Young explained that the flooding onto Mr. Gutknecht’s property and into his buildings, which used to be a feed lot, had improved only slightly from photos in the previous inspection. Mr. Gutknecht is on the very beginning of the system and has had increasing problems each rain event for many years. I viewed the area crossing under the road on the north end of Gutknecht’s property and found that the closed system did not appear to be working at capacity. There is a second culvert at a higher elevation that crossed under the roadway. The secondary culvert appeared to be the only way that water could efficiently flow in the direction of the established ditch system.
The south part of the system, to include the closed portion appears to be almost entirely failing. Borell stated that the system needs to be cleaned out. Young said he had spoken with the Gutknecht’s and Commissioner Husom about a year ago regarding a clean out. The Gutknecht’s are assessed for about 27% of the total benefits. Therefore it was determined at that time to order a redetermination on this system prior to a clean out. Gutknecht’s are actually not benefitting at all right now from this drainage system, due to the flooding. With the drainage system working correctly, that area did exactly what they designed it to do when they built it, which was to hold any large rain events and slowly release them over a period of time. Right now, the south part of the system appears to be almost entirely failing.
Kryzer made the recommendation that no work be completed on this system until the redetermination has been completed. As it is our intent to fully restore this system to its as-built status. After the redetermination is complete staff would recommend we start cleaning out this system from the outlet and proceed upstream with repairs.
County Ditch 18: located primary in French Lake Township and drains to the south. Young stated that he had inspected the system after being contacted by a landowner on the system. There is significant vegetation blocking the flow of water. Elevation checks showed that there was adequate fall at crossings. The water was stagnated due to the inability to freely flow through the channel and that the culverts along the system were half to completely full.
Kryzer pointed out that staff has reviewed the records for Ditch 18 and found we have the initial engineering reports, however, we have not been able to locate a final as-built profile. In light of the absence of a final asbuilt profile staff is recommending we commence the process of reestablishing the final profile. Repairs can then be done once the records are reestablished.
Kryzer will complete a “Findings of Fact and Order” directing proceedings to reestablish and correct drainage system records for Wright County Ditch 18 (Statues 103E.101, subd. 4a).
County Ditch 38: located in Marysville Township. Borrell stated he disagrees with needing an Engineer on this system. We have established where the ditch is.
Young stated this system flows north to south. The inspection showed that there was grade in the ditch, however throughout the ditch there was significant sediment, vegetation, and other debris holding back the flow of water. There is significant narrowing of the ditch and vegetation is choking the flow. The City of Montrose has replaced the culvert at its original elevation, even though the culvert is completely full and under water.
Borrell felt if we cleaned 350 feet from the gravel road and then toward Sones’ property you would have enough fall then for the rest of the system. You wouldn’t need to clean the whole system out. We need to establish a level at the wetland on Sones’ property and not let it reach any higher or we will have to clean out the outlet to that wetland. Sones’ can keep that wetland for now.
Hiivala stated that during the Public Hearing process for the redetermination, the board established that the ditch goes through the Sones’ property and goes to the natural creek.
Daleiden felt we need an Engineer on this system to avoid future contentions. These records once completed will be used as the basis for completing any future repairs to this system and we will have a defendable position.
Kryzer stated that the reason we need to reestablish records is because of the tile system that goes under the trailer park. The ideal situation is to reestablish the as-built records and reroute the tile system so that it does not go under the trailer park any longer and instead goes through the wetland. Young added that the engineer report would also determine whether rerouting the tile would require an improvement.
Kryzer will complete a “Findings of Fact and Order” directing proceedings to reestablish and correct drainage system records for Wright County Ditch 38 (Statues 103E.101, subd. 4a).
Borrell asked if anyone from the public would like to discuss any other ditches.
County Ditch 34: John Kunz, benefitted landowner, CD 34 starts 2 miles west of Delano. My question is if I were to replace tile on my mother’s property, could I get help from the county on the expense of that. It is a 24 inch tile that is in bad shape. Can the county help with the cost of a backhoe?
Kryzer pointed out that the costs go back to the benefitted landowners. This repair would probably be in excess of $50 thousand and would be capped at what we could do on a yearly basis. Borrell pointed out that the repairs need to be done and we can put assessments on a payment plan on a pretty low interest rate.
Kryzer pointed out to the drainage authority, that we do not have an as-built profile for County Ditch 34 and he can follow up with a resolution ordering that records be reestablished for this system.
Young stated that he is willing to work with the landowner to get a quick repair done to the tile on his property.
County Ditch 3: John Ucker from Albion Township was present and questioned the assessment Albion Township received for County Ditch 3.
Hiivala stated that the Auditor’s office will check historic documents to try and determine what county road, Albion Township would be assessed for, from the original viewers’ report.
There was no further discussions and the meeting was adjourned.
(End of 1-17-17 COTW Minutes)
Approve 1-24-17 COTW Minutes
Daleiden moved to approve the COTW Minutes, seconded by Potter. The motion carried 5-0. The COTW Minutes follow:
I. Enforcement of Buffer Law
Meeting called to order by Commissioner Borrell.
Kryzer stated the purpose of the meeting was to informally discuss the Buffer Law and what role the Drainage Authority will take as far as jurisdiction. BWSR is looking for feedback on the initial election of jurisdiction policy. BWSR has set a date of March 31, 2017 for counties to affirm their jurisdiction. The law allows a subsequent jurisdiction decision to be made that includes providing a 60 day notice to BWSR.
The purpose behind this date was to allow time for counties to adopt their ordinance or rule and for BWSR to have time to develop adequate capacity to manage any potential enforcement workload. However, the March 31, 2017 date is soft, in that counties and watershed districts can change a jurisdiction election by providing notice to BWSR.
BWSR recommended if the county is waiting on consideration of funding provisions this legislative session, you should not feel compelled to make a decision on buffer enforcement jurisdiction by March 31st.
Borrell mentioned that he believes everyone sees the value to Buffer strips but the law was so poorly written as far as implementation of it. I was reading that Renville County, who has several miles of open drainage and drain tile, informally agreed they would not decide whether to accept the responsibility for enforcing the buffer law or delegating it until the intent of the Legislature on funding is known.
Kryzer stated that what Renville decided is a very valid determination that the board could return with. Staff at this point has not really formed an opinion as to what we would recommend. The only recommendation staff would have is where you want the jurisdiction and how do we implement and enforce it along with staffing logistics. If the Board waits to hear on consideration of funding provisions this legislative session, you could assert your jurisdiction in May and jurisdiction would be effective 60 days later. If the board does assert jurisdiction we would need to develop a model county ordinance and policy for enforcing it.
Kerry Saxton, SWCD, stated he had heard that the March 31, 2017 date was a “soft” date and counties should not feel compelled to make a decision on buffer enforcement jurisdiction by then. However, we had not heard that the county had until May, so therefore we had contacted Lee Kelly and others regarding the county board making a decision on this. If that deadline has been moved, then the board does have more time. We had planned on covering this issue at our annual planning meeting. Greg has touched on the basics of the law. There is the “other waters” designation that we need to discuss and we would want to get some advice from the board. The SWCD has to designate other waters that have not been covered by this law. It is clearly not being enforced at this point and that’s up to the county board as the water management planning authority what you do with it. The board has to incorporate the map that SWCD comes up with or a list of waters that you incorporate into your plan, but you don’t really have to do anything with it. The value of that is, if it is in the plan, then we can try and get grants to get those areas taken care of on a voluntary basis.
Daleiden asked about the maps SWCD was working on which showed what areas of the county currently meet the buffers law for the most part and what areas are out of compliance. There seemed to be a fair amount that already meet the requirements if I remember correctly. Saxton stated that there are two areas, the public waters that have to meet the average 50 feet buffer strip or it can be as small as 30 feet. Most of those areas are fairly well taken care of. The 16.5 feet for ditches, a lot of those areas are out of compliance and are not in place yet. The ditch buffer strips are not due until the following year of November 2018, whereas the public waters are due to be in place by November of this year.
Eric Mattson, SWCD, the questionable situations are having to do with public water courses. A lot of them have essentially functioned as drainage ditches or at least segments of them. Those are listed under the DNR’s public water, as public water courses. So, under this law it requires a 50 foot buffer strip. These are the areas that SWCD is going to have to look at a little closer and decide what the DNR wants to do with those. I have heard that it is very difficult to add waters to the public water inventory and also as difficult to eliminate public waters from the DNR inventory.
Borrell felt the board would be better off to wait and let BWSR take on the jurisdiction or enforcement of the law. Vetsch stated he sees the state regulating it as a double edged sword, either they are going to be really active and really tight on jurisdiction or they will be really passive and you might not see them out there enforcing anything.
Vetsch asked Kryzer if there would be an issue if the board decided to sit on this and wait and see if the bill gets appealed or what type of funding source legislation will decide on, and then wait until April or May to come back and decide at that point if we want to enforce it locally verses State enforcement. If we don’t do something soon are we automatically given that enforcement to the State? Kryzer stated that he does not see any issue with the board delaying a decision regarding jurisdiction right now. The enforcement date is November 1st of this year. March 31st was really a date for BWSR to know what they need to do with their staffing and budgeting process. BWSR indicated to me that if you are waiting for funding, for the legislator to make a decision, then please hold off.
Borrell asked landowners present to come forward and give any input they might have regarding the buffer law.
Mark Baumen from Franklin Township: I have had a lengthy discussion with both Kerry Saxton and Eric Mattson regarding the law. I do not have a problem with the buffer strip, what I have a problem with is the law is not uniform. The public waters are 50 feet and the ditches are 16.5 feet and it could be the same ditch, which just doesn’t make sense. So I would ask everyone in the audience to talk with their state representatives and Senators to either repeal it or make it uniform.
Mike Young; Ditch Inspector from Woodland Township: This law was so poorly conceived and written, I believe this law is in for years of legal battles if it even survives. From a drainage inspector viewpoint I don’t think locally we would want to be involved with that. I feel it is going to be costly and very confrontational for elected officials. As a landowner and farmer, I think the whole thing should be scrapped especially because of the public waters part of the law. I would encourage everyone present to look at the public waters map and see just how many private ditches are now going to be 50 feet buffers required rather than the 16.5 feet.
Potter asked Young if what he was stating basically was that the law was written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers into the detriment of landowners. Young agreed stating the law was written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers and regulatory agencies which will undoubtedly balloon, like every other law passed, as far as enforcement. They will demand additional money, they will demand additional staff and it will just balloon government like it always does.
Saxton wanted to point out that on the ditches with the 16.5 foot buffer, as you are aware our ditches have not been well maintained. They are full of trees and it cost a lot of money just to get the trees off. That 16.5 feet, the county really needs something there so that it can maintain the ditches. The other thing that I wanted to point out is when you do redeterminations you have to take that 16.5 feet and actually do a legal easement on it. Landowners get paid for any damages then, so just for the audiences’ knowledge they will get paid for that, at crop land rates. The other thing I would make the board aware of is when ordering a redetermination, what are you actually getting for that. What new land are you going to make available at the cost benefits of completing the redetermination. What is the value of the redetermination, what is really being gained by the cost of completing the redetermination? In the past we heard from landowners that they were not in favor of the redetermination because of the costs, let alone what work you might do at the end of the process.
Mary Wetter; SWCD Board: My assigned duty was to watch the legislator and see what they were doing with the buffer bill. To answer Commissioner Potter’s question, there is a repeal, it is authored by State Rep. Steve Green, who is a Republican from Fosston (House file 167). Right now there is no Senate companion, so right now it is sitting there waiting to be heard by the environmental committee.
Keith Duske from Marysville Township: I have part of the land that is underwater by Highway 12. My understanding is this meeting is to decide who is going to enforce this buffer law. If there is talk about repealing it, why don’t we just let the State enforce it for now? Why start something on the County level if you don’t know if the bill will be appealed or survive?
Husom stated she is fully in favor of holding off and waiting for the legislators. There is too much that we don’t know today. My recommendation would be to hold off. BWSR wanted to know for staffing issues, and I feel if we don’t give them an answer then they will have no need to start hiring additional staff.
Borrell agreed stating he would take it one step further. The State created the bill so let them take care of it. Potter added that if we hold off then we can also follow House file 167 and have AMC get us updated on what is going on.
Kryzer added, given the consensus of the board, we should hold off on making any jurisdiction decisions right now and the prudent thing to do would be to table this until June.
Borrell thanked everyone for attending and reminded the audience to contact your representatives and Senators and let them know your feelings regarding the bill.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM.
(End of 1-24-17 COTW Minutes)
Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, stated the Board will be acting as the Drainage Authority on the remaining Agenda items for the Auditor/Treasurer.
County Ditch 7
Referencing the 1-17-17 COTW Minutes approved above, the recommendation for County Ditch 7 is to select a delegation of drainage authority members to meet with the City of Cokato to discuss the possibility of transferring control of County Ditch 7 to the City of Cokato. Daleiden moved to authorize Daleiden and Borrell to serve in this capacity with Husom as the alternate. The date of the meeting will be set at a future Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0. Hiivala will volunteer to be a part of this delegation as well.
Order a Redetermination On County Ditch 34
Kryzer stated that the benefited landowners on County Ditch 34 have asked for repairs. There is an As Built Profile for County Ditch 34. The last determination was completed over 100 years ago when the Ditch was established. At the recommendation of staff, Daleiden moved to adopt the Findings of Fact and Order as presented and to order a redetermination on County Ditch 34. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0.
Approve Resolution Directing Proceedings To Reestablish And Correct Drainage System Records For CD 38
Potter moved to adopt Resolution #17-13, Findings And Order Directing Proceedings To Reestablish And Correct Drainage System Record For Wright County Ditch 38 (Statutes §103e.101, Subd. 4a). The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. Resolution #17-13 follows:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 38
FINDINGS AND ORDER DIRECTING PROCEEDINGS TO REESTABLISH AND CORRECT DRAINAGE SYSTEM
RECORD FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 38 (Statutes §103E.101, subd. 4a)
FINDINGS
1. The Wright County Board of Commissioners is the Drainage Authority for Wright County Ditch (CD) 38.
2. After thorough investigation of the drainage system record, the Drainage Authority finds that the records establishing the alignment, profile, and right-of-way of CD 38 are incomplete.
3. Statutes Section 103E.101, subd. 4a allows the Drainage Authority to initiate proceedings to reestablish records defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; or right-of-way of a drainage system as originally constructed or subsequently improved.
Therefore, the Drainage Authority makes the following:
ORDER
A. The Drainage Authority shall follow the procedures of Statutes Section 103E.101, subd. 4a to reestablish and correct the drainage system record for CD 38 to reflect the functional alignment, dimension, grade and right-of-way of the system.
B. The Drainage Authority appoints the engineering firm of Houston Engineering, Inc., to investigate and report findings defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system.
C. Drainage Authority staff, upon completion of the engineer’s investigation, shall set a date, time and location for an informational meeting on the reestablished and corrected drainage system records.
D. Drainage Authority staff, upon completion of the informational meeting, shall set a date, time and location for a hearing on the reestablished and corrected drainage system records.
E. Drainage Authority staff shall give notice of the hearing by mail to the commissioner of natural resources, the executive director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and all property owners benefited or damaged by the drainage system and shall give additional notice either in a newspaper of general circulation in the drainage system area or by publication on Drainage Authority’s website and in all other ways as required by Board policy.
The question was on the adoption of the Resolution, and after discussion, the motion passed and the Findings and Order were adopted by a vote of 5 yes and 0 no.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2017.
WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SEATED AS DRAINAGE AUTHORITY UNDER STATUTES CHAPTER 103E FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 38
(End of Resolution #17-13)
Approve Contract From Houston Engineering For The Reestablishment Of Records For CD 38
Kryzer stated the lump sum payment is $13,200. Daleiden moved to approve the Contract with Houston Engineering, seconded by Husom. Hiivala clarified that the work pertains to re-establishing the record of where the Ditch System is. This will be done first to figure out the level of maintenance. It does not include re-routing of the Ditch. Kryzer stated the goal is to have this completed no later than July, with possibly repairs to follow later this summer. The motion carried 5-0.
Approve Resolution Directing Proceedings To Reestablish And Correct Drainage System Records For CD 18
Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #17-14, Findings And Order Directing Proceedings To Reestablish And Correct Drainage System Record For Wright County Ditch 18 (Statutes §103e.101, Subd. 4a). The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. Resolution #17-14 follows:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 18
FINDINGS AND ORDER DIRECTING PROCEEDINGS TO REESTABLISH AND CORRECT DRAINAGE SYSTEM
RECORD FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 18 (Statutes §103E.101, subd. 4a)
FINDINGS
4. The Wright County Board of Commissioners is the Drainage Authority for Wright County Ditch (CD) 18.
5. After thorough investigation of the drainage system record, the Drainage Authority finds that the records establishing the alignment, profile, and right-of-way of CD 18 are incomplete.
6. Statutes Section 103E.101, subd. 4a allows the Drainage Authority to initiate proceedings to reestablish records defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; or right-of-way of a drainage system as originally constructed or subsequently improved.
Therefore, the Drainage Authority makes the following:
ORDER
F. The Drainage Authority shall follow the procedures of Statutes Section 103E.101, subd. 4a to reestablish and correct the drainage system record for CD 18 to reflect the functional alignment, dimension, grade and right-of-way of the system.
G. The Drainage Authority appoints the engineering firm of Houston Engineering, Inc., to investigate and report findings defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system.
H. Drainage Authority staff, upon completion of the engineer’s investigation, shall set a date, time and location for an informational meeting on the reestablished and corrected drainage system records.
I. Drainage Authority staff, upon completion of the informational meeting, shall set a date, time and location for a hearing on the reestablished and corrected drainage system records.
J. Drainage Authority staff shall give notice of the hearing by mail to the commissioner of natural resources, the executive director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and all property owners benefited or damaged by the drainage system and shall give additional notice either in a newspaper of general circulation in the drainage system area or by publication on Drainage Authority’s website and in all other ways as required by Board policy.
The question was on the adoption of the Resolution, and after discussion, the motion passed and the Findings and Order were adopted by a vote of 5 yes and 0 no.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2017.
WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SEATED AS DRAINAGE AUTHORITY UNDER STATUTES CHAPTER 103E FOR WRIGHT COUNTY DITCH 18
(End of Resolution #17-14)
Approve Contract From Houston Engineering For The Reestablishment Of Records For CD 18
Kryzer stated the lump sum payment is $10,400. Daleiden moved to approve the Contract with Houston Engineering, seconded by Husom. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
2-08-17 BUILDING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Husom made the following correction to the Committee Minutes: Page 1, Item 1, last line of Recommendation, remove the word “if.” Potter moved to approve the Minutes as corrected and the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried unanimously. The Building Committee Minutes follow:
I. Public Works Deferred Maintenance & Remodel
Updates about the Public Works project were provided by Mattice and Wilczek. Wilczek noted the carpet and millwork have been installed, the plumbing is being completed, the painting will be complete by 2/9 and furniture will be installed on 2/13. The IT room static dissipative flooring is being installed in two phases with IT relocating a server rack midway through the installation. The server equipment will be moving 2/9 to allow for the second portion of install to occur. The punchlist walkthrough with the Grindstone Construction is scheduled for 2/16. Wilczek also noted that the Extension office is planning to move the week of President’s Day. Mattice raised the question to the group that as staff settles into the space and furniture is complete, is there a go ahead to purchase misc. items as needed that were unforeseen (i.e. an extra table or chair set) or a need to come to committee with the requests?
Mattice brought up that the site will need microwaves, silverware, and misc. supplies and discussion was had by the group about which account should pay for those items. Mattice also stated he is obtaining a second proposal for audio/visual for the conference room and the break room areas. He will work with IT staff on a recommendation for committee once the second proposal is received.
Wilczek stated there was an issue discovered in the front vestibule when the vinyl base was removed for replacement. Behind the base and wallcovering there was some moisture found. The cost to replace the lower two feet, repair the poly, tape & mud, and paint is $952. There was some discussion about the eye wash station in the shop and the safety concerns about its operational condition. Wilczek requested that it be brought up for discussion again after some costs are obtained for replacement. Consensus in discussion was that a plumbed unit would be good for the site, depending on costs and feasibility of installation.
Recommendation: Recommendation by Potter and Borrell was to repair the vestibule wall for $952, to have the cost of the microwaves and misc. break room supplies come from department budgets, for Wilczek to obtain multiple proposals for installation of a plumbed eye wash station, and for Wilczek and Mattice to use their discretion on misc. pieces of furniture or items are needed as the project wraps up.
II. Recycling Center – Tipping Floor Demolition
Wilczek provided updates on the status of the Recycling Center Tipping Floor. He stated the cleanup of the site had taken place and was in good condition. The piles of insulation and misc. metals were removed. Wilczek said there are two remaining items on the site that he is working through. 1) The floor slab slopes to the center of the building and water will run toward the service door and ultimately into the other side of the structure. A curb or barrier needs to be installed to hold the water away from the service door to prevent issues. 2) The sides of the conveyor system still need to be closed to prevent the pit from flooding during rains. The top was covered by Ward Carlson, but the sides are still exposed. Wilczek stated that he is expecting budget numbers from a contractor for several types of new structure options to cover the existing footprint. They will be presented to the group for further discussion when received.
Recommendation: Updates only.
(End of 2-08-17 Building Committee Minutes)
BILL BY REP. ERIC LUCERO RE: REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE AUDITOR’S OFFICE LAWSUIT
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, referenced H.F. 458 which would require the State Auditor to reimburse legal costs of Wright, Becker, and Ramsey Counties; regulating the use of certain appropriations by the State Auditor for litigation purposes. A hearing before the State Government Finance Committee is scheduled for 2-15-17 at 1:00 P.M. Since the case with the State Auditor’s Office is on appeal to the Court of Appeals, details of the case will not be discussed. Wright and Becker Counties each spent $40,000 defending the case. Another bill, H.F. 807, has been introduced by Rep. Paul Marquart for Becker and Wright County, and relates to litigation cost reimbursement for defending the constitutionality of the 2015 county audit law. It involves grant funding from the State General Fund to reimburse counties for litigation costs. Daleiden moved to send Asleson to the 2-15-17 hearing to convey Wright County Board’s support of H.F. 458. Husom seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
2-07-17 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (COTW) MINUTES
Potter moved to approve the COTW Minutes, seconded by Daleiden, and carried 5-0. Lee Kelly, County Coordinator, said the County was contacted by a property owner near the Jail/LEC on the County’s interest in purchasing a property (PID #103-500-172-203). The County met last week to discuss access sites for the new Courts Facility off TH 25 near that property. The COTW Minutes follow:
I. PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF FIRM TO COMPLETE THE BUDGETED MASTER SPACE STUDY FOR COUNTY FACILITIES
Kelly noted that the concept of a county-wide space study was discussed during the 2017 budget meetings. Funds were allocated in the budget to complete a county-wide study of facilities. The last study was completed in 2005. There have been informal discussions on how to best use the space that will be vacated upon the opening of a new Courts Facility. Kelly felt it would be wise to engage a 2-14-17 Wright County Board Minutes Page 12 of 18 professional firm to assist the County in developing a comprehensive plan for the County’s Facilities.
There was discussion about selecting a firm that the county has worked with recently. Upon further discussion the consensus was to solicit proposals from multiple firms for this project. Wilczek suggested that after proposals are received, the pool be narrowed to two to three firms to be interviewed prior to making a selection. A document outlining the project would need to be developed for the firms to respond to in order to make a fair comparison. Administration staff were directed to prepare a document outlining the project.
Daleiden noted a recent e-mail the Commissioners received from the owner of the property located near the Jail/LEC. He was inquiring into the County’s interest in purchasing his property. Kelly stated a meeting has been set up with BKV group, the architect for the courts facility, and the Highway department. This meeting is to discuss the possibility of allowing access to a new courts facility via TH 25 near this property. Kelly felt this may impact the County’s decision to purchase the property. Wilczek noted the property may be beneficial to purchase regardless of whether a TH 25 access is feasible or not. Potter thought that MNDOT would allow access in this location. The consensus of the committee was to begin discussions with the property owner regarding the purchase of the property.
Recommendation: Solicit proposals from architectural firms for a master space study. Begin discussions with the property owner regarding the purchase of the property.
(End of 2-07-17 COTW Minutes)
1-25-17 LABOR MANAGEMENT/LOSS CONTROL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Husom made the following change to the Minutes: Page 2, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, change the word “join” to “joint.” Daleiden moved to approve the Minutes, seconded by Husom, and carried 5-0. The Minutes follow:
1. Loss Data – Employee Injuries/ Workers Compensation Insurance
Dahl presented the “Risk Management 2016 Injury Report” which was based upon metrics such as First Report of Injuries (FROIs) and OSHA 300 Recordable events resulting in days away from work and/or days on restriction or job transfer. Dahl noted the Sheriff, Highway, and Health & Human Services were the top three (3) County Departments with the most injuries/illness filed in the 2016 reporting period. Slips, trips, and falls were the leading cause of injuries for 2016.
Dahl reviewed all claims from the years of 2013 through 2016 and found January of each year as the month with the most claims. On average, claims tend to decrease February through April, then increase May – June, before decreasing July – September, and increasing October – December. Dahl explained Workers Compensation has several levels of severity and frequency such as:
• Record Only Event: Employee experienced an injury/illness during work resulting in no medical treatment or lost time.
• Medical Only Event: Employee experienced an injury/illness that resulted in medical treatment, released back to work with or without medical restriction, with no lost time.
• Indemnity Event: Employee experienced an injury/illness that resulted in a combination of medical treatment, lost time, and/or medical restrictions.
Workers Compensation premium rates are determined by the base rate and experience modification. All positions are rated based upon the nature of work performed by that position. The base rate factor is multiplied by $100 per payroll to calculate the base premium. Every industry has an experience modification (mod) factor of 1.0 (base rate). If an organization within that industry has a higher than average claims experience the organization’s mod factor will be greater than 1.0 creating an excess premium. If an organization has fewer claims than average, the claims experience mod factor will be below 1.0 creating a premium credit. Claims have a 3 year impact on the experience mod. Currently, Wright County’s mod factor is at 1.225 creating an excess premium of $129,920 with a total premium of $691,013. Workplace injuries/illness has been trending downward in the past few years which should reduce the mod factor in future years.
Safety training and awareness initiatives have been credited for the reduction of losses over the past several years. An organization’s safety culture along with a strong training program are key risk treatments to reducing frequency and severity of injuries and illnesses.
RECOMMENDATION: Change Committee Name from Labor Management/Loss Control to “Safety Committee”.
II. Purpose/ Goals of Committee
Dahl explained the history of the Labor Management/Loss Control Committee. The purpose of the committee is to ensure compliance under the 1995 Workers’ Compensation Reform bill which requires employers with more than 25 employees to administer a joint labor-management safety committee. Questions were asked regarding the purpose of other Safety Committees such as the Public Works and Health & Human Services Safety committees. There was general consensus those committees would be sub-committees of the Countywide Labor Management/Loss Control Committee. The subcommittees would be able to focus in specific high risk areas that may not pertain to all County departments. The subcommittees would also meet more frequently to address and mitigate immediate hazards. Policy changes, grant applications, and funding needs would be vetted by the County’s Labor Management/Loss Control Committee.
Dahl explained the County’s Health & Safety Manual was last updated in 1995. The Health & Safety manual serves as the County’s safety program which is outdated in many areas. Dahl recommended working on updating the entire manual bring it into compliance. The Health & Safety Manual covers all departments, all classifications, and will need to be worked on in smaller sections throughout the year and possibly into next year.
RECOMMENDATION: Draft Safety Committee Bylaws, Create a Central Safety Committee Page on SharePoint, Start the process of updating the County’s Health & Safety Manual.
III. MCIT Training On Effective Safety Committee
Brian Doughty, Loss Control Consultant, with MCIT conduct a training on “Effective Safety Committees.”
Doughty discussed nine (9) areas:
• Compliance
• Committee Framework
• Reviewing Incidents
• Safety Audits
• Special Initiatives
• Advanced Projects
• Communication
• Evaluations
• Training Resources
(End of 1-25-17 Labor Management/Loss Control Committee Minutes)
2-08-17 PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Husom moved to approve the Committee Minutes, seconded by Potter. Discussion followed on the Jail Staffing topic as it relates to the opening of one additional pod at the Jail/LEC. Borrell questioned the amount charged for boarding and whether there is a contract involved with entities that board prisoners. Husom responded that the boarding fee is set by the State at $55/day. Boarding of federal inmates is at a higher rate. There are not contracts involved. Potter said that when the Jail/LEC was built, it was done partially with the anticipation of outside revenue. There is the caveat that if the prisoner population declines, staff will be reduced through attrition. Relative to the Foster Care Recruitment Contract, Wright County could become a pilot for this type of contracted service. The motion carried 5-0. The Personnel Committee Minutes follow:
1. Modify Child Foster Care Recruitment Contract
Michelle Miller, Social Services Manager, distributed copies of the proposed Child Foster Care Recruitment Services contract agreement. Recruitment efforts for foster care families currently consists of advertising in movie theatre’s, billboards and/or flyers which has had limited success due to lack of staff time and availability. Added to that, the need for foster care families is growing. Recruitment needs to be an ongoing and consistent effort. The best recruitment effort is word-of-mouth from people who have experience providing foster care to children. Miller and Jill Marzean, Social Services Supervisor, talked with Tim Dahl, Risk Manager and Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy County Attorney, regarding how the unit can utilize an individual as the voice in the community to talk about foster care experiences in an effort to get others interested in becoming a foster care provider.
Miller and Marzean also had a conversation with Dahl and Sunny Hesse, HR Director, regarding the IRS 20-point factor for an Independent Contractor. Based on a very high level review, it would appear the role would qualify as an independent contractor relationship. However, the proposed contract is different than most independent contractor contracts. The typical contract has an article regarding liability insurance, this contract does not because it was believed it may be prohibitive to the client to provide the service. Discussion ensured regarding the risk associated to the County. Specific concerns were expressed regarding setting precedence of entering into an independent contractor agreement without requiring the contractor to carry insurance.
RECOMMENDATION: table until February 22, 2017 to gather more information regarding insurance.
2. Jail Staffing
LEC jail facility was built with two (2) vacant pods with expectation the Sheriff’s Office would be coming to the Board in the future to request to open an additional pod either due to Wright County arrests or boarding inmates.
Sheriff Hagerty was recently approached by Sherburne County requesting to enter into an agreement to board more Sherburne County prisoners in the Wright County Jail. Sherburne suggested the possibility of boarding up to 100 inmates in Wright County. Sheriff’s Office Command Staff is proposing Wright County open one (1) pod to allow for up to sixty (60) additional inmates each day. Doing so would require 5-6 additional Corrections Officers to meet the DOC standard requirement. Adding sixty (60) additional inmates would result in $1.2 million in revenue annually on top of $1.1 million in revenue received in 2016. The additional staff would cost the County approximately $300,000-$400,000 annually resulting in a potential annual profit of $600,000-$700,000. If numbers of boarding inmates decreased, which is unlikely, the Sheriff’s Office would decrease staff appropriately through attrition over roughly a one-year period.
Aramark, food service contractor, is onboard. The current contract with Aramark includes graduated pricing based on total meal count. Adding more boarded inmates will actually lower the operating cost of Wright County’s own inmates.
The Sheriff’s Office has received boarding requests in the past from Clay County, St. Louis County, Stearns County, Sherburne County, and Anoka County and has had to turn away a number of requests due to space issues. Wright County inmate count is going up as well (about 123 bodies a day). The average daily population in 2016 was 177 (roughly 54 borders per day). The timing is right to open another pod now.
Husom asked if adding boarded inmates will have an impact on medical staffing costs. Pat O’Malley, Jail Administrator, indicated without actual data to evaluate, it is presumed it would not have an impact due to the current relationship with Sherburne County who uses the same medical provide as Wright County. For boarded inmates, Sherburne County will do initial medical intake of inmate. Medication distribution would have to be done by Wright County staff which is minimal since med rounds are done already. If an inmate has an excessive medical need, Wright County will bill the services back to Sherburne County and/or send inmate back to Sherburne County. Staff will need to evaluate over 3-4 month period to identify actual impact to medical staff.
Upon approval, the intent is to open the additional pod in 3 months. Sherburne County has agreed to send staff over if we don’t have required staff onboard and trained.
Request: add six (6) Corrections Officer FTE’s to staff additional pod within DOC requirements. Long-term, revenue will exceed expenses. 2017 Revenue is projecting over budget. Overage can be used to cover initial expenses until new revenue begins to come in to the County.
RECOMMENDATION: add six (6) Corrections Officer FTE’s in order to staff additional jail pod for the purpose of boarding inmates.
(End of 2-08-17 Personnel Committee Minutes)
2-08-17 TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE MINUTES
At today’s Board Meeting, Borrell referenced the PA system discussed by the Technology Committee. He also referenced the Space Study and felt the PA system upgrade should be incorporated into that project instead of having to redo the system later. With Everbridge coming online, he thought that may be a better notification system. Daleiden responded that people have to sign up for that notification. The Bogen equipment can be moved. With Everbridge, residents must sign up to receive notifications. The anticipated cost is approximately $50,000 for County buildings. Daleiden asked when the Space Study will be done. Kelly indicated he would like to have it done this year and the RFP is being developed. The following corrections were made to the Technology Committee Minutes: Items II and III, under Presenters, change from “Connie Mae” to “Connie Mae Cooper” (Borrell); Page 4, Action should read, “Mandated procedure” (Vetsch). Vetsch moved to approve the Minutes as corrected and the recommendations, seconded by Daleiden. The motion carried 5-0. The Technology Committee Minutes follow:
I. Records and Data Management Policy (carry over discussion)
Presented by Scott Larson, IT Departments were directed by Commissioner Daleiden to present concerns about the document to the Records Management Analyst, Scott Larson, either before this meeting or at this meeting. Scott took the concerns brought up in the last meeting and revised the Policy. The original document, along with the revised document, were (and are) freely available to view on SharePoint within the Records Management Site. Scott presented copies of the revised document to meeting attendees. County Coordinator Lee Kelly stated that he was happy with the language used in Section 2.7, pertaining to the role of the Responsible Authority. Attorney Brian Asleson also expressed a positive response to the revision. Brian noted that he will look more closely at the document and provide a more thorough response to Adam Tagarro. There was no contention with the Policy as revised and it was advised to move forward to present the Policy to the Board for Full Approval.
Action: Approve Policy Pending Final Review from Brian Asleson
II. PA System
Presented by Tim Dahl, Administration and ConnieMae Cooper, IT Tim Dahl, Wright County Risk Manager, has identified the County’s emergency response system, in particular the PA system, as in need of an upgrade. He stated that presently there is a patch work of systems that hinder communication in an emergency event. It was noted that in 2016 Wright County performed a Tornado Drill. Some employees reported that they didn’t hear the notification (PA System) of the warning. Others stated that they heard the notification in one part of the building, proceeded to the Safe Zone but did not hear the “All Clear” that later went out, that the system simply failed to work in that area. Chad Davis, IT, ConnieMae Cooper, IT, and Tim have been researching systems and vendors to upgrade the current system to one network. They have identified vendor Telcom-Data out of Milwaukee WI, the equipment manufacturer is Bogen. Koch Communications of St. Michael is a potential local subcontractor. Bogen equipment is actively used in schools and government agencies. The old PA vendor was initially included in the discussion, but it was discovered that they just do the paging system, they do not connect with the phone system. The new Highway Building has allowed the IT department the ability to see how to connect the systems in a useful manner. The Bogen system will be able to utilize some existing equipment, it will also have the ability to relocate if the need arises. The question was brought up if we need a PA system when so many people have cell phones. The answer was that a PA quickly & efficiently gets a message out, with just one person needing to be the communicator. Not everyone has access to our “CodeRed” type notification system. We have a unique responsibility to alert both our Public Visitors and our Employees, a PA system being one type of media to use to communicate. Another question was asked of where we will implement the PA system, as a County Building could be considered a multitude of sites. Tim sited to contain the scope of the project it is suggested to start with the 5 Main County Buildings: GC, HSC, LEC, Highway Building, and Public Works. It was noted that sub-buildings such as regional highway buildings and sheriff sites have personnel on-site that would have alternative notification equipment on their persons (radios, cell phones). Commissioners Vetsch and Daleiden felt that the cost of the quote was manageable, Tim noted that there may be room for negotiation as well. Commissioner Daleiden had concern with this being another IT project that would push others aside. Adam Tagarro, IT Director, responded that the project is estimated to take considerable time, but time that the projected hire of a Telecom personnel would be tasked with. The Voicemail project would be the main project to multitask for the new hire. Daleiden also noted that the new Telecom hire may have expertise to guide the project as well. Both Commissioners also questioned the funding source, Lee Kelly noted there might be some 2017 CIP funding available due to changes in other projects. The PA as it stands is partially funded. The Commissioners direction was that the project itself was something the County should act on, but that the timing will need to be delayed. Delay due to arrival of the new Telecom hire in IT and sorting out of funding. Also more clear research of Quote, which ConnieMae and Tim stated the vendor said was good for 6 months.
Action: Proceed with PA Upgrade, but delay until Telecom position is filled III.
Digital Redaction
Presented by ConnieMae Cooper, IT
The question of standardizing and performing Digital Redaction arose from services provided between Health & Human Services (HHS) and the County Attorney. The County Attorney references case documents provided by HHS. Formerly HHS would print out documents that could possibly be as large as 500 pages, they have recently moved to providing the documents in a digital format for the Attorney’s office. Digital Redaction is used to provide multiple copies of an original document, each “new” document having certain items redacted. Since the size of the documents can be quite substantial the need for a system to efficiently and accurately redact items has been recognized. Adobe Pro and a new OnBase module have been identified as two products to offer redaction. Our current modules of OnBase offer redaction but in a more manual format, there is an OnBase module available for purchase of $20,000, plus 20% annual maintenance. This additional module allows for efficient redaction and also creates multiple copies while simultaneously keeping the original intact. Adobe Pro has features that allow you to search for text and redact in a more efficient manner than our current OnBase system. It was noted that Adobe Standard is $220 per license, while Adobe Pro is $330 per license. Each user would require an owned license. Commissioner Vetsch pointed out that at the $220 cost per license just 100 users would reach the same cost of the same OnBase module, yet it would require maintenance of a different platform. Vetsch also noted that using Adobe takes the source material out of the safety net of OnBase record management, creating another place to manage and ensure security of documents. Sean Riley, Planning & Zoning, noted that if a product was available to use he would rather have the most robust product available, otherwise a user would likely not utilize it. Commissioner Daleiden requested a presentation of the two Products and how they would be used. Chief Deputy Hoffman noted that the Zurcher management software the Sheriff’s office utilizes also has a Redaction feature. Commissioner Daleiden also requested that members that utilize the Redaction feature in Zurcher or in Damieon (Court Services) also attend the next meeting to weigh in on features. IT will survey departments to gather more information on where redaction is needed/used.
Action: Present both applications at next meeting, request additional members be present to provide feedback
Project Management
Presented by ConnieMae Cooper, IT
One of IT’s key goals has been to streamline the Project Process, from Conception to Completion. ConnieMae has been a key player in developing this Process and Workflow. The IT department has begun to utilize this new Project Process. As IT Infrastructure Manager Cheri Nelson noted, projects that historically began by word of mouth, a stop in the hallway, a mention in a meeting, an email, or a phone call, are now directed to be officially submitted in a Project Request Form. This Form, located on the IT Project Management site, is the beginning of the process for the Proactive Management of projects. It creates a quality gathering of important information pertaining to the proposed project. This information allows the IT department to more efficiently determine the scope of the project. The workflow that is based off of the initial information also creates an atmosphere where requestors become active participants in their project, which allows for a more timely and accurate completion of projects; it is done on time and fulfills the intended goals. The IT department also clarified that following this workflow does not mean that the project will take more time. The workflow allows participants to use their time wisely as they have the information they need and the workflow to follow. Cheri stated that it gives projects a purposeful place instead of the multiple communication modes used historically. Court Services has already successfully completed a project using the new workflow, it was a positive experience for all involved. Commissioner Daleiden stated that due to the large number of current IT projects, the Project Form and Process will be mandatory Per the Board for all incoming projects submitted to IT, as the efficiency it employs is clearly noticeable.
Action: Mandated procedure
(End of 2-08-17 Technology Committee Minutes)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE / ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
1. SWCD. Daleiden said the Board held a joint meeting was held with the SWCD. Discussion involved common ground and efforts to work together. He recommended the joint meetings be held twice per year for some time because of the changeover in the Office Manager position. Topics of discussion could include lakes and ditches. He would like to see a success story relating to AIS and lakes in the County. Borrell said discussions have included doing block grants to lake associations for AIS funding, possibly in 2018. Expenditures for AIS inspections are about $125,000. One thought is to stop those inspections and provide funding to the lake associations to determine how to use the funding.
2. I-94 Corridor Coalition. Potter said a meeting was held on 2-09-17. Sheriff Hagerty and others testified before Chair Torkelson and a few others on issues relating to safety, transportation, and emergency response. There is concern at the Legislature whether Corridors of Commerce should be included with General Funding. Potter does not expect anything to happen on transportation until the end of the session. The MET Council provided funding to the Brockton Avenue Interchange. Potter viewed this as a huge step forward, and approval needs to be gained through FHWA. Concerns relate to why MnDOT and the State are involved as it only serves the local area, and the interchange will place a lot of stress on local roads when I-94 is backed up. Potter plans to attend various meetings on 2-16-17, including Transportation Day at the Capital, AMC/Chairing the Policy Committee, the Transportation Alliance Meeting, and the House Taxation Finance Committee.
3. Meeting RE: Transportation Related Issues for the new Courts Facility. A meeting was held on 2-10-17 and attended by Potter, Borrell, and BKV. The meeting was held to discuss transportation issues related to the new Courts Facility. There was an Interregional Corridor Study completed by MnDOT in the 1990’s that showed possible access off of TH 25. Information reflects that when the Jail/LEC was built, requested access to TH 25 was denied. Mn/DOT is cautious on what is done with that corridor. Potter said quite a few different scenarios are being looked at. More information is anticipated. They looked at future layouts and flow including traffic, public, and employees.
4. Fair Board Meeting. Borrell attended a recent meeting. The surface of CR 6 is being ground and overlaid. It is hoped to have this done prior to the Fair.
5. Staff Meetings with BKV. Kelly stated many staff meetings are being held with BKV to identify needs at the new Courts Facility.
Bills Approved
Warrants approved for payment 2/7/17
Us Bank-Procurement Cards $17,931.79
Us Bank Voyager Fleet Systems $17,026.64
Warrants for payment 2/14/2017
Alternative Bus. Furniture $3,752.68
American Planning Association 520.00
American Pressure Inc 678.50
Ameripride Services 855.17
Anoka County Sheriff 59,864.45
Apec Industrial Sales & Services 762.03
Aramark Services Inc 120.00
Beaudry Propane Inc 2,248.86
Benco Equipment 14,305.00
Blackstone Contractors LLC 61,349.86
Buffalo/City of 75,403.92
CDW Government Inc 714.59
Cell Phone Repair 392.43
Center Point Energy 726.46
Centra Sota Coop - Buffalo 3,947.39
Central McGowan Inc 253.61
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 800.00
Climate Air 853.50
Consolidated Container Co 1,194.13
Cottens Inc 3,919.58
Croteau Plumbing 1,233.80
Culligan of Buffalo 286.01
Dell Marketing LP 9,283.56
Emmert/Cliff 1,303.63
Everbridge Inc 12,400.00
First State Tire Disposal Inc 2,476.70
Force America Inc 1,034.67
Gabriel/Cathleen 100.00
Grainger 1,088.77
Granite Electronics 278.18
Grasslands 27,190.23
Green Interiors 450.00
Herald Journal Publishing Inc 123.23
Hermes/Richard 142.00
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 200.28
Howard Lake/City of 1,546.60
Integrated Fire & Security 6,055.00
Interstate Automotive 125.00
Johnson/Troy 238.16
Joint Powers Water Board 170.29
Kraus Anderson Construction 1,321.90
Kustom Signals Inc 9,764.00
Laplant Demo Inc 1,414.22
MACPO 980.00
Madden Galanter Hansen LLP 8,587.97
Martin Marietta Materials 226.58
Martin-McAllisters Consulting 3,500.00
Marysville Township 923.20
Mid-America Business Systems 1,284.14
Midway Iron & Metal Co Inc 591.55
Midwest Supply & Distributing 526.22
Minea/Andrew 232.48
MN Assn. of Co. Feedlot Officers 100.00
Montrose/City of 1,204.80
Morries Parts & Service Group 405.68
NADCP 275.00
Office Depot 3,817.55
Precision Prints of Wright Co 351.00
RCM Specialties Inc 148.96
Rinke-Noonan 200.00
Rupp, Anderson, Squires, Waldspurger
3,913.90
Russell Security Resource Inc 480.00
St Michael/City of 200,000.00
Tenney/Danette 288.75
Total Printing 155.00
Towmaster 110.00
Tri State Surplus Co 1,846.20
Trimin Systems Inc 29,768.00
Voss Lighting 422.40
Waste Management of WI-MN 3,601.20
Waverly/City of 335.36
Windstream 220.23
Wright County Journal Press 420.00
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec Assn 546.27
Wright Hennepin Electric 175.25
Wuetherich Drainage Inc 7,965.00
Zee Medical Service 554.40
Zep Sales & Services 216.60
Ziegler Inc 5,538.68
19 Payments less than $100 821.34
Final Total: 591,622.10
The meeting adjourned at 10:34 a.m.
Published in the Herald Journal March 6, 2017.