Wright County Board Minutes

BOARD OF WRIGHT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 9, 2018
DATE APPROVED: OCTOBER 16, 2018
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Vetsch, Daleiden, Potter, and Borrell present.
COUNTY BOARD MINUTES 9-25-18
Vetsch moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Potter. The motion carried 5-0.
AGENDA
The following changes were made to the Agenda:
- Item E1A, “Health & Human Services, Refer to Personnel Committee, Long-Term Military Leave,” change from the Consent Agenda to a timed Agenda Item (Christine Partlow).
Borrell moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Husom. The motion carried 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following items were pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion:
- Item A1, “Administration, Approve Budget Committee Of The Whole Minutes From August 22” (Husom)
- Item D1A, “Health & Human Services, Position Replacements: Information System Specialist” (Potter)
Potter moved to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0:
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Approve Budget Committee Of The Whole (COTW) Minutes From August 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29 And September 17 And 18, 2018
B. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Signature On The Weidner Plumbing And Heating Co. Change Order #001 For Construction Of The Justice Center In The Amount Of $42,246.00
C. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. Acknowledge Warrants Issued Between September 19, 2018 And October 2, 2018
D. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacements:
B. Office Technician II
F. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Accept The Findings And Recommendation Of The Planning Commission On The Following Rezoning:
A. RICHARD P. CORRELL - (Chatham Twp.) - On A Unanimous Vote, Approval Of The Rezoning Of Approximately 14 Acres From AG General Agricultural To R-2a Suburban-Residential
G. SHERIFF’S OFFICE
1. Position Replacement:
A. Licensed Sergeant
H. SHERIFF
1. Appoint Seth Hansen As Wright County Emergency Management Director, Eff. 10-15-18
I. SURVEYOR
1. Position Replacement:
A. Sr. Survey Technician
Discussion followed on the Consent Agenda items pulled for discussion.
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Approve Budget Committee Of The Whole (COTW) Minutes From August 22, 2018
Husom requested the August 22, 2018 Budget COTW Minutes be corrected as follows: Page 1, 2nd to last paragraph, County Board, 5th line, remove “(aka government center)”; and 5th line, remove the following sentence, “Board feels that their primary place of business is their home, not the government center.”
Husom moved to approve the Budget COTW Minutes From August 22nd as corrected, seconded by Borrell. The motion carried 5-0.
D. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacements:
A. Information Systems Specialist
Potter pulled the item as he thought it related to Consent Item E1, Long-Term Military Leave. Christine Partlow, Health & Human Services Business Manager, said the two items do not relate to one another. It is the same position type but relates to different employees.
Potter moved to approve the Position Replacement Request for an Information Systems Specialist for Health & Human Services. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0.
E. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
1. Refer to Personnel Committee:
A. Long-Term Military Leave
Partlow said the request was discussed by the Health & Human Services Board yesterday and involves an employee on military leave. Health & Human Services has been contracting with Robert Haff Employment Agency to fill the position. However, notice was received on 9-27-18 that the employee will be out for an additional year of military leave. The request is for approval to hire that position as a Wright County employee instead of paying Robert Haff through the return of the person on military leave, which will be about one year, and absorb the position through attrition into whatever positions are available at that point in time next year.
Potter said the request should be presented to the Personnel Committee as this has been past practice for requests from other departments. He said the contract with Robert Haff Employment Agency should be provided to the Human Resources Department. Potter moved to refer this request to the Personnel / Employee Relations Committee, seconded by Husom. The motion carried 5-0.
TIMED AGENDA ITEMS
SHERIFF JOE HAGERTY
Recognize Retiring Emergency Management Director Stephen Berg For His 12 + Years Of Service To Wright County
Sheriff Hagerty presented Steve Berg with a retirement plaque for 12 years of service to the Wright County Sheriff’s Office and over 41 years of service in emergency medical services. Berg was recognized for his contributions to the public safety preparedness of Wright County and his involvement in community outreach, to include mock crashes at area high schools, severe weather training, and community responder training. Berg thanked the Sheriff’s Office and other County departments for support received. Berg plans to continue working as a first responder through Allina and medic trucks. Commissioners Borrell and Potter commended Berg for his outstanding assistance and leadership during incidents that occurred in area communities.
JUSTIN CROWLEY & KELLY STREI, U OF M EXTENSION SERVICE
Follow Up Presentation Of 4-H Related Work By 4-H’er Eileen Otto Otto is a member of 4-H and a Minnesota State 4H Ambassador. This is national 4-H week.
Otto said the two main things she has pulled from Wright County 4-H is leadership and communication skills. She has been involved with demonstrations since she was 5 years old. Presentations have been to groups like the MN State Fair Board, the County Board, and her peers. Otto said to talk with ease is one of the best skills 4H has given her. Leadership opportunities have involved such things as day camps and residence camps.
4-H Centennial Video Presentation
This is the 100th Anniversary of Wright County 4H and a video was shown in celebration of that occasion.
Commissioner Potter extended thanks to Otto for her work in 4-H. He anticipates 4-H will be strong in Wright County for a long time due to people like Otto and others who step up and spread the word.
VIRGIL HAWKINS, HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Acceptance Of The 2017 Highway Department Annual Report
On a motion by Borrell, second by Potter, all voted to approve the Annual Report.
Resolution Approving Agreement No. PW 46-73-18, Contract No. 5049M8 Covering Bridge Maintenance For Bridges 27554 (HC Hwy 12/WC 42 in Dayton), 27641 (HC 116/WC 22 In Saint Michael), And 27532 (HC 19/WC 19 in Hanover), Which Will Be In Force Until December 31, 2023. This Replaces The Current Agreement No. PW 28-73-13, Contract No. 5115C3 That Expires After December 31, 2018.
Hawkins said there are two agreements, one for shared County-line roads and the other for bridges. On 5-29-18, the County Board approved combining the two agreements. However, Hennepin County decided not to approve combining the agreements so that approval is void. The agreement being considered today is for bridges and will replace the agreement that will expired 12-31-18. Next year the agreement for county roads will expire.
Potter moved to adopt Resolution #18-70 approving Agreement No. PW 46-73-18, Contract No. 5049M8 covering Bridge Maintenance for Bridges 27554 (HC Hwy 12/WC 42 in Dayton), 27641 (HC 116/WC 22 In Saint Michael), and 27532 (HC 19/WC 19 in Hanover), which will be in force until December 31, 2023. This replaces the current Agreement No. PW 28-73-13, Contract No. 5115C3 that expires after December 31, 2018. The motion was seconded by Vetsch. Discussion followed on the bridge in Hanover and future traffic planning when the Brockton Avenue interchange is constructed. Hawkins said the bridge will need to be replaced to four traffic lanes and the current abutment structure will have to be looked at. The deck is fairly new and should last until it is widened. The motion to adopt Resolution #18-70 carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY DITCH 22
Staff Will Present Changes Made To The Viewer’s Report Accepted on 09-11-18 By The Drainage Authority With The Exception Of Additional Parcel
At 9:32 A.M., the public hearing was reconvened for County Ditch 22. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, said the Viewers Report has been updated to include additional acreage and notice of the Public Hearing was mailed to that additional property owner. No public comment was received at today’s County Board Meeting.
On a motion by Potter, second by Borrell, all voted to close the Public Hearing for County Ditch 22 at 9:34 A.M.
Kryzer said that staff, at the direction of the Board acting as Drainage Authority at the last Public Hearing for County Ditch 22, drafted a resolution that incorporated the comments received at the Public Hearing and response provided by the Board to those comments.
Husom made a motion to adopt Resolution #18-71 for the Findings and Order accepting the Viewers’ Reports and adopting the Redetermined Benefits on County Ditch 22. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
BOB HIIVALA, AUDITOR/TREASURER
Approve The Findings And Order To Accept The Viewer’s Report And Adopt The Redetermined Benefits For County Ditch #34
Kryzer said that staff, at the direction of the Board at the last public hearing acting as Drainage Authority, drafted a resolution that incorporated comments received at the public hearings and response provided by the Board to those comments. He recommended the matter be closed.
Vetsch moved to adopt Resolution #18-72 for the Findings and Order accepting the Viewers’ Reports and adopting the Redetermined Benefits on County Ditch 34. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Tammi Vaith, Chief Deputy Auditor/Treasurer, presented the remaining Agenda items for the Auditor Treasurer.
Informational: Summary Of Credit Card Transactions Accepted Through 09-30-2018
Lindsey Meyer, Assistant Finance Director, said credit card acceptance was rolled out 2.5 months ago. There have been 581 transactions in that time which total about $65,000. Most transactions were in the License Bureau. This has been well received by the public.
Approve Budget Amendment To Increase The Wright County Fair Board Annual Appropriation For An Amount of $100, Which Is Equal To The Amount Of The Permit Fee Required By Planning & Zoning
Borrell said Planning & Zoning’s structure does not allow the permit fee to be waived. In the past, the County has waived the permit fee for the Fair Board. The fee will be paid by the Fair Board and the annual appropriation will be increased by $100.
Borrell moved to approve the budget amendment to increase the Wright County Fair Board’s annual appropriation for an amount of $100 which is equal to the amount of the permit fee required by Planning & Zoning. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
Approve Minutes From County Ditch 22 Public Hearing On 09-11-18
On a motion by Husom, second by Borrell, all voted to approve the 9-11-18 County Ditch 22 Public Hearing Minutes. Those minutes follow:
The Wright County Drainage Authority met in session at 10:30 A.M. with Husom, Borrell, Daleiden, Potter and Vetsch present.
Others present; Ron Ringquist and Joe Jacobs, MN Viewers; Greg Kryzer, WC Attorney; Matt Detjen, WC Ditch Coordinator; Bob Hiivala, WC Auditor/Treasurer.
Daleiden called the Public Hearing to order and read the following statement:
This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages on Wright County Ditch 22 under statutes section 103E.351.
I would like to welcome everyone who has come today. Under consideration at this hearing is the redetermination of benefits and damages for Wright County Ditch 22 which includes the acquisition and valuation of buffer seeding areas.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the viewer’s report and receive comment from those affected by or interested in the proposed redetermination of benefits and damages report.
This is an evidentiary proceeding. The proceedings are being recorded to preserve the record.
The presentation for each drainage system will be taken in numerical order.
The order of business for the hearings will be as follows. First, the Drainage Authority’s legal will present the procedural and legal requirements. Following the staff presentation one of the viewers will make their presentation. After the viewer has made his presentation, I will open the hearing for public comment. The Board would like to hear your comments on the proposed redetermination of benefits and damages of the drainage system and any information relevant to that purpose.
Specifically, the Board is interested in:
• Whether it is missing information used to define the public benefit, damage, or valuation.
• The extent and basis of any benefits or damages.
• Whether and how your land drains to the public system.
• Whether you have concerns with the soil classification under types A, B, C, D.
• Whether the seeding and right of way acquisition area and valuation is correct or missing information.
• Whether you have concerns or issues associated with any portion of the benefits of damages assessed to your property.
• Whether the recommended benefits and damages creates other material concerns the Board should consider prior to adopting the viewers report.
• Though information may be presented regarding the current condition of the drainage system, this hearing is not an appropriate time to discuss issues related to possible, future actions such as a repair unless the repair or lack of an ability to make a repair will alter the benefits or damages of the system. If repairs are warranted, the Drainage Authority will initiate separate proceedings to discuss those issues. However, if you have an immediate concern, we invite you to contact our drainage coordinator, Matt Detjen.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the viewer’s report.
During the public hearing, commissioners may ask questions of staff or the viewers making presentations and of commenters, to clarify any testimony.
In addition, if a member of the public asks a question and a commissioner believes that a response from the Drainage Authority staff or a viewer can readily resolve the question or enrich the testimony, the commissioner may ask me to have the appropriate staff member or viewer speak to the question. I will exercise my judgement as to whether to allow such discussion.
However, commissioners’ expression of their positions and general discussion concerning the subject of the public hearing should be avoided during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Board discussion will occur after all members of the public have had a chance to speak and the public comment period has been closed. Board discussion may occur and be concluded at this or a subsequent meeting, as the Board decides.
If a member of the public would like to make a comment, please stand and address the Board when I recognize you. Speak clearly and state your name and address for the record. If you have a specific question concerning the proposed viewers report, we may ask our drainage coordinator, one of the viewers or legal counsel to respond. If you have anything in writing you wish to submit, you can provide it to me before the close of the public comments and I will note its receipt in the record.
To ensure that all wishing to comment on the proposed viewers report concerning the redetermination of benefits and damages of the public drainage system may have time to speak, I may limit the time any single speaker may comment to three minutes. Please limit redundant or repetitive comments.
As the board members had no further remarks before beginning, Daleiden then turned the meeting over to Greg Kryzer, Wright County Attorney. Kryzer presented the following comments:
1. This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages of Wright County Ditch 22.
The drainage system is in Sections 21, 22, and 28 (T118N, R26W), and of Woodland Township, Wright County and generally flows from the south to the northeast. The drainage area is mainly developed for agricultural land use.
2. As part of his analysis of the drainage system, the viewers have provided the Drainage Authority with a report showing the following:
A description of the lot or tract, under separate ownership, that is benefited or damaged;
The names of the owners as they appear on the current tax records of the county and their addresses;
The number of acres in each tract or lot;
The number and value of acres added to a tract or lot by the proposed drainage of public water;
The damage, if any, to riparian rights;
The damages paid for the permanent strip of perennial vegetation under MN ST section 103E.021;
The total number and value of acres added to a tract or lot by the proposed drainage of public waters, wetlands, and other areas not currently being cultivated;
The number of acres and amount of benefits being assessed for drainage of areas that would be considered conversion of a wetland under United States Code, title 16, section 3821, if the area was placed in agricultural production;
The amount of right-of-way acreage required; and
The amount that each tract or lot will be benefited or damaged.
3. To properly manage the drainage system in a way that recognizes its intended, beneficial public functions, the Drainage Authority initiated proceedings to redetermine the benefits and damages over the system. The Board initiated the redetermination of benefits and damages process by resolution adopting findings and an order dated February 14, 2017.
4. The Drainage Authority adopted the Resolution because the original benefits or damages do not reasonably reflect current land values or because the benefited or damaged areas have changed.
5. Pursuant to the requirements of 103E.351 subd, 2, the Board mailed notice of this final hearing to all property owners benefited or damaged by the drainage systems on August 13, 2018. Other interested parties were provided notice by publication in the Herald Journal. The notice was published on August 24, 31st and September 7, 2018. Evidence of all notices are on file with the Drainage Authority.
6. Substantive comments received during today’s hearing, if any, will be incorporated into the final findings for the Board.
7. Evidence of all actions in this matter, including the viewers report, preliminary orders, appointments, oaths, affidavits of mailing, publication or posting as well as hearing agendas and presentation materials shall be considered the record of proceedings in this matter.
8. At this hearing, the viewers will present their report. The viewers will also provide an explanation of the process and information used to determine the benefits and damages and valuation and acquisition of the right-of-way of the drainage system.
9. The intent of this proceeding is to confirm the benefits and damages and the benefited and damaged areas and to also acquire any permanent strips of perennial vegetation under Minn. Stat. § 103E.021
10. The redetermined benefits and damages will be used in all subsequent proceedings relating to the drainage system.
11. Based on your comments and testimony today, the Drainage Authority may make one or more of the following decisions:
a. Rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination of the benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report
b. Direct the viewers to further review the area or portions of the drainage systems and determine if adjustments should be made to the proposed benefits and damages and perennial strips of vegetation.
c. Rise and report to the full board that it adopts an order rejecting the viewers report and directing a new report be conducted.
d. Direct the viewers to adjust and submit a revised report.
12. As requested by the Drainage Authority, please limit your comments to the Redetermination of benefits and damages. Comments related to repair of the drainage system are not germane to this public hearing unless the repair or lack of ability to make the repair will alter the benefit or damages of the system.
13. The decision standard for the Board is whether, based on the proceedings herein, the evidence presented at this hearing and the testimony of the viewers and the public, the Board finds that the viewers report accurately reflects the benefits and damages of the watershed for Wright County Ditch 22.
The meeting was then turned over to Ron Ringquist, MN. Viewer who proceeded to present the following details regarding the viewers report:
This report covers the redetermination of benefits for a previously constructed drainage system. The basis for determining benefits and damages is, therefore, based upon a comparison of the conditions that would have existed prior to the ditch system’s construction with those that do exist with the drainage system in a reasonable state of repair.
Wright County Ditch No. 22 was originally established in 1915. The drainage system consists of a main open ditch and 2 open ditch laterals. The drainage system serves as an outlet to parcels in sections 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 33 in Woodland Township in Wright County. The ditch outlet continues as a natural watercourse and into Faust Slough Lake.
Supporting documentation for the analysis and conclusions of the report are contained in our files.
The figures stated herein are based on a full and fair consideration of all pertinent facts and information that we were aware of at the time of this appraisal. The following aids were used during the viewing process.
1. Soil Survey Manuals and Maps of Wright County.
2. GIS Aerial Photos and Data
3. Minnesota LIDAR
4. Yield averages and production costs taken from Minnesota State College and University Farm Management Records
5. Sales data from the County Assessor’s office
6. Visual inspection of each 40-acre tract
7. County ditch records
Land classification benefit values are based upon an increase in the potential for agricultural production because of constructing the drainage project and reconciled with sales value increases. Existing individual land management practices were not considered. All present land use was evaluated under estimated best land management practice. Separate consideration was given to areas owned by the state and those that were in a native/non-converted condition or identified as wetlands under wetlands inventory and restricted from drainage by state or federal regulations.
Beginning land use, property value, and economic productivity have been determined with the consideration that the benefited properties within the watershed currently do not have an adequate outlet for artificial drainage.
“A” – Standing water or cattails, wetland classification with a market value for agricultural
purposes of $0.00 per acre, economic productivity of $0.00.
“B” – Seasonally flooded/pasture ground. Pasture classification with a market value of $1000.00 to $1500.00 per acre, economic productivity of $80.00 based on grazing days and/or hay values.
“C” – Wet subsoil -- Marginal crop land, low to medium crop land classification with a market value of $4000.00 to $5000.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $458.60 based upon average annual yield of 80 % of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
“D” – Upland areas not needing artificial drainage but irregular in shape and intermixed with wetter soils. Medium to high cropland classification with a market value of $3000.00 to $5500.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $544.59 based upon average annual yield of 95% of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
Potential land use, property value, and economic productivity, after public and private drainage have been installed and with the restrictive existing drainage system in a reasonable state of repair, using current crop rotation, income, and expense:
“A” – Seasonally ponded agricultural ground. Low cropland classification with a market value of range of $4000.00 to $5000.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $515.93 based upon average annual yield of 90% of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
“A-” – Partially drained slough area with a highest and best use as hay or pasture and restricted from additional drainage by governmental regulation.
“B” – Occasionally flooded agricultural ground. Medium cropland classification with a market value range of $4500.00 to $5500.00 per acre, economic productivity of $544.59 based upon average annual yield of 95% of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
“C” -- Wet subsoil. Medium high cropland classification with a market value range of $5500.00 to $6500.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $573.25 based upon average annual yield of 100 % of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
“D” -- Upland areas not needing artificial drainage, but irregular in shape and intermixed with wetter soils. Medium to high cropland classification with a market value range of $ 3500.00 to $6500.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $573.25 based upon average annual yield of 100 % of optimum with $295.82 production costs.
Special consideration was given to areas where the ditch system has only provided an outlet adequate to convert the lands to pasture or hay land and are restricted from further individual improvements by regulatory restrictions.
Consideration of benefits for residential or commercial development, whether utilized for commercial agriculture, livestock confinement, or other commercial use has been developed based upon the property’s individual use.
Road benefits were determined with consideration of the reduced construction and maintenance costs that would be realized after construction of the drainage system or for accelerated run-off caused by a change of land use.
Utilizing these productive values, potential benefit values were determined for the system based upon a 25-year effective life with proper maintenance, private improvement cost depreciated over the same 25-year period, and an allowance of 4.0% return on the system investment. Adjustment was made to each land class based upon consideration of the change in hydraulic capacity and the subsequent increased productivity that the construction of the drainage system improvement provides. Benefit values were rounded off to an even percentage benefit increase for ease of computation.
All benefits have been determined with the assumption that the drainage system is in a reasonable state of repair as indicated by the original construction. The drainage system does not have adequate size and capacity to meet the NRCS recommended drainage system capacities for agricultural drainage. Adjustment to the potential benefit value is made by the application of an efficiency rate. This rate reflects the viewer’s determination of that portion of the potential benefit currently being provided by the County drainage system. Additional consideration was given of the substandard size capacity and a proximity rate to reflect a parcel’s location in relationship to the county drainage system.
The net benefit provided by the ditch system is determined by the potential benefit value being applied to the number of acres determined to be in each class per tract, accumulating the sum of these benefit values, and then applying the efficiency and proximity rate percentages.
Damages have been given for the easement acquisition for the area required to establish the one-rod seeding buffer adjacent to the channel required by Minnesota Statute No. 103E.021. The damage value is our opinion of the parcels reduction in value after the buffer easement is in place. A lot of the damages were $100 per acre because we haven’t really restricted or changed anything from what is already out there by saying you can’t put commodity within that one rod.
Ringquist then explained the income approach to value that the viewers used:
PRODUCTION INCOME
CROP PLANTED; AVERAGE YIELD; SALES VALUE; GROSS INCOME; ROTATION PERCENTAGE; ADJUSTED INCOME
CORN; 180 BU; 3.50; 630.00; 50; 315.00
SOYBEANS; 45 BU; 9.50 427.50; 30; 128.25
ALFALFA; 5 TON; 130.00; 650.00; 20 130.00
TOTAL ADJUSTED INCOME: $573.25
DIRECT PRODUCTION EXPENSE
CROP PLANTED; PRODUCTION COST; ROTATION PERCENTAGE; ADJUSTED EXPENSE
CORN; 406.85; 50; 203.43
SOYBEANS; 184.37; 30; 55.31
ALFALFA; 185.40; 20; 37.08
TOTAL ADJUSTED EXPENSE: $295.82
BENEFIT VALUE CALCULATION
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY BASED UPON CONSTRUCTED TILE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
MEETING N.R.C.S. RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS
LAND CLASS; “A”; “B”; “C”; “D”
% PRODUCTION; 90.0%; 95.0%; 100.0%; 100.0%
GROSS INCOME; 515.93; 544.59; 573.25; 73.25
PRODUCTION COST; 295.82; 295.82; 295.82; 295.82
NET INCOME; 220.11; 248.77; 277.43; 277.43
PREVIOUS INCOME; 0.00; 80.00; 162.78; 248.77
INCREASED INCOME; 220.11; 168.77; 114.65; 28.66
PVT TILE COST; 36.00; 36.00; 36.00; 0.00
NET ANNUAL INCREASE; 184.11; 132.77; 78.65; 28.66
CAPITALIZED FOR 25 YEARS @ 4.0%; 2876.17; 2074.17; 1228.68; 77.77
BENEFIT VALUE; $2880.00; $2070; $1230.00; $450.00
The calculated total benefits on CD 22 as follows:
Land Benefits = $1,021,624.76
Road Benefits = $24,721.48
Total Benefits of system = $1,046,346.24
13.01 acres of grass buffer to be acquired for $19,412.45
The following recommended changes were made to the viewers report after landowners’ meetings. The following parcels are tiled north to CD #31 and will be assessed on that system during the redetermination process for CD 31:
220000163300 Marquardt, David 10074 Forsythe Ave SW Howard Lake, MN
220000163400; Marquardt, David; 10074 Forsythe Ave SW; Howard Lake, MN
220000163302; Matson, Thomas; 3908 County Rd 30 SW; Waverly, MN
220000222200; Babatz, Jane; 2775 County Rd 30 SW; Montrose, MN (Section 22)
Part tiled to CD #31:
220000201100; Diers Corp; 5754 County Rd 30 SW; Waverly, MN
220000201101; Kirschenman, Mark; 9049 County Rd 8 SW; Waverly, MN
Parcel drained east to creek-Culvert for manure pumping only:
220000232100; John D Varner Disclaimer Trust; 1498 108th St SW; Montrose, MN
Parcels tiled to CD #23:
220000281400; Janikula, Duane & Gloria; 11213 Elliott Ave SW; Waverly, MN
(6 acres tiled to CD #23)
220000282100; Judy & Huns Vanderlinde LLC; 1102 95th St. SE; Delano, MN
220000283200; Seaburg, Larry; 3669 105th St. SW; Waverly, MN
Borrell inquired about additional damages during repairs on the system. Ringquist explained that when the drainage authority re-enters land to maintain or inspect the drainage system, no additional damages are paid for the basic right of entry or occupation of the original footprint of drainage system construction. The landowner may be paid damages for crop loss and diminished productivity or land value from increased overflow. Additional easement damages may be paid when a repair extends the footprint of the original construction by the flattening of side slopes.
Hiivala suggested that Ringquist explain the easement on a ditch system. Ringquist explained the term right-of-way or easement, as used in the drainage code, contemplates the area physically occupied by the drainage system along with the area occupied and impacted by the original construction, including areas cleared and grubbed of trees and the area over which spoils were spread and leveled. These rights are the same whether the drainage system is open ditch or buried tile.
Since the board members had no further questions for the viewer, Daleiden asked that anyone from the public that wish to comment, please come forward.
John Salonek, 9629 State Hwy 25 SW, Montrose, MN 55363
Mr. Salonek’s main concern was that he felt the viewers were missing about 160 acres of tile, west of 9899 Clementa Ave SW, that drains into County Ditch 22, that was not included in the viewers report.
Ringquist explained that the viewers cannot tell you specifically where tile is located, rather we look at what the value would be if tile is needed and eventually is installed. However, this may be an area that the board can instruct the viewers to go out and look at further and meet with Mr. Salonek, since this is new information that has been brought forward.
Andy Thorson, Diers Corporation, 5754 County Rd 30 SW, Waverly, MN 55390 (west side of Co. Rd 8)
Mr. Thorson wanted to commend the Drainage Authority for going forward with the redetermination and maintenance of County Ditch 22 and other ditch systems. Our parcel of land was one of the ones Ron made an adjustment for, as our tile goes to County Ditch 31 and we will be benefited landowners on that system. However, I hope the board proceeds with the proposed viewers report for CD #22.
As there were no further comments from the public a motion was made to close the public hearing by Commissioner Vetsch, second by Husom.
Commissioner Vetsch made a motion to accept the viewers report with the exception and direction to Ron Ringquist to further review the 160-acre area west of Clementa Ave SW located in the SE corner of section 22 and NE corner of section 27, which John Salonek pointed out and for Mr. Ringquist to report back to the board at the regular board meeting on September 25, 2018 at 9:30 A.M. Commissioner Borrell seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.
Kryzer let the public know that notices of the Public Hearing on September 25th will not be mailed, but all are welcome to attend.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M
(End 9-11-18 County Ditch 22 Public Hearing Minutes)
Approve Minutes From County Ditch 34 Public Hearing On 09/11/18
On a motion by Borrell, second by Husom, all voted to approve the 9-11-18 County Ditch 34 Public Hearing Minutes. The County Ditch 34 Public Hearing Minutes follow:
The Wright County Drainage Authority met in session at 11:20 A.M. with Husom, Borrell, Daleiden, Potter and Vetsch present.
Others present; Ron Ringquist and Joe Jacobs, MN Viewers; Greg Kryzer, WC Attorney; Matt Detjen, WC Ditch Coordinator; Bob Hiivala, WC Auditor/Treasurer.
Daleiden called the Public Hearing to order and read the following statement:
This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages on Wright County Ditch 34 under statutes section 103E.351.
I would like to welcome everyone who has come today. Under consideration at this hearing is the redetermination of benefits and damages for Wright County Ditch 34 which includes the acquisition and valuation of buffer seeding areas.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the viewer’s report and receive comment from those affected by or interested in the proposed redetermination of benefits and damages report.
This is an evidentiary proceeding. The proceedings are being recorded to preserve the record.
The presentation for each drainage system will be taken in numerical order.
The order of business for the hearings will be as follows. First, the Drainage Authority’s legal will present the procedural and legal requirements. Following the staff presentation one of the viewers will make their presentation. After the viewer has made his presentation, I will open the hearing for public comment. The Board would like to hear your comments on the proposed redetermination of benefits and damages of the drainage system and any information relevant to that purpose.
Specifically, the Board is interested in:
• Whether it is missing information used to define the public benefit, damage, or valuation.
• The extent and basis of any benefits or damages.
• Whether and how your land drains to the public system.
• Whether you have concerns with the soil classification under types A, B, C, D.
• Whether the seeding and right of way acquisition area and valuation is correct or missing information.
• Whether you have concerns or issues associated with any portion of the benefits of damages assessed to your property.
• Whether the recommended benefits and damages creates other material concerns the Board should consider prior to adopting the viewers report.
Though information may be presented regarding the current condition of the drainage system, this hearing is not an appropriate time to discuss issues related to possible, future actions such as a repair unless the repair or lack of an ability to make a repair will alter the benefits or damages of the system. If repairs are
10-09-18 COUNTY BOARD MINUTES Page 12 of 23
9-11-18 County Ditch 34 Public Hearing Minutes (cont.):
warranted, the Drainage Authority will initiate separate proceedings to discuss those issues. However, if you have an immediate concern, we invite you to contact our drainage coordinator, Matt Detjen.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the viewer’s report.
During the public hearing, commissioners may ask questions of staff or the viewers making presentations and of commenters, to clarify any testimony.
In addition, if a member of the public asks a question and a commissioner believes that a response from the Drainage Authority staff or a viewer can readily resolve the question or enrich the testimony, the commissioner may ask me to have the appropriate staff member or viewer speak to the question. I will exercise my judgement as to whether to allow such discussion.
However, commissioners’ expression of their positions and general discussion concerning the subject of the
public hearing should be avoided during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Board discussion will occur after all members of the public have had a chance to speak and the public comment period has been closed. Board discussion may occur and be concluded at this or a subsequent meeting, as the Board decides.
If a member of the public would like to make a comment, please stand and address the Board when I recognize you. Speak clearly and state your name and address for the record. If you have a specific question concerning the proposed viewers report, we may ask our drainage coordinator, one of the viewers or legal counsel to respond. If you have anything in writing you wish to submit, you can provide it to me before the close of the public comments and I will note its receipt in the record.
To ensure that all wishing to comment on the proposed viewers report concerning the redetermination of benefits and damages of the public drainage system may have time to speak, I may limit the time any single speaker may comment to three minutes. Please limit redundant or repetitive comments.
As the board members had no further remarks before beginning, Daleiden then turned the meeting over to Greg Kryzer, Wright County Attorney. Kryzer presented the following comments:
1. This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages of Wright County Ditch 34.
The drainage system is in Sections 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 (T118N, R25W), and section 33 (T119N, R25N) of Franklin Township and the City of Delano, Wright County. The drainage area is developed for agricultural land use, rural residential, industrial and commercial.
2. As part of his analysis of the drainage system, the viewers have provided the Drainage Authority with a report showing the following:
A description of the lot or tract, under separate ownership, that is benefited or damaged;
The names of the owners as they appear on the current tax records of the county and their addresses;
The number of acres in each tract or lot;
The number and value of acres added to a tract or lot by the proposed drainage of public water;
The damage, if any, to riparian rights;
The damages paid for the permanent strip of perennial vegetation under MN ST section 103E.021;
The total number and value of acres added to a tract or lot by the proposed drainage of public waters, wetlands, and other areas not currently being cultivated;
The number of acres and amount of benefits being assessed for drainage of areas that would be considered conversion of a wetland under United States Code, title 16, section 3821, if the area was placed in agricultural production;
The amount of right-of-way acreage required; and
The amount that each tract or lot will be benefited or damaged.
3. To properly manage the drainage system in a way that recognizes its intended, beneficial public functions, the Drainage Authority initiated proceedings to redetermine the benefits and damages over the system. The Board initiated the redetermination of benefits and damages process by resolution adopting findings and an order dated February 14, 2017.
4. The Drainage Authority adopted the Resolution because the original benefits or damages do not reasonably reflect current land values or because the benefited or damaged areas have changed.
5. Pursuant to the requirements of 103E.351 subd, 2, the Board mailed notice of this final hearing to all property owners benefited or damaged by the drainage systems on August 13, 2018. Other interested parties were provided notice by publication in the Herald Journal. The notice was published on August 24, 31st and September 7, 2018. Evidence of all notices are on file with the Drainage Authority.
6. Substantive comments received during today’s hearing, if any, will be incorporated into the final findings for the Board.
7. Evidence of all actions in this matter, including the viewers report, preliminary orders, appointments, oaths, affidavits of mailing, publication or posting as well as hearing agendas and presentation materials shall be considered the record of proceedings in this matter.
8. At this hearing, the viewers will present their report. The viewers will also provide an explanation of the process and information used to determine the benefits and damages and valuation and acquisition of the right-of-way of the drainage system.
9. The intent of this proceeding is to confirm the benefits and damages and the benefited and damaged areas and to also acquire any permanent strips of perennial vegetation under Minn. Stat. § 103E.021
10. The redetermined benefits and damages will be used in all subsequent proceedings relating to the drainage system.
11. Based on your comments and testimony today, the Drainage Authority may make one or more of the following decisions:
e. Rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination the benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report
f. Direct the viewers to further review the area or portions of the drainage systems and determine if adjustments should be made to the proposed benefits and damages and perennial strips of vegetation.
g. Rise and report to the full board that it adopts an order rejecting the viewers report.
h. Direct the viewers to adjust and submit a revised report.
12. As requested by the Drainage Authority, please limit your comments to the Redetermination of benefits and damages. Comments related to repair of the drainage system are not germane to this public hearing unless the repair or lack of ability to make the repair will alter the benefit or damages of the system.
13. The decision standard for the Board is whatever, based on the proceedings herein, the evidence presented at this hearing and the testimony of the viewers and the public, the Board finds that the viewers report accurately reflects the benefits and damages of the watershed for Wright County Ditch 34.
The meeting was then turned over to Ron Ringquist, MN. Viewer who proceeded to present the following details regarding the viewers report:
This report covers the redetermination of benefits for a previously constructed drainage system. The basis for determining benefits and damages is, therefore, based upon a comparison of the conditions that would have existed prior to the ditch system’s construction with those that do exist with the drainage system in a reasonable state of repair.
Wright County Ditch no. 34 was originally petitioned in 1917 with construction shortly after. The system consists of a short open ditch at the outlet and the balance of the system being drain tile. The tile sizes range from 24” at the outlet to 8” in the upper reaches. The branches are all tile of similar designed sizes. The drainage system serves as an outlet to parcels in sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11 in Franklin Township and sections 33, 34, and 35 in Rockford Township in Wright County. The ditch outlet continues as a natural watercourse and into the North Fork Crow River.
Supporting documentation for the analysis and conclusions of the report are contained in our files.
The figures stated herein are based on a full and fair consideration of all pertinent facts and information that we were aware of at the time of this appraisal. The following aids were used during the viewing process.
1. Soil Survey Manuals and Maps of Wright County
2. GIS Aerial Photos and Data
3. Minnesota LIDAR
4. Yield averages and production costs taken from Minnesota State College and University Farm Management Records
5. Sales data from the County Assessor’s office
6. Visual inspection of each 40-acre tract
7. County ditch records
Land classification benefit values are based upon an increase in the potential for agricultural production because of constructing the drainage project and reconciled with sales value increases. Existing individual land management practices were not considered. All present land use was evaluated under estimated best land management practice. Separate consideration was given to areas identified as wetlands under wetlands inventory and restricted from drainage by state or federal regulations.
Valuation is prior to drainage as follows:
Beginning land use, property value, and economic productivity have been determined with the consideration that the benefited properties within the watershed currently do not have an adequate outlet for artificial drainage.
“A” -- Standing water or cattails, wetland classification with a market value for agricultural purposes of $0.00 per acre, economic productivity of $0.00.
“B” – Seasonally flooded/pasture ground. Pasture classification with a market value of $1200.00 to $1800.00 per acre, economic productivity of $80.00 based on grazing days and/or hay values.
“C” -- Wet subsoil -- Marginal crop land, low to medium crop land classification with a market value of $4500.00 to $5500.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $423.00 based upon average annual yield of 80 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
“D” – Upland areas not needing artificial drainage but irregular in shape and intermixed with wetter soils. Medium to high cropland classification with a market value of $3500.00 to $6000.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $502.31 based upon average annual yield of 95 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
Valuation with NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service) Guideline Drainage System is as follows:
Potential land use, property value, and economic productivity, after public and private drainage have been installed and with the restrictive existing drainage system in a reasonable state of repair, using current crop rotation, income, and expense:
“A” – Seasonally ponded agricultural ground. Low cropland classification with a market value of range of $ 4500.00 to $5500.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $475.88 based upon average annual yield of 90 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
“A-” Partially drained slough area with a highest and best use as hay or pasture and restricted from additional drainage by governmental regulation.
“B” – Occasionally flooded agricultural ground. Medium cropland classification with a market value range of $5000.00 to $6000.00 per acre, economic productivity of $502.31 based upon average annual yield of 95 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
“B-” Partially drained slough area with a highest and best use as hay or pasture and restricted from additional drainage by governmental regulation and not provided a direct ditch system outlet.
“C” – Wet subsoil. Medium high cropland classification with a market value range of $6000.00 to $7000.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $528.75 based upon average annual yield of 100 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
“D” – Upland areas not needing artificial drainage, but irregular in shape and intermixed with wetter soils. Medium to high cropland classification with a market value range of $ 4000.00 to $7000.00 per acre, annual economic productivity of $528.75 based upon average annual yield of 100 % of optimum with $295.61 production costs.
“D-” Land developed for commercial use.
Special consideration was given to areas where the ditch system has only provided an outlet adequate to
convert the lands to pasture or hay land and are restricted from further individual improvements by regulatory restrictions.
Consideration of benefits for commercial development, whether utilized for commercial agriculture, livestock confinement, or other commercial use has been developed based upon the property’s individual use.
Road benefits were determined with consideration of the reduced construction and maintenance costs that would be realized after construction of the drainage system or for accelerated run-off caused by a change of land use.
Utilizing these productive values, potential benefit values were determined for the system based upon a 25-year effective life with proper maintenance, private improvement cost depreciated over the same 25-year period, and an allowance of 2.5% return on the system investment. Adjustment was made to each land class based upon consideration of the change in hydraulic capacity and the subsequent increased productivity that the construction of the drainage system improvement provides. Benefit values were rounded off to an even percentage benefit increase for ease of computation.
All benefits have been determined with the assumption that the drainage system is in a reasonable state of repair as indicated by the original construction. Any subsidence that has occurred is assumed to have the tile repaired to the original depth. The drainage system does not have adequate size and capacity to meet the NRCS recommended drainage system capacities for agricultural drainage. Adjustment to the potential benefit value is made by the application of an efficiency rate. This rate reflects the viewer’s determination of that portion of the potential benefit currently being provided by the County drainage system. Additional consideration was given of the substandard size capacity and a proximity rate to reflect a parcel’s location in relationship to the county drainage system.
The net benefit provided by the ditch system is determined by the potential benefit value being applied to the number of acres determined to be in each class per tract, accumulating the sum of these benefit values, and then applying the efficiency and proximity rate percentages.
As the drainage system is all tile and with the short outlet ditch being within an existing wetland, no damages have been given for the easement acquisition for the area required to establish the one-rod seeding buffer adjacent to the channel required by Minnesota Statute No. 103E.021.
Ringquist also explained the income approach to value that the viewers used:
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY BASED UPON CONSTRUCTED TILE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
MEETING N.R.C.S. RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS
LAND CLASS; “A”; “B”; “C”; “D”
% PRODUCTION; 90.0%; 95.0%; 100.0%; 100.0%
GROSS INCOME; 475.88; 502.31; 528.75 528.75
PRODUCTION COST; 295.61; 295.61; 295.61; 295.61
NET INCOME; 180.27; 206.70; 233.14; 233.14
PREVIOUS INCOME; 0.00; 80.00; 162.78; 248.77
INCREASED INCOME; 180.27; 126.70; 105.75; 26.44
PVT TILE COST; 36.00; 36.00; 36.00; 0.00
NET ANNUAL INCREASE; 144.27; 90.70; 69.75; 26.44
CAPITALIZED FOR 25 YEARS AT 4.0%; 2657.99; 1671.14; 1285.10; 487.09
BENEFIT VALUE; $2660.00; $1670.00; $1290.00; $490.00
Total Land Benefits = $705,163.02
Total Road Benefits = $41,414.73
Total Benefits = $746,577.75
There was one requested name change to the Viewers Report on Parcel ID 208-200-041200 to:
Hickman Family Rev Liv Trust
At the landowner’s meetings we met with Richard Otto where it was determined that the parcel has a greater run off from the commercial development. However, when the system is repaired it will restore that area back to hay and pasture land. If the repair does not do that, then an adjustment of benefits should be done at that time.
Since the board members had no further questions for the viewer, Daleiden asked that anyone from the public that wish to comment, please come forward.
Benjamin Duran, 6163 Dague Ave SE, Delano, MN 55328
Mr. Duran’s concerns were the calculation method used by the viewers. He pointed out that his land is located near the outlet end of the system and that the system will not provide a lot of benefit to his land in the future.
Ringquist stated that the basis for determining benefits is based upon a comparison of the conditions that would have existed prior to the ditch system’s construction with those that do exist with the drainage system in a reasonable state of repair. All present land use was evaluated under estimated best land management practice. The viewers could relook at his benefits, potentially near the outlet, but land types would remain the same however there would be a possibility that his benefits could change.
Ken Barlau, 6831 Darrow Ave SE, Delano, MN 55328
Mr. Barlau had concerns regarding the 40 acres tillable on his land compared to the benefits of the 34 acres of low land on his property that cannot be used except for cattle. The low land on the viewers report seemed to have as much value as the tillable land.
Ringquist explained that viewers are not assessing benefits based on market value. Land classification benefit values are based upon an increase in the potential for agricultural production because of constructing the drainage project and reconciled with sales value increases. Existing individual land management practices were not considered.
Greg Theisen, 3990 27th St SE, Buffalo, MN 55313 (Property address is just south of Hwy 12)
Mr. Theisen asked for an explanation of how the viewers came up with $100K assessment. Borrell explained that the $100k is a theoretical number to demonstrate how much a landowner would be assessed if we did complete repairs on the system.
Mr. Theisen wanted to know if the City of Delano was a benefited landowner and what changes would occur if any if the industrial park becomes fully developed.
Ringquist stated that if you include all the properties within the industrial park, the City of Delano has about 10 parcels and then there are individual parcels that are of significant size with their own benefits assessed. The city has approximately 8-9% of benefits as an estimate. The residential area was also included. All present land use was evaluated and assessed at its highest and best use. Daleiden added that if the industrial park is fully developed, it will be engineered so that the rate of water that is currently flowing will not increase and it may even reduce the amount of water flowing.
Jay Hickman, 1207 40th St. SE, Buffalo, MN 55313 (Property address is 2689 US Highway 12 SE)
Mr. Hickman had concerns regarding the difference in layout of the ditch, on the map being used, compared to what he discussed with Soil and Water. In the parameters of my salvage yard, the map that you are showing indicates the old map for the blue lines and according to Soil and Water the system does not extend as far as the map indicates. So, is that going to be another battle to determine the end of the system?
Ringquist stated that if it were a wetland for more than 25 years then that may be a restriction. As far as Soil and Water goes, the drainage authority has every right to repair the ditch to its original construction. The blue line is what is showing on the profiles from 1917, that was installed to the best of our knowledge. The public drainage systems are exempt unless the wetland has existed for more than 25 years. If it is restorable and there are not issues with it being a wetland, then it can be replaced. If it cannot be restored, then the viewers would adjust the valuation. It would be the drainage authority that would work with Soil and Water. Daleiden added that an engineer would be hired to determine how to get the system to function properly.
Since there were no further comments from the public there was a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Vetsch, second by Borrell. Motion carried 5-0.
Kryzer went over the four options for the drainage authority to proceed or a motion to adopt if you want to move forward with the report.
a. Rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination of the benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report.
b. Direct the viewers to further review the area or portions of the drainage systems and determine if adjustments should be made to the proposed benefits and damages and perennial strips of vegetation.
c. Rise and report to the full board that it adopts an order rejecting the viewers report and directing a new report be conducted.
d. Direct the viewers to adjust and submit a revised report.
Borrell made a motion to accept the viewers report except for the Benjamin Duran property that will be furthered reviewed by Mr. Ringquist and to report back to the board at the regular board meeting on September 25, 2018 at 9:30 A.M. Motion second by Husom. Motion carried 5-0.
(End of Ditch 34 Public Hearing Minutes)
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
9-24-18 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES
At today’s County Board Meeting, Vetsch moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0. The minutes follow:
Trends and Concept Exploration
Anthony Enright, Project Manager, BKV Group, recapped the main topics and goals discussed at previous meetings. He said goals that arose from prior discussions include improving public service and providing adequate areas for delivery of services, creating flexible meeting and collaboration spaces, and appropriate areas within Departments to maximize staff efficiencies. Enright said Departments expressed an interest in being located near other Departments with whom they frequently interact. Security was another item of interest to Departments, as well as the County Board, although it was not determined which measures were appropriate to install at construction, and which would be done in the future. Planning for future space needs weighed heavily as a priority. Enright said the objective is to create a design that is convenient, intuitive, accessible, and a cohesive element on the Wright County campus.
Bruce Schwartzman, Partner/Architect with BKV Group, said he wants to talk about the theories of spaces. Enright added that trends in the industry will be covered as well. Schwartzman said they are seeing fewer siloed departments in government buildings, and more of an open, collaborative design. Today’s presentation will present a variety of space uses, with the sole purpose of eliciting the views of staff regarding which designs are most appealing and effective for the County.
Christopher Budd, LEED AP, Principal, Studios Architecture, provided a PowerPoint presentation (see attachment, “Wright County – Vision Session Presentation”). Budd said his work is based on pragmatism, and entirely focused on what each specific client wants. Studios Architecture (Studios) has completed projects around the globe, both for governments and businesses. He said the goal is to design a building that will be good for fifty years. He said the photos shown in the presentation are intended to demonstrate a variety of designs, one or none of which may be appropriate for the County. He strives to maximize dollars by designing the best possible building that will accommodate the County’s needs and future changes at the lowest possible cost.
The presentation covered:
· Key Strategy Features: Ability to respond to operational changes, accommodate shifting workplace models, incorporate sustainable practices, embrace practical solutions, and be inherently cost effective.
· Basis of Planning: Building maximization, defined public and staff experiences, predetermined efficiencies, defined flexibility, zone and bay planning, distributed utilities, and the 80%/15%/5% focus (80% for staff / 15% specialized for departments / 5% focus on the special aspects of the building). In the case of Wright County, Budd suggested putting energy into the 5% that has the greatest impact on people receiving services.
· Case Studies: Budd described a few projects Studios has completed for government entities:
1) The Pentagon: Studios reorganized spaces from 100% fixed to a 100% flexible plan using 11 flexible furniture pieces throughout, and reconfigured utilities distribution.
2) The Government of Ontario, Canada: Studios accommodated needs for both flexible and rigid zoning with an integrated infrastructure.
3) ULI (Urban Land Institute) House in Washington, D.C.: The client needed to create a destination space for the public. Studios created 40% shared space between staff and members. Staff did not have their own desks but shared with each other. Budd said this is an extreme example, but it accomplished their goals.
· Trends in Public Spaces:
1) Public Access and Security
The trend is to designate public spaces on one or two floors to keep staffing spaces uniform over time. The public only has access to those areas, which meets security needs but doesn’t dominate or overshadow the public’s experience when visiting the building. Security should be subtle and easy. Security elements that must be visible should be off to the side and less conspicuous.
2) Enhanced Public Experience
Employees should make the public feel comfortable, and the design should anticipate guests’ needs.
3) Resource Destination
Change the waiting room to a destination, with opportunities to engage the public and offer amenities like meeting spaces, an auditorium, a cafeteria or an area for refreshments, and play areas for children.
4) Branding and Community
Use the design of the building to convey desired messages regarding the County’s role in serving the public, the services provided, and the history of the County. Signage and imagery should be flexible to accommodate future changes.
There was discussion about making the building available to the public in the evening. Commissioner Daleiden said this is a public facility, and should be flexible enough to accommodate nonprofit groups. Jami Goodrum Schwartz, Health & Human Services Director, said her staff conducts evening trainings, public health events, and supervised visitations. Enright suggested ways that zones can be arranged to allow limited access to the public without restricting staff in those situations.
· Other Trends & Considerations
Budd said a new generation of workers is forcing government and industry to change from personal workstations and ownership to more flexible, mobile work spaces. He suggested that the County consider evolving to a less traditional, more flexible design to accommodate future changes.
1) Variety + Choice
Variety + Choice involves expanding where and how people work, and giving them choices. Someone might need a quiet space, or a window, or remove themselves from phones for a while. Open plans offer no relief. One option is to make workstations smaller, but offer second choices. Budd said this trend is exploding in the marketplace. Schwartzman said this concept does not involve building a larger building, but utilizing the spaces differently to create increased flexibility.
2) Mobility
Budd said the trend is moving away from traditional work station elements. Technology allows mobility to transition to a conference room or other space to work. This changes how offices and work stations are designed. Goodrum Schwartz expressed concern about protecting confidential and private information among staff members. Budd said that is an important consideration, and designs must be pragmatic and realistic. Sean Riley, Planning & Zoning Administrator, said his staff work primarily with paper, such as plat maps, surveys, filings, and records, and have their own workstations and computers. He values accessibility to the public, but does not want to compromise the tasks his staff perform. Riley said it is not easy to accommodate the needs of his staff and on-demand requirements of the public at the same time. At a minimum, Riley said his staff needs a collaboration/conference room.
Budd acknowledged that not every Department works the same. His intention is to create a facility that would accommodate a variety of work processes, and build flexibility into the design. Enright said today’s meeting is about overall concepts. As things progress, these concepts can be applied to a greater or lesser extent to each Department. Schwartzman said the meetings with Departments on 10-11-18 will address their individual ideas and needs. There was a discussion regarding Departments that use desktop computers and others that use laptops. Some Departments, such as Health & Human Services (HHS), use both. James O’Dell, HHS Technology Supervisor, said some of their employees need laptops in the field, but also require two to three monitors when working at a desktop in the office.
3) Physical Agility
Budd explained that Physical Agility has less to do with how spaces and workstations are configured, but how components and the building infrastructure adjust to change over time. Create the 80% of the environment (staff) so it can be reorganized on a small or large scale in the future, and do so at the least possible cost. Budd said personal freedom and the ability to adjust how an employee works is becoming increasingly important.
4) Reduced Ownership
Budd suggested that the best space in the building should go to the place where the most people can enjoy it. Schwartzman said Dakota County developed a standard that no office gets a window. The idea was to provide areas of natural light for most staff. Budd said this follows a trend that offices go in the interior, Transparency is key. Another trend is not to offer a large variety of workstations and offices, but to emphasize shared or common spaces. Budd said the more variety in workstations, the more expensive it is to change them. There was discussion about building in energy efficiency.
5) Smart Spending / Saving
Budd said crisp design is not a matter of cost. It costs nothing to take a risk to achieve that. Perception matters as well, however, so cheap will not be perceived well by the public.
6) Hybrid Spaces
Budd explained that this term means every space should do two or three things. A conference room that also functions as a training room and something else is ideal and efficient. This also applies to workstations. Budd said traditional panel systems generally cost too much.
7) Health + Wellness
Health and Wellness is more than a trend. Budd discussed “functional inconvenience,” for example, locating the copier down the hall to get employees to move more often. He designs spaces and stairwells to get people to walk between areas and access to natural light and outdoor places. He suggested incorporating this design for movement into the prospective new Government Center to give employees a variety of spaces to do their work.
8) Leveraged Technology
Budd does not recommend building in technology because it changes so frequently. He prefers technology to be surface mounted to create an environment that accommodates change quickly and easily.
9) Policy Alignment
Policy can inhibit work. Budd said policy alignment is equally important to technology and physical alignment.
10) Culture + Identity
The building environment is not neutral, but inherently speaks of a culture and identity. Budd said the new building is an opportunity to signal to the public who Wright County is, that staff cares for them and considers their comfort. It is also possible to convey to the public what work and services are done at the County. Acoustics, light, and flexibility are key.
There was discussion regarding the pros and cons of the Olmsted County building that was toured recently as part of this design process.
Recommendation: Informational only.
Identify Operational Improvements
This topic will be addressed in future meetings.
Workstation Planning
This topic will be addressed in future meetings.
Site Plan Concepts, Refining Plans for the Future, Schedule
Schwartzman said they looked at several options for placement of the new Government Center building. He referenced a PowerPoint presentation showing several Site Plan Concepts (see attachment, “9-24-18 COTW WCGC Site Options”). The options are the West, South, and North Site Plans. Each diagram lists the pros and cons related to that location.
PROS OF WEST SITE PLAN
1) Geothermal field can remain in place
2) First level entry can be on grade level
3) Current design for Sanitary and Storm for future building can remain
4) Existing grading can remain
5) All parking is roughly equidistant to entrances
CONS OF WEST PLAN
1) Loading dock needs to be on Level 1, Maintenance Shop could be on lower level
Dedicated service entrance off Braddock
2) Lower level would need to be pumped for Sanitary and Storm
3) Least amount of parking spaces; no entry
Boulevard on Courthouse axis
The West Site Plan offers a total of 1345 parking spaces.
PROS OF THE SOUTH SITE PLAN
1) Geothermal field can remain in place
2) First level entry on grade – best option for this
3) Great option for loading dock and Maint. shop, minimal ramp needed
4) Law Enforcement Center (LEC) parking and entry remain as existing
CONS OF THE SOUTH SITE PLAN
1) Lower level may need Sanitary and Storm
2) Some Storm runoff may need to be routed to Highway Department, requiring changes to their storm ponds
3) North parking far from building entrances
The South Site Plan offers 1495 parking spaces.
PROS OF THE NORTH SITE PLAN
1) First level entry can be on grade needs
2) Great option for loading dock and Maint. shop. Minimal ramp needed
3) Loading dock out of public sightline
4) Entry boulevard on Courthouse axis; Building entrance loop and drop off
CONS OF THE NORTH SITE PLAN
1) Geothermal field to be capped. LEC
mechanical retrofit
2) Sanitary line stub for Government Center
won’t work – rethink sanitary routing
3) Lower level would need to be pumped, Storm main routing would change
4) Existing grading changes entirely
5) South parking far from building entrances
The North Plan has a total of 1535 parking spaces.
Schwartzman said the West Plan does not offer optimal connectivity of the buildings. The South Plan affords some connectivity between staff and the public. Enright said the North plan has ramp issues like the West option, and does not have connectivity to the LEC or Justice Center. The consensus of the group was that the South Site Plan was the best.
Alan Wilczek, Facilities Services Director, said the Highway Department may not like sharing access to the campus with all staff and deliveries. Schwartzman suggested they meet with Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, and revisit the matter at a future meeting.
Schwartzman said individual Departments will meet for 45 minutes with BKV on 10-10-18 and 10-11-18 to look at conceptual plans. (See attached schedule). The County Board will meet at 11:00 A.M. on 10-11-18 to review their workspace plans. The Committee Of The Whole will meet that afternoon from noon till 3 P.M. The Committee Of The Whole / Executive Committee will review final schematic floor and site plans, building exterior design and material concepts, and preliminary cost estimates from noon till 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday, 11-20-18.
Recommendation: Informational only.
(End of 9-24-18 COTW Minutes)
FLAHERTY & HOOD PROPOSAL
Kelly presented a revised proposal for lobbying services based on discussion at past meetings. Present were representatives from Flaherty & Hood, Bradley Peterson and Shane Zahrt who are Attorney/Lobbyists.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the revised contract with Flaherty & Hood, seconded by Husom. Husom said the revised proposal narrows the scope to lobbying services for utility tax and utility host issues, which is the desire of a couple of the Commissioners.
Bradley Peterson said Flaherty & Hood is ready to assist the County with utility property tax issues. Flaherty & Hood has worked on these issues with several cities (including Monticello). Borrell doesn’t feel devaluation can be stopped but he would like more consistency. He doesn’t want a situation similar to Enbridge. Vetsch said Xcel Energy is pushing to move to a production style tax valuation from a property value valuation, and Flaherty & Hood can assist with that. There is new legislation and the County needs to be at the table. He said Flaherty & Hood will work to achieve the County being made whole, if possible.
Peterson there are two issues. The valuation issue is ongoing. His position is that the utilities are situated slightly different in terms of Enbridge and how they preserved their rights over time. There is potential legislation that upends the whole system of how utilities are valued. There has been discussion at the legislature the last three years on changing the valuation method to more of a production tax. He thinks Xcel Energy and other utilities are interested in moving in that direction. Peterson said Wright County needs to be a part of that as it will impact the future. Potter said that discussion on the scope of the proposal has been contentious for a couple of weeks. He does support Wright County being represented. He thinks Xcel Energy will change to whatever position fits them best. It is important to have someone present that understands the language and legislation to make sure the County is protected long term.
The motion to approve the proposal with Flaherty & Hood carried 5-0.
SCHEDULE MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS
Kelly said legislative sessions will start in January 2019. He asked the Board’s availability to schedule a meeting with legislators to discuss legislative priorities for Wright County. After discussion, the consensus was for Kelly to contact legislators on their schedules to determine whether a meeting could be scheduled on December 5th, 6th or 7th. Commissioners said the invite should be extended to the Governor elect and any newly elected legislators.
SCHEDULE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, CLOSED SESSION, RE: LABOR RELATONS
Kelly said this is the opener for health insurance and will need to be negotiated with the union groups prior to the end of 2018.
On a motion by Husom, second by Borrell, all voted to schedule a COTW Meeting, Closed Session, for 10-16-18 at 10:30 A.M. to discuss labor negotiations.
BOARD MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 25, 2018 AND JANUARY 1, 2019
Kelly said Christmas and New Year’s Day fall on Tuesday, and the Board will need to cancel or reschedule those meetings. Kryzer said the new Board term is not in effect until 1-08-18; therefore, the organizational meeting cannot be held until that date. It was the consensus to cancel the meetings and if it is determined that another Board meeting needs to be held, it will be scheduled. That meeting will require a three-day posting period.
On a motion by Borrell, second by Husom, all voted to cancel the 12-25-18 and the 1-01-19 County Board Meetings.
DISCUSS COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULES FOR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER
Kelly said the County has traditionally gone to a single committee meeting date in the months of November and December.
On a motion by Husom, second by Borrell, all voted to set one committee meeting date in the months of November and December. The dates are 11-14-18 and 12-12-18.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE / ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
1. Mayor’s Association Meeting. Husom said that the meeting last month included good discussion.
2. Department Retreat. Husom said the department retreat at Bertram Park went well.
3. Township Officers Meeting. Vetsch and staff presented information on the draft 2019 budget, including information supporting how the Board arrived at the draft budget. Comments received after the presentation were positive; those spoken to seemed to understand how the Board arrived at the budget and that they were glad the County is planning and looking long range.
4. Safe Schools Meetings. Husom has attended a few meetings.
5. Buffalo Police Department/Buffalo Fire Department Open House will be held on 10-13-18 from 9:00A.M.-12:00 P.M.
6. Bounce Back Resource Fair, “Let’s Talk About It” will be held on 10-10-18 at 5:30 P.M. at the Buffalo High School Performing Arts Center.
7. The Bounce Back Project Monticello Speaker Series will host, “Silent Impact: Influence Through Purpose, Persistence & Passion” with Joe Schmit on 10-16-18 from 7:00-8:00 P.M. at the Monticello High School Auditorium.
8. Daleiden attended the City of Otsego’s meeting on 10-08-18 and presented budget information.
9. Bertram Advisory Committee. Vetsch said the traffic study is not ready to discuss at this time.
10. East Regional Detention Center. Vetsch said the next year’s bed rates were set (5% increase).
11. Potter recently went to Washington, D.C. as part of the I-94 Corridor Coalition to petition for $10 million in a federal BUILD grant. There were 470 projects that applied, and that number was reduced to about 180. The request is for $10 million of the $25 million maximum. Meetings were held with congressman and senators. There was also a meeting with USDOT. He said the plan is to get this phase of construction done in one construction season instead of two. Federal and state feedback received is the I-94 Coalition is a very well-run group. The I-94 Corridor Coalition will have groundbreaking on 10-12-18 at 10:00 A.M. for the third phase of the Albertville Premium Outlet Mall.
12. Coordinator Updates:
A. County Administrator/County Human Resource Director Conference. Kelly presented on Wright County’s email management plan and records retention. Kelly was elected to the County Administrator’s Executive Board.
B. Kelly attended meetings on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and the Request For Proposal (RFP) being developed. The goal is to have the RFP on the streets by late October or early November.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 A.M.
County Board Minutes Submitted by: Susan Backes, Clerk to the County Board
Published in the Herald Journal Oct. 26, 2018.