Wright County Board Minutes

BOARD OF WRIGHT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
DATE APPROVED: FEBRUARY 25, 2020
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Vetsch, Potter, Daleiden and Borrell present.
COUNTY BOARD MINUTES 2-04-20 MEETING
Daleiden moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
AGENDA
The following item was petitioned onto the Agenda:
• 9:01 AM, Sheriff’s Office, Introduction of Jeff Mcmackins, recently promoted to Patrol Sergeant (Kelly)
Vetsch moved to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
Daleiden moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Approve & Authorize Signatures On Labor Agreement With Teamsters Local 320, Courthouse Unit, For The 2020-2022 Collective Bargaining Agreement
B. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Signatures On Contract With Brunton Architects And Engineers For Architectural Services Relating To Trailblazer Facility Expansion
C. ADMINISTRATION
1. Authorize Signatures On Contract With Vos Construction For Construction Management Services Relating To Trailblazer Facility Expansion.
D. AUDITOR/TREASURER
1. Approve Transfer Of Funds From The Continuous Improvement Plan Fund To The Health And Human Services Fund In The Amount of $208,434.45. This Is For HHS EDMS Project Where The Funds Need To Be Expensed In The HHS Fund, So They Can Report The Expenditures To The State.
2. Acknowledge Warrants Issued Between January 29, 2020 And February 10, 2020.
3. Approve Renewal Of Seasonal On-Sale Liquor License For Whispering Pines Golf Club.
E. COUNTY BOARD
1. Authorize Attendance, 2020 Transportation Day At The Capitol, MN Transportation Alliance, 3-18-20, St. Paul
F. EXTENSION
1. Confirm Commissioner District 1 - County Extension Committee Appointment Merissa Johnson, of Buffalo, MN, Effective February 11, 2020 Term Ends On December 31, 2022 (Three Year Term).
2. Confirm Youth Member - County Extension Committee Appointment Victoria Shafer, Effective February 11, 2020 Term Ends On December 31, 2021 (Two Year Term).
G. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacement
A. Social Worker
H. SHERIFF
1. Position Replacement:
A. Office Technician II
TIMED AGENDA ITEMS
SEAN DERINGER, SHERIFF
Introduction Of Jeff Mcmackins, Recently Promoted To Patrol Sergeant
Sheriff Sean Deringer recognized Jeff Mcmackins, who was recently promoted to Patrol Sergeant as authorized in the 2020 budget. Mcmackins previously served as a Deputy for approximately 11 years. Sheriff Deringer said what is unique about Mcmackins is that he is always looking to further his abilities and contribute. He is also a great coach. He often looks to Mcmackins for feedback and insight when making decisions. Mcmackins was congratulated on his promotion.
TONY RASMUSON, COUNTY ASSESSOR
Schedule The 2020 County Board of Equalization Meeting In Accordance With Minnesota Statute 274.14.
Per Minnesota Statute 274.14, the County Board of Equalization must either convene on a Saturday or convene on a weekday with appointment times available after 7:00 pm. If the Board decides to require appointments as has been done in past years, the Valuation and Classification notices will need to clearly state that appointments are required. In that case the Board will have the option to adjourn the meeting prior to 7:00 pm if walk in appeals are not allowed. If walk in appeals are allowed the day of the meeting, the meeting may need to stay open until 7:00 pm.
The Assessor’s Office would like to set a deadline for accepting appointments to appeal one week before the actual meeting to adequately review the property before the meeting takes place to give staff enough time to inspect the property and prepare for the appeal. The Assessor’s Office recommendation would be to schedule the meeting for 4:00 PM, June 15, 2020 with the possibility for a reconvene the following day. The deadline for property owners to make an appointment would then be set as June 8, 2020.
Vetsch moved to set the County Board of Equalization Meeting for June 15, 2020 at 4:00 PM and to set the deadline for property owners to make appointments as June 8, 2020. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
SARAH GROSSHUESCH, PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR - HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Adopt Resolution, Wright Dental Services Bonding Infrastructure
Grosshuesch presented a draft resolution in support of the legislative priority to seek bonding infrastructure dollars from the State this legislative session to facilitate the development of dental services space in the new Government Center.
Vetsch made a motion to adopt Resolution #20-10 in support of the Wright Dental Services Bonding Infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Borrell. Borrell referenced language in the resolution which reflects, “WHEREAS, approximately 14,000 low income Wright County residents and 55,000 residents of surrounding counties receive their health insurance through Medical Assistance.” He asked whether the resolution language should be modified to include the list of counties. Potter said the most important thing is to have the right sponsor carry the bill forward to committee to attain the desired result. Borrell said the resolution could be adopted as presented and a supporting documentation could be included that lists the counties data. It will be a regional facility. Daleiden said having the counties named will help legislators and senators in those districts focus on those areas. Vetsch said the resolution cites 14,000 low income Wright County residents, but that does not include those over age 65 who do not have supplemental dental care. Husom referenced the 1,800 people that visited the emergency room because of dental issues. Potter said the incidence of other diseases rises without proper dental care. Vetsch extended appreciation to the Public Health Department for the informational pamphlets and encouraged fellow Board members to pass that information along to schools, cities and townships. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
VIRGIL HAWKINS, HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Approve Annual Resolution Regarding 2020 Spring Load Restrictions On The Wright County Highway System
Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #20-11, adopting the Annual 2020 Spring Load Restrictions on the Wright County Highway System. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. The information on the restrictions will be placed on the County’s website and sent to cities and townships.
Approve Transportation Committee Of The Whole (TCOTW) Minutes From The Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Meeting And Act On Recommendations
The following changes were made to the minutes:
• Page 2, paragraph 1, change first two sentences to read, “Vetsch asked if we are looking to have a public hearing to add items/projects to the list or to extend the life of the local option sales tax? If so, he is not interested in extending a sunset date for the local option sales tax at this time, stating that we did not need to look that far ahead.” (Vetsch)
• Page 2, paragraph 2, bullet 2, change the spelling to “Sherburne” (Husom)
Daleiden moved to approve the 2-04-20 TCOTW Minutes as corrected and the recommendations. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0. The minutes follow:
I. LOST (Local Option Sales Tax) update and discuss public hearing in the spring:
Background:
On June 13, 2017 the Wright County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution 17-30 implementing a special 1⁄2 percent County-wide sales tax to fund transportation improvements.
Revenue generated from the sales tax is dedicated to fund transportation related projects identified on the list presented at the May 4, 2017 LOST hearing and spelled out in Resolution 17-30. Resolution 17-30 limits the collection of the sales tax to the period of October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022.
The LOST revenue has averaged about $7.3 million per year and the entire amount (about $36 million) that will be collected through the expiration date of December 31, 2022 will go towards funding the following improvements (that either have been completed or are in the process of being completed):
• CSAH 9 in Waverly
• CSAH 18 in Albertville and St. Michael
• County share of I-94 project in Albertville
• CSAH 39 four lane expansion in Otsego
• CSAH 30 in Delano
• CSAH 37 in Albertville and Otsego
• Right-of-way for CSAH 19 One-Way Pair in Saint Michael
• CR 118 in Monticello
The LOST program has been a success and the projects above would not have been constructed without this additional revenue. There are additional projects that were identified on the project list at the May 4, 2017 LOST hearing that would benefit from extending the local option sales tax beyond the December 31, 2022 expiration date.
Discussion:
Vetsch asked if we are looking to have a public hearing to add items/projects to the list or to extend the life of the local option sales tax? If so, he is not interested in extending a sunset date for the local option sales tax at this time, stating that we did not need to look that far ahead. Borrell agrees with Vetsch. The concern is wasting money down the road on niceties verses focusing on just what needs to be done. Hawkins stated that that Highway Department would need some lead time to know what projects can be funded in the future, asking the board to allow them to start planning ahead accordingly.
Husom stated that this would be something the board would look into at the end of 2020 early 2021 (these are for projects for 2023 and beyond). Husom feels a public hearing needs to be done to determine needs verses desires and identifying the most urgent projects.
• Hawkins clarified that the list of projects reflects needed projects, not niceties.
• Mattice explained that the trails projects are a 30yr plan. Talking with Sherburne County their LOST plan includes trails. It is a long-term plan.
• Daleiden believes this should be held off until mid to late 2021. We should have better metrics to give people a better idea of cost.
• Vetsch asked what would our local share cost be on a river crossing, best estimate? Hawkins said there would have to be multiple cost sharing for such a project and could not give an estimate. Vetsch asked if there would be better chances of it happening if we funded more of it, correct? Hawkins said the more partners involved would be best for success in grant funding.
• Potter stated that he would like to have the public hearing sooner than the 2021 date
Highway Staff Recommendation:
Highway Department staff recommends extending the LOST program beyond the 12/31/2022 expiration date for highway improvement funding (or provide alternative funding for the needed highway improvements identified in our Long-Range Transportation Plan, LRTP).
TCOTW ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Revisit this topic at a future TCOTW meeting in about a year.
II. Braddock Ave/CR 147 Update – discuss with Buffalo Township:
The county’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), adopted by the board on September 17, 2019, recommends 35 separate jurisdictional transfers and that each one be pursued as opportunities arise over the next 25 years.
Highway staff feels that an opportunity has presented itself for the Braddock Ave. NE/CR 147 jurisdictional transfers with the current building construction by the county that will impact traffic volumes on Braddock Ave NE and this was discussed with the county board at the August 9, 2019 Transportation Committee Meeting of the Whole.
The LRTP recommends that the County take Braddock Ave. NE (about 1.0 mile in length) and that the Township take CR 147 (about 1.0 mile in length).
The County Board, at the August 9, 2019 TCOTW meeting, directed Highway staff to move forward with the jurisdictional change of Braddock Ave NE to become a county highway.
Update:
Highway staff met with the Buffalo Township Board of Supervisors in November 2019 to discuss the proposed jurisdictional changes recommended by the County’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Buffalo Township considered this jurisdictional swap at their December 2019 regular board meeting and a motion was passed to decline moving forward with these jurisdictional transfers.
Buffalo Township representatives have been invited to attend the February 4, 2020 Transportation Committee Meeting of the Whole (TCOTW) to discuss their opposition to the recommended jurisdictional transfers (Braddock Ave. NE/CR 147).
Discussion:
• Schmidt asked if anyone knows the history of the road - basically asking if anyone knew the history of the condition of CR147. He stated how roads were constructed and how CR147 was constructed and asked how it has been resurfaced since it was first made?
o Does not feel that Braddock and 147 are a fair comparison based on condition.
o Schmidt feels that Braddock is in better condition and will take less effort/funds to maintain.
o Hawkins indicated that CR147 was resurfaced in 2016 and seal coated in 2018.
o Photos of Braddock and CR147 shown at the meeting indicate CR147 is in better shape than Braddock.
• Daleiden said we are trying to be fair and trying to work with the township.
• Hawkins feels this is an opportunity and are not trying to be unfair.
• Weese would like to see the county take Braddock. He acknowledged that it would put some burden on the township, but he understands the need for the county to take over Braddock.
• Vetsch feels this a necessary/reasonable decision and doesn’t want this to be contentious. He believes that the county is giving a better condition road. Vetsch states that we will need to repair Braddock, which we will pay to repair. He also acknowledges that there are needed repairs on CR147, including widening the shoulders. He also believes this to be in the best interest of the people.
o Vetsch made a suggested offer: County to pay two years maintenance (snow/ice removal) for CR147.
• Weese said they would be willing to go back to their board to discuss.
Highway Staff Recommendation:
Highway staff recommends the jurisdictional transfer of CR 147 to the township and Braddock Ave. NE to the county – in accordance with the LRTP plan recommendations.
TCOTW ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Informational Item.
III. TH25 Access Request update:
Background:
As directed by the County Board at the June 26, 2019 Transportation Committee of the Whole meeting, Highway Department Engineering staff has explored what a potential access to TH 25 might look like (see attached) and has determined a “ballpark” cost estimate for the potential improvements to be in the $500,000 range (which includes the driveway access roads shown and construction of a right-turn lane and by-pass lane on TH 25.
At the August 9, 2019 Transportation Committee of the Whole Meeting, the County Board directed staff to pursue this potential access to Trunk Highway (T.H.) 25 with MnDOT’s Access Review Committee.
Update:
Highway Department staff has developed an “Option 3” layout based on MnDOT’s Access Review Committee feedback of the “Option 2” that had been submitted. MnDOT feedback on Option 3 includes the following:
• New access must be a public road (at least the portion within the MnDOT right-of-way)
• The church must indicate they are okay with the changes to their access caused by Option 3
• The other property that would use the new access, M&G, Inc. should be contacted by the county to determine what their future development plans are to ensure they are okay with the Option 3 access changes & the changes would provide safe and reasonable access
• MnDOT will be undertaking a corridor study of T.H. 25 between Buffalo and Monticello that may provide additional recommendations of what an access should look like in this area. The study will begin in July of 2020 and Wright County Highway staff will have input into the study
Discussion:
• Borrell wondered if we could gain some access from the north so the road could go straight allowing traffic to stay away from the church a little more.
• Wilczek stated that his concern was the road being shared with public – everything behind us is inmate work release, staff parking, deliveries, etc. – why would you have/want people able to come in the backside?
Highway Staff Recommendation:
Continue to pursue MnDOT approval of an access location on T.H. 25 in collaboration with MnDOT and the upcoming MnDOT corridor study along T.H. 25 between Monticello and Buffalo.
TCOTW ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Informational Item.
IV. Concrete Paving Association of MN Presentation:
Background:
Each time we design a highway construction project, we determine if the pavement should be bituminous or concrete, based on a benefit/cost analysis. Bituminous pavement is more often determined the best benefit/cost for Wright County, although in recent years we have constructed concrete pavements on CSAH 3 south of Cokato and CSAH 35 in St. Michael (One-Way pairs). The analysis for some current upcoming projects, such as CSAH 19/38 in Albertville and CSAH 39 four lane in Otsego, determined that bituminous pavement should be constructed.
Greg Bauer, Concrete Pavement Promoter at CPAM, was invited to this meeting to talk about concrete pavements and answer any questions you may have.
Discussion:
• Borrell aren’t the concrete mixes better now.
o Bauer said MN has a concrete design life of 35-50yrs.
• Vetsch asked if you must use more salt to get ice to melt because concrete is so dense? He also asked if they must treat with more chemical verses salt?
o Bauer said that in Iowa 95% of their roads are concrete and they use a sand mix – he believed they used a reduced amount of salt/chemicals due to them being concrete.
• Daleiden asked how thick the concrete roads in Anoka were. Greg responded that typically roads are 7 inches, but it is traffic dependent – such as I94 is thicker, being 12 inches.
Highway Staff Recommendation:
None – informational item.
TCOTW ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Informational item.
V. Potential route designation changes to County Highway System:
Background:
Wright County currently has 406.44 County State Aid Highway (CSAH) miles “drawing needs” that is one of the variables in determining the amount of gas-tax dollars the county receives each year from the HUTDF (Highway User Tax Distribution Fund).
We also have 1.27 CSAH miles that are “banked” or not assigned to a roadway due to various changes/revocations over the years. To add these “banked” miles to our system, we are proposing the following changes:
• Designate CSAH 41 as CR 114 to “free up” 0.8 CSAH miles
• Designate CR 138 as CSAH 83 which would take 2.06 CSAH miles (leaving only 0.1 miles to “bank”)
CR 138 meets the criteria for a CSAH route and by designating it CSAH, we would achieve the following:
1. Apply 1.26 miles of our 1.27 “banked” miles to our highway system that would draw “needs” towards our annual state-aid gas-tax distribution from MnDOT
2. Allow us the flexibility to use CSAH Regular State Aid funds for any future improvement projects involving this highway
3. Our CSAH miles would go from 406.44 miles to 407.70 on our highway system.
Discussion:
• Vetsch said it seemed very logical.
• Potter said it seemed like something we should do right now.
• Hawkins stated at our Dist. 3 meeting that we applied for LPP funding for 138/25 funding. We are being given a $1.4 million grant for a roundabout – receiving the official award in March. This helps free up state aid funds for other projects & converting CR 138 to a CSAH route would allow State Aid funds to be used for the local share.
• It will take a few months to get this through with resolutions and approvals.
Highway Staff Recommendation:
Proceed with designating CSAH 41 as CR 114 and CR 138 as CSAH 83.
TCOTW Action/Recommendation:
Consensus is to proceed
(End of 2-04-20 TCOTW Minutes)
Approve Resolution Of Support For The Highway 55 Corridor Coalition’s 2020 Legislative Funding Proposal
Hawkins referenced documentation reflecting proposals for $5 million in preliminary environmental work on TH 55 from Arrowhead Drive in Medina to County Hwy. 19 in Corcoran.
Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #20-12 supporting the Highway 55 Corridor Coalition’s 2020 Legislative Funding Proposal. The motion was seconded by Potter.
Potter is the Chair of the Highway 55 Coalition and said there is a new Transportation Commissioner at the State level, so processes have changed. It will be important to move this to a shovel-ready project. Hennepin County is looking to adopt a resolution of support, and the MET Council supports this as well. It enhances their bus rapid transit.
The motion to approve Resolution #20-12 carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Approve Agreement No. 19-55 For The CSAH 39 Four Lane Reconstruction Project With The City Of Otsego. The Project Is About 1.5 Miles In Length And Will Be Constructed In Two (2) Stages In 2020 And 2021. The County’s Share Of The Project Cost Will Be Funded With Local Option Sales Tax Revenue
Vetsch moved to approve Agreement No. 19-55. The motion was seconded by Potter and carried 5-0.
Approve Agreement No. 20-51 For The County Road 118 Reconstruction Project With The City Of Monticello. The Project Is 1.51 Miles In Length And 0.51 Miles Are Within The City Limits. The County’s Share Of The Project Cost Will Be Funded With Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Revenue
Potter moved to approve Agreement No. 20-51. The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Potter said LOST funding is being utilized for projects that may otherwise not be completed. Hawkins said the traffic count on CR 118 (locally known as Fenning Avenue) is about 3,000 cars/day. Projected traffic counts do not warrant a four-lane roadway. The project will include a paved,
six-foot shoulder. Roadways are built to meet state aid standards although they are not required to do so. The motion carried 5-0.
BOB HIIVALA, AUDITOR/TREASURER
Approve 2020 Tobacco License For E-Cig E-Bacco, LLC DBA E-Bacco (City of St. Michael) For the License Period February 18, 2020 Through December 31, 2020
Hiivala explained this establishment is moving from Albertville to St. Michael. The applicant has filled out the proper paperwork and paid the applicable fees.
Potter moved to approve the 2020 tobacco license for E-Cig E-Bacco, LLC DBA E-Bacco (City of St. Michael) for the license period of February 18, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0.
Approve Minutes From County Ditch 20, 36 and 29 Public Hearings On January 14, 2020
Matt Detjen, Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator, said the Agenda incorrectly reflects the minutes dated as February 14, 2020 and should be changed to reflect January 14, 2020.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the January 14, 2020 Ditch Committee Of The Whole Minutes for County Ditch 20, 36, and 29. The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Husom requested the minutes be amended to reflect that she was present at the meeting. The motion carried 5-0. The 1-14-20 Ditch COTW Minutes follow:
Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Husom at 1:30 PM.
1. Statement of County Board Chairperson, Commissioner Husom for County Ditch 20 and County Ditch 36
This is a public hearing on the reestablishment of benefits and damages on Wright County Ditch 20 and County Ditch 36 under statutes section 103E.351.
I would like to welcome everyone who has come today. Under consideration at this hearing is the reestablishment of benefits and damages for Wright County Ditches 20 and 36 which includes the acquisition and valuation of buffer seeding areas.
The purpose of these hearings is to review the viewer’s report and receive comment from those affected by or interested in the proposed reestablishment 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 reestablishment 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 designated by the viewers.
• 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. If such actions 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 judgment 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 reestablishment 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.
Would any of the board members wish to offer any further remarks before we begin?
There were no further comments by the board at this time so Husom turned the meeting over to Kryzer to provide background on the proceedings.
2. Attorney Comments presented by Kryzer
a. This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages of Wright County Ditch 20.
The drainage system is in four townships and the City of Maple Lake. The legal description of the watershed for the drainage system is located in Township 121, Range 27 encompassing Sections 11 thru 14, 23 thru 26, and 35 and 36 of Corinna Township, Township 121 Range 26 encompasses sections 19 thru 23, 26 thru 35 of Maple Lake Township, Township 120, Range 27 encompassing sections 1, 2, 11 and 12, of Albion Township and Township 120, Range 26, encompassing sections 5, 6 and 7 of Chatham Township . The entire watershed is in Wright County, Minnesota. The drainage area is developed for agricultural land use, rural residential, urban residential industrial and commercial.
b. 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.
c. 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 July 10, 2018.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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 November 7, 2019. Other interested parties were provided notice by publication in the Herald Journal. The notice was published on December 27, 2019, January 3, 2020 and January 10, 2020. Evidence of all notices are on file with the Drainage Authority.
g. Substantive comments received during today’s hearing, if any, will be incorporated into the final findings for the Board.
h. 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.
i. 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.
j. 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
k. The redetermined benefits and damages will be used in all subsequent proceedings relating to the drainage system.
l. Based on your comments and testimony today, the Drainage Authority may make one or more of the following decisions:
o Rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination the benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report
o 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.
o Rise and report to the full board that it adopts an order rejecting the viewers report and directing a new report be conducted.
o Direct the viewers to adjust and submit a revised report.
m. 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.
n. 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 20.
Madam Chair and members of the board I stand any questions the board may have at this time otherwise I yield back my time to the chair.
Husom turned the meeting over to Brian Murphy from H2Over Viewers to present the viewer’s report, analysis and recommendation.
3. Presentation of Viewers Reports by Brian Murphy
The County Board acting as the Drainage Authority has jurisdiction over a drainage system or project.
A. Definitions:
a. Drainage Authority, the Board or Joint Drainage Authority having jurisdiction over a drainage system or project.
b. Benefits, Improvement of properties in terms of increased value, increased production capacity, and/or increased utility resulting from the construction of the public and private drainage system. Benefitted acres are lands that drain towards the ditch system and contribute to the need to maintain the capacity of the system.
c. Notional Amount, Dollar amount that would be charged to the landowner, in a theoretical project scenario. (part of the Property Owners Report mailed out)
d. LiDar, Acronym for light detection and ranging. A method of mapping topography where as a laser light is used in a similar fashion as radar uses sound.
B. Reasons for a Re-determination of Benefits
a. Original benefits no longer reflect current market values (Benefits determined many years ago when land was selling for a fraction of what it is selling for today).
b. Division-system has been divided into two or more separate systems.
c. Lands utilizing the system not originally included in the benefiting area.
d. Remove lands no longer receiving benefits.
C. LiDar Explained
a. LiDar is fundamentally a distance technology. From an airplane, LiDar systems actively sends light energy to the ground. This pulse hits the ground and returns to the sensor. Basically, it measures how long it takes for the emitted light to return to the sensor. The time it takes the light to travel determines if it is high ground, low ground, wet ground, vegetative or hard surface. LiDar is used in many different industries such as forestry, agriculture and one of the most common is Autonomous vehicles. It was developed to create a full 360-degree environmental view. It gathers this information at a hundred of thousands of times a second.
b. LiDar can also be used to detect things that a person cannot see.
i.Carbon Dioxide
ii.Sulphur Dioxide
iii.Methane
City planners use LiDar to detect pollutant particles which helps create a better planning of the city. Viewers do not use it for such a sophisticated thing but do use it to create a digital elevation map. The colors on an elevation map show the difference between high lands and low lands. It also becomes visible as to which way the water flows across a landscape.
D. Other data used by viewers
a. SRTM Data (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission from the 90’s)
i.SRTM provides more complete digital elevation data. A space shuttle endeavor orbited the earth and captured earth’s topography.
ii.Virtual Dam
iii.Watershed Map
iv.Drainage Boundary
v.Aerial Imagery
vi.Ditch Alignment
vii.Soil types that are within the watershed
viii.Road Alignments
ix.PLSS (Sections, Quarters, QQs)
x.Parcels
xi.Data collected from field work
As viewers we start to stack all the information gathered to determine how we classify the lands with different values to calculate the percentage of total benefits for each landowner. A tabular report generation map is then created showing the different classes of land. Agriculture lands are classified into four different classifications.
All the gathered data is sent to HEI who then produces a Tabular Report which is now automated and eliminates having to enter the data manually and some of the errors that could occur. With the maps accurately showing where the different land classifications are, it makes it much easier for a county to reassign benefits for a parcel that has been split.
• Overview of H2Over Viewers process
1. An Oath of Office was signed on July 26th, 2018 per MN. Statue 103E.305
2. A Public Informational meeting regarding the redetermination was held on July 30, 2019
3. Redetermination of Benefits Process
a. Review historic drainage system records including original plans/profiles/survey/reports used to create the original drainage system.
b. Identify lands/properties currently utilizing the drainage system.
c. Review contour maps, aerial photos, LiDar and other data to determine drainage patterns and boundaries.
d. Evaluate land use within the drainage system including those lands restricted from receiving drainage benefits (wetlands).
e. Determine property values based on similar groups of property/classifications.
f. Identify acres using the existing ditch system.
g. Identify areas for the establishment of the 1 rod grass strip & the amount of the damage payment(s)
• Extent and Basis of Benefits
Factors used in analysis:
a. Land values based on extracted sales data, tax valuations and land use.
b. Drainage value based on the drainage system operating in its as constructed or subsequently improved condition.
c. Benefit based on before and after project condition less private improvement cost.
d. Topography used to analyze proximity of channel and relative influence (Direct vs. Indirect)
e. Crop productivity index used to rank soils based on their potential for intense crop production.
• Final Report Benefits and Damages
o At the completion of H2Over Viewers examination the total benefits for CD 20 are
• $11,845,463.85
• Total damages = $58,321.28
This concluded Murphy’s presentation of the Viewers Report. Husom therefore opened the Public Hearing to the public for comment.
Larry Smith; 7000 100th St NW, Maple Lake MN 55358
“I do not have a problem with the evaluation of CD 20 benefits. I have a fair amount of land that drains into a swamp, which will probably never be drained due to rainfall and a different climate that we have had and will have for years to come. So, how do I justify paying an assessment for something that I am not receiving a benefit from?”
Murphy explained that there are a couple of different things that the viewers are required to look at. It is not that we are not sympathetic to your situation and agree that those situations occur. Viewers are required by statue to look at all the lands within the watershed on a given system. In your case, even though water drains toward a wetland or a swamp area, the ditch itself is allowing the water table surrounding that ditch system to be lowered. So, all the lands that are draining toward the ditch system are in someway still benefited because they increase the burden on the ditch system. There are rare instances were the viewers look at an area of land and recognize that the area may be deemed as a “non-contributing basis” meaning it drains into a watershed in a low area and never find its way into the ditch system and does not create a burden on that ditch system. Without those areas being brought to the viewers attention and the viewers going out and evaluating that area on a one on one basis, it is nearly impossible for the viewers to know where those conditions exist. The normal flow of things would be that the viewers are made aware of those areas at a landowner informational meeting and then try to address those areas prior to the public hearing so an accurate report is presented to the drainage authority. The board can request that the viewers go back out and look at the area.
John Dearing; 7823 County Road 39 NW, Annandale MN 55302-2315
“On County Ditch 20, probably in the late 70’s, there were several culverts that were put in the ditch system that were not authorized by the County. The landowner closed it off and now there has been sink holes that have been filling up with dirt. Therefore, that is not a benefit to me as a landowner further down on the system and why should I be assessed to help clean up that area?” Wouldn’t the landowner himself be responsible for the repair charges?”
Detjen stated that from what he has seen in the historic documents for County Ditch 20, there is nothing that suggest that the board was not aware of the change made to the system. Minutes do indicate that there was discussion about the tile being replaced in that area. Maybe at the time, it might have been considered an improvement to the system. Currently if we were to do something like that, there is more of a legal process that must be followed which would allow the installation of certain tile size. That property used to be an open ditch system and now the landowner has installed concreate, basically a soil and water pipe. I have received other complaints about the area, and the joints not fitting together are an issue. Detjen agreed to review the records again and if the tile was put in without prior authorization, the county could request that the area be put back to its original condition as an open ditch. Detjen added that the area is a main line of the system and there is a lot of water in that area.
John Uecker; Chair from Albion Township Board
“I believe you stated Albion Township has four sections along the ditch system. Carlson sod, in section one, vacated the land on the north side of 55 that would have been draining to the system and they couldn’t make it work. Now SWCD has dug ponds in that area. So, how does Albion Township have road benefits from the system, on the northwest side of Maple Lake at the corner of 55 and County Road 7 when the water on that road is usually level with the road most of the time?”
Murphy stated that if we are looking at the status of the ditch and the way that it is functioning right now, the system is not necessarily providing you a good outlet. However, the viewers must look at the “as constructed condition” of the system by statue.
“John Uecker; I believe there was a ditch that went to the railroad tracks that Albion Township checked into at one time, but the issue was never addressed further.”
Daleiden asked Mr. Uecker if when Highway 55 was redone this last summer, did any culverts get repaired at that time? Uecker thought that a culvert was put in, but not the one by the railroad and it tips a little bit, so water cannot run through it.
As there was no further comment from the public, Husom closed the public comment portion of the hearing for County Ditch 20.
A motion was made by Borrell and second by Potter to direct the viewers to further review the area or portions of the drainage systems on Larry Smith’s property and the culvert under the railroad tracks off Highway 55 and County Road 7 northwest of Maple Lake and determine if adjustments should be made to the proposed benefits and damages and perennial strips of vegetation. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Husom moved that the board direct staff to prepare findings and an order consistent with the proceedings, including responses to all comments received through the public comment process; that the draft findings and order be written to affect the reestablishment of benefits and damages of the public drainage system consistent with the viewer’s report and recommendation; direct recording of the order to reflect the reestablishment of benefits and damages of the public drainage system record; and that we rise and report this matter to the Board’s regular meeting on February 18, 2020, or by adjournment to an appropriate time on the Board’s agenda, at which meeting we will consider findings and an order for the proposed viewer’s report on the reestablishment of benefits and damages of the public drainage system records. Motion made by Borrell, second by Vetsch. Motion carried 4-0.
Husom opened the Public Hearing for County Ditch 36.
1. Attorney comments presented by Greg Kryzer
a. This is a public hearing on the redetermination of benefits and damages of Wright County Ditch 36.
The drainage system is located in Silver Creek township. The legal description of the watershed for the drainage system is Sections 7, 8 and 17 thru 21, Township 122 Range 26. The entire watershed is located in Wright County, Minnesota. The drainage area is developed for agricultural land use, rural residential, industrial and commercial.
b. 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.
c. In order 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 May 29, 2018.
d. 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.
c. 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 November 7, 2019. Other interested parties were provided notice by publication in the Herald Journal. The notice was published on December 27, 2019, January 2, 2020 and January 10, 2020. Evidence of all notices are on file with the Drainage Authority.
e. Substantive comments received during today’s hearing, if any, will be incorporated into the final findings for the Board.
f. 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.
g. 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.
h. 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
i. The redetermined benefits and damages will be used in all subsequent proceedings relating to the drainage system.
j. Based on your comments and testimony today, the Drainage Authority may make one or more of the following decisions:
o Rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination the benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report
o 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.
o Rise and report to the full board that it adopts an order rejecting the viewers report and directing a new report be conducted.
o Direct the viewers to make adjustments and submit a revised report.
k. 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.
l. 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 36.
Madam Chair and members of the board I stand any questions the board may have at this time otherwise I yield back my time to the chair.
Murphy, from H2Over Viewers, presented a map of County Ditch 36 and stated the total benefits on CD 36 is just short of $1.4 million at $1,398,486.43 with total damages of acquiring the buffer strip of $59,563.64.
Husom opened the hearing for public comments.
John McCooley; 4956 150th St. NW, Clearwater, MN 55320
“My wife and I are here to get a better understanding of the property owners report we received in the mail on CD 36. The numbers on the report, are meaningless to us. We have lived at this address for several years and have never even seen a puddle on our property. Our parcel is 32 acres and 150th St NW was recently paved, but the water comes along and comes down right into our yard into our pole barn. So, we don’t need anymore water. We are just trying to understand, because we do not see any physical ditch system, so is this water flow that goes underneath the earth. We do not see any physical benefits.”
Murphy stated there is sub-surface water movement on this system. The water table is lower than the effected area by the ditch’s existence. Again, the ditch is “as constructed condition” and may not be in the best condition currently. The statue requires that if a landowner is within the footprint of the watershed, the viewers must view those lands and apply benefits.
John McCooley; I understand, and we don’t mind paying our share of benefits that is going to help people. However, somehow, they are going to have to get the water to drain across interstate 94, up a twelve-foot ravine and then slopping down to 150th Street. The only water we have ever had is rain water from the street, but we just want an understanding how we are going to benefit from the system. There is going to be another lane put in on interstate 94 very shortly and we are in a situation of lack of land. We are the only farm in that location and really can not farm the land anymore to make money. We just wanted an understanding of where the water is going, and it seems the water will stop at 150th Street. If we could divide up our land, we could divide up the cost for the ditch system. “
Detjen stated that County Ditch 36 was constructed in 1918 and at that time contractors dug out and drained Rice Lake to farm some of the fringe areas. There were wetlands to the south and interstate 94 or 75 was not there at the time and have since been put on top of the system. The ditch was intended to drain all those wetlands as well. Obviously, you wouldn’t be able to drain all those wetlands if the elevation was too high. Contractors constructed open ditch all the way through that area, but then ran tile through the outlet end of Rice Lake. There of course are now some restrictions, like interstate 94 that came through. That was a big part of it, that there was going to be repairs done where 94 was put in and the board wanted to make sure that MNDOT install large enough culverts. So, the ditch system was dramatically changed when the interstate was put in that affected the water table.
As there was no further comment from the public, Husom closed the public comment portion of the hearing for County Ditch 36.
Vetsch made a motion to rise and report to the full board an order accepting the redetermination of benefits and damages as described in the viewer’s report, second by Potter. Motion carried 4-0.
Husom closed the Public Hearings for County Ditch 20 and County Ditch 36.
Husom opened the Public Hearing for County Ditch 29.
1. Attorney comments on County Ditch 29 presented by Kryzer
This is a public hearing on the partial abandonment of Branch #1 of Wright County Ditch 29 under Minnesota statute section 103E.806.
The purpose of this hearing is to gather evidence and as to whether or not the part of the drainage system sought to be abandoned serves a substantial useful purpose or substantial public benefit and utility.
This is an evidentiary proceeding. The proceedings are being recorded in order to preserve the record.
The order of business for the hearings will be as follows. First, the Drainage Coordinator will present an overview of the County Ditch 29 and the petition for partial abandonment. Following the staff presentation, the petitioners will be permitted to present any evidence on their request to the Board. After the Petitioner has made their presentation, I will open the hearing for public comment. The Board would like to hear your comments on the proposed partial abandonment and any information relevant to that purpose.
Specifically, the Board is interested in:
• Whether it is missing information used to define the public purpose, use, benefit or utility of the portion of the system being abandoned.
• The extent and basis of any benefits or damages from the portion proposed to be abandoned.
• Whether and how your land drains to the portion proposed to be abandoned.
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 repairs on other portions of County Ditch #29. If such actions 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 petition on a partial abandonment of Branch 1. If approved, the partial abandonment would remove responsibility of the drainage authority to accept a repair petition, or make any repairs on this section of the ditch system
During the public hearing, commissioners may ask questions of staff or the petitioner 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 can readily resolve the question or enrich the testimony, the commissioner may ask me to have the appropriate staff member speak to the question. The Board Chair will exercise her judgment 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 you are recognized. Speak clearly and state your name and address for the record. If you have a specific question concerning the petition, 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.
I stand for any questions the board may have at this time, otherwise I yield my time back to the chair.
Husom thanked the public for coming to today’s public hearing and asked the board members if any wished to offer any further remarks before beginning. Vetsch commented that information on this system has been pieced to the board over a length of time and has now come to the final steps regarding the petition for partial abandonment.
Detjen gave the following presentation: Per statue the County received a petition for partial abandonment for the majority of branch 1 on County Ditch 29 from Thomas and Karen Mills. Branch 1 is in Clearwater Township, Section 18/Township 122 North/Range 26 West. The area proposed is on the western edge of Grover Avenue NW, which follows along Mills’ property and does go into the neighboring parcel, which is the Matthew Maier’s land. Branch 1 is not a part of the main line of the ditch and was meant to drain the wetland areas. The purpose of the petition is to maintain the wetlands acres in that area and not drain them.
Borrell asked what the elevation was to where the ditch would be abandoned to the neighbors south of that area. Detjen stated by abandoning this branch, the petitioners are acknowledging that, that part of the system can no longer be maintained. The Mills’ land without that branch functioning will likely contain more water. That wetland was drained and now it has reverted to wetlands acres. Detjen said he received a letter from Andrew Grean, from SWCD, stating the area is probably a type 3 wetland that has existed for more than 25 years.
Borrell, just wanted to make sure the petitioners know that they will probably still be benefited landowners on the system. The land classification may change, but it is likely they will still have some benefits. Kryzer added that we cannot make those presumptions without H2Over Viewers looking at that area and making the determination.
Husom opened the hearing for public comments.
Thomas Mills; 15766 Grover Ave NW, Clearwater MN 55320
I have been at this address for 25 years. The previous owners installed a big berm where the ditch goes under Grover Avenue and the tile had been busted up also. I don’t believe any water goes underneath that road any longer. I like the wetlands and I believe it is more beneficial to have the wetlands then anything else. It is all sand, and there is nothing but a beach there so the land is not good for anything else. I have 67 1⁄2 acres and allow Matt Maier to have cattle on my land. I spoke with Mr. Maier and he is fine with the petition.
Potter asked Mr. Mills if it was seasonal flooding on the wetland area and if it was not like a lake all the time. Mills agreed that was a true statement and one year the area was completely dry. During heavy rain falls it has been like a lake but does dry up within 6-8 weeks due to the soil being all sand.
Karen Durant; 15777 Forsythe Ave NW, Clearwater MN 55320
“Whether all my comments are appropriate for this proceeding or the next hearing on CD 29, I will still make a comment. I have a wonderful book, 1968 US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. They did a whole soil study for Wright County and Tom Mills is exactly right, his area never used to be water, it was just muck. Before we have another meeting, I think the County should correct the line on the map of where the system is, because it is completely wrong. The Property Owners report I received states I am a benefit of CD 29, when I am a recipient of CD 29. There is nothing in the document that shows I have water draining to the ditch system. The clay tile is destroyed, and it runs rapidly, and we are recipients of CD 29.
Husom inquired as to whether there has been a redetermination started on CD 29. Murphy stated that the viewers have started the process, but it was put on hold due to the petition for abandonment. Husom stated she appreciated Durant’s comments but that this issue will come back before the board during the redetermination proceedings.
Husom closed the public comments portion of the public hearing.
Commissioner Borrell moved that the board direct staff to prepare findings and an order consistent with the proceedings, including responses to all comments received through the public comment process; that the draft findings and order be written to grant the petition for a partial abandonment of Branch #1 of County Ditch 29; and that we rise and report this matter to the Board’s regular meeting on February 18, 2020, or by adjournment to an appropriate time on the Board’s agenda, at which meeting we will consider findings and an order for the proposed partial abandonment of County Ditch 29. Motion second by Vetsch. Motion carried 4-0.
Public hearing was adjourned.
County Drainage Authority Minutes Submitted by: Janice Edmonson, Drainage Administrator
(End of 1-14-20 Ditch COTW Public Hearing Minutes)
Hear The Repair Request Submitted By A Benefited Landowner On County Ditch #20.
A repair request was submitted by Richard J. Schmitz, a benefited landowner on County Ditch #20. The request is dated 2-02-20. Per MN Statute, the Drainage Authority must hear this petition for repairs and decide whether to move forward with this repair under MN Statutes 103E.715. Estimated cost is $80,000.
Detjen said the County has worked with this landowner in the past but a formal repair petition has never been submitted. In October 2019, approval was given to solicit bids for this area. The two repair requests by Schmitz added area to what was originally anticipated. Detjen said a work group meeting was held last week and it was decided to hold off on this project and look at it from a full system repair. There is another repair upstream for tile repair and this is just downstream of that. According to Statute, the Drainage Authority must hear the repair petition and determine how to move forward with it.
Vetsch moved to include this repair request in the entire ditch repair consideration. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Hear The Repair Request Submitted By A Benefited Landowner On County Ditch #16.
A repair request was submitted by Frank Lantto, a benefited landowner on County Ditch #16. The request is dated 1-24-20 and per MN Statute, the Drainage Authority must hear this petition for repairs and decide whether to move forward with this repair under MN Stat. 103E.715. Estimated cost is pending based on site investigation in the spring.
Detjen stated this repair request involves tiled areas. A small repair was completed by Mike Young in 2018, repairing a blowout and recovering the area. It appears there are more blowouts forming so more in-depth repair may be required. Detjen said it would be hard to determine that at this point with the snow cover. Most of the repairs authorized by the Board are under Statute 701, where the Board notices there is an area that needs repair and moves forward. Repairs by petition fall under Statute 715, which is different. The petition must be heard within a certain number of days to determine how to move forward with it.
Vetsch moved to authorize investigating the repair as soon as possible when environmental conditions allow and to report back to the Board with estimated repairs costs. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
Approve The Findings And Order Accepting The Viewer’s Report And Adopting The Redetermined Benefits For County Ditch #20
Detjen said that a change occurred in the redetermined benefits for County Ditch #20. The viewers reduced the damage payments for the buffer strip from $58,321.28 to $33,965.41. Detjen said viewers used CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) rates for some wetland areas. Borrell questioned whether the affected landowners were notified of the reduction.
Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, said that under MN Statute 103E.335, the Board is authorized to direct the viewers to change their valuation. Staff did that after review, as otherwise they were giving wetland parcels that are never going to be drained or altered a full buffer acquisition price as if it was prime ag land. Those wetlands have been there since the ditch was established. This is especially true for Ditch 36 as 90% of the ditch is wetland. Ditch 20 has a lot of wetland on the outlet portion. In summary, the Board is following statute which allows them to make this change.
Detjen said wetlands are classified as non-benefited acreage, so no assessment is charged for that acreage. In addition, that acreage is not contributing to repairs. It was decided not to give landowners prime ag values for the buffer strip along the wetland acreage. Detjen said they contacted Rinke Noonan for an opinion on this as well. On County Ditch #20, most of the damages are for the Robert Ney Park land.
Potter moved to adopt Resolution #20-13 approving the Findings and Order accepting the Viewers Report and Adopting The Redetermined Benefits for County Ditch #20. The motion was seconded by Borrell and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Approve The Findings And Order Accepting The Viewer’s Report And Adopting The Redetermined Benefits For County Ditch #36
Detjen said there was a more significant change to the damage payments for the redetermined benefits for County Ditch #36. The original amount was $59,563.64. After re-evaluation and consideration of the wetlands, that amount was reduced to $7,931.08.
Kryzer said this area is basically all wetlands, other than the outlet from Rice Lake. Vetsch asked whether the damage payment will be for 1-2 landowners. Kryzer said with the adjustment it will be, as it basically involves the area around the outlet. Vetsch said his concern is the reduction in what people may think they are receiving, which could be reduced to little or nothing. Kryzer said if it were decided to make damage payments on wetlands, those residents would receive a lot of money for land that is not worth anything and it would be funded by everyone on the ditch. After discussion, it was the consensus that these landowners should be noticed on the reduction in damage payments and provided an explanation for the reduction.
Vetsch moved to adopt Resolution #20-14 approving the Findings and Order accepting the Viewers Report and Adopting the Redetermined Benefits for County Ditch #36. The motion includes sending letters with an explanation on why the damage payments changed. The motion was seconded by Daleiden. Daleiden questioned whether it would be better to table the issue to allow people to comment. Vetsch said he did not want to expend the funds for another public hearing when the outcome may not change because of statute. He asked Kryzer whether the Board has any latitude on accepting the Viewers report.
Kryzer said the Board can elect to go back to the higher amount for the redetermined benefits, stay with the lower amount, or start over. The Board consensus was that if the damage payments were returned to $59,563.64, the others on the ditch would be unfairly charged. Vetsch said the report would not be equitable and could be challenged. He would like to give those on the ditch the opportunity to speak but the cost benefit is not there. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
2-11-20 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
At today’s County Board Meeting, Borrell said the Auditor/Treasurer was unavailable for the Workshop Meeting and asked for his comments. Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said he supports the recommendation for the Agricultural Drainage Coordinator Position. Moving him in closer proximity to the Ditch Inspector makes sense. Daleiden said that regarding the CAMA system, the Assessor recommends using both the tax and the assessing part. Hiivala said the conversations he has had with the Assessor are about CAMA. Before he commits to the tax portion of the contract, he would like to consult with staff. At a conference he recently attended, he spoke with representatives from Tyler and there are issues with the tax side of the equation. Vetsch moved to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion was seconded by Potter.
Vetsch asked for the Board’s direction on utilizing the services of Flaherty and Hood for a bill related to the State Vehicle Testing. There are two bills that could be finessed into one with the assistance of Flaherty and Hood. Daleiden said the State vehicle testing problem is a Statewide issue, not a County issue. Vetsch had hoped AMC (Association of Minnesota Counties) would spearhead the issue. Potter said it did not make the AMC platform, so AMC will not carry it forward. Daleiden said it should be brought to the legislators who make those decisions. Potter said legislative hearings will occur in the first part of March.
The following corrections were made to the Workshop Minutes:
- Page 3, 5th paragraph, sentence should read, “The Workshop recessed at 10:22 AM and resumed at 10:27 AM” (Husom)
- Page 5, 2nd paragraph, 5th line, “...PAQ (Position Analysis Questionnaire) ...”
- Page 6, Item VII, State Vehicle Testing, line 2, sentence should read, “The Buffalo testing site does 12 road tests per day, two days per week versus 20 at the Plymouth site per day. Each tester does 20 road tests per day.” (Daleiden)
Daleiden pointed out that the County is only contracting with Tyler for iasWorld CAMA and not the tax portion. He referenced the issues at the State level with the complexity of Minnesota’s tax system.
The motion to approve the minutes carried 5-0. The 2-11-20 Wright County Board Workshop Minutes follow:
The Wright County Board met in workshop session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Borrell, Daleiden, Potter, and Vetsch present.
I. Schedule Meetings As Needed
This item was moved until the end of the meeting.
Tour of Xcel Energy Monticello Nuclear Power Plant: Vetsch asked for three dates three weeks out and will send them to Xcel. The dates chosen were, in order of preference:
1) 3/26/20 from 9 A.M. till 1 P.M.
2) 3/16/20 from 9 A.M. till 2 P.M.
3) 3/19/20 from 9 A.M. till 1 P.M.
Administrator Performance Metrics:
Lee Kelly, County Administrator, suggested a closed session Committee Of The Whole regarding Administrator Performance Metrics on 3-05-20 at 10:30 A.M.
Strategic Planning for Week of 3-09-20:
Kelly said the next Board Workshop would have been 3-10-20. The March workshop will be on hold until further notice.
Dental Center Legislation:
Darek Vetsch, County Commissioner, said sponsors are needed for the Dental Center legislation. Representative Marion O’Neill encouraged the County to get Representative Dean Urdahl as the primary sponsor. A Senate sponsor is also needed. Vetsch asked the other Board members to contact Senator Mary Kiffmeyer, Andrew Matthews, or Bruce Anderson to see whether they would sponsor the Senate version. Borrell will contact Urdahl and try to schedule a time for Vetsch to meet with him next week. Mark Daleiden, County Commissioner, will email Kiffmeyer and Anderson.
Recommendations:
1) Vetsch will send the suggested dates and times to tour the Xcel Nuclear Power Plant in Monticello and will report back when he receives a response.
2) Schedule Closed Session of the Committee Of The Whole regarding Administrator Performance Metrics for 3-05-20 at 10:30 A.M.
3) Commissioners will continue to seek legislative sponsors for the Dental Center legislation.
II. Medical Examiner Report
Dr. A. Quinn Strobl, Wright County Medical Examiner, reported on deaths in the County in 2019 and distributed a document with details (see attached report). Strobl said 2019 was a busy year with 603 deaths reported versus 555 the previous year. She summarized the statistics from the report.
Recommendation: Informational only.
III. Woman Infants Children (WIC) Program
Sarah Grosshuesch, Public Health Director, provided background on the concerns regarding referrals and coordination between WIC and the Public Health Department. The WIC contract has been held by Wright County Community Action (WCCA) for many years. Grosshuesch met with other health departments in November of 2018. Carver and Scott Counties announced they would bring their WIC programs in-house. At that time, Jay Weatherford, WCCA Executive Director, said they would like to continue providing the WIC program. In October of 2019, Grosshuesch was approached by other counties to consider a one-WIC program. The contract from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) comes up every five years. The County would have the right of first refusal, after which WCCA could take over the program. It is not open for bid or a Request for Proposal. In November of 2019, Grosshuesch met with Carver and Scott Counties regarding a multi-county WIC program. They invited Wright County to join with them in a WIC program. She told them the County has a nonprofit agency implementing WIC. They suggested that she evaluate the County’s home visiting referral rates. Grosshuesch asked WCCA to provide documentation of their WIC home visitation referral rates from the last few years.
Grosshuesch distributed a report with WIC Referral information (see attached). Grosshuesch said the State grant requires the County to meet certain home visiting referral thresholds. Home visits provide good outcomes for mothers and babies. The County’s WIC referrals to other programs fall significantly below Sherburne and Stearns Counties. Schwartz said it is the goal of Health & Human Services to make sure that everyone in Wright County gets the services they need. Grosshuesch said WIC is a voluntary program, along with the Nurse Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, and First Steps programs.
Discussion continued regarding whether the County would have several locations for the WIC program, if transferred from WCCA. Vetsch said it should be less expensive for WCCA to administer the program than the County. Grosshuesch said last year’s reimbursement was $318,000, based on enrollment. MDH provides a quarterly payout. She added that the County could partner with other counties and achieve economies of scale. The new eWIC program has made it easier for clients to use the program.
Daleiden suggested scheduling a second County Board Workshop to continue this discussion.
Grosshuesch said she asked the State whether they are planning to mandate the County to take over the WIC contract. If so, the County will need more than a few months’ notice. She has not yet received a response. Schwartz said if the County takes over WIC, WCCA could possibly fill in the gaps in transportation and housing services that exist in the County. Both the County and WCCA want to address service gaps in the County. Grosshuesch said there needs to be more intensive partnerships. The home visitation referral data is a concern.
Weatherford and Amy Kortisses, WCCA Program Planning Specialist, presented a PowerPoint presentation about WCCA’s administration of the WIC and other programs (see attachment). Kortisses said the WIC program is very important. The families that combined early Head Start home visiting with other home visiting experienced improved outcomes. Weatherford said WIC, Head Start, and Energy Assistance are the foundation of the WCCA operation. Taking out one would have a substantial impact. WCCA focuses primarily on serving Wright County. Out of 44 community agencies in the State, WCCA is one of three community agencies that focus their services in only one county. Comparing slides 2 and 3, Weatherford said the State data doesn’t correspond to WCCA data. The agency’s written referrals are not making it to the State. Regardless, Weatherford said their goal is to increase their referrals. He said slide 4 showing percentages is more comparable to WCCA statistics and presents a more balanced picture.
Weatherford referred to Slides 7 through 9. When non-written referrals are included (those not tracked by the State), the numbers improve. Slides 10 and 11 show referrals to other services. Weatherford said while those referrals are good, home visiting referrals are not. He referred to Slide 12 and said that with education and communication, written referrals are increasing now that WCCA staff were made aware of the referral system to the Nurse Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, and First Steps programs. The First Steps program was launched last July. His staff learned of First Steps last month. Kortisses said the WIC team has been trained on the relationships between the three programs and are more informed of available options.
Weatherford said some clients are reluctant to use services through the County. That presents a challenge when trying to refer them to County programs. The WCCA home visiting program could be expanded through Federal funds.
Kortisses said they have seen a 20 percent growth in WIC in 2019 over 2018 due to the eWIC process. The eWIC program gives the user a debit card, which is easier and less obvious at time of purchase than the old voucher system.
Recommendation: Schedule another discussion of the Women Infants Children Program (WIC) for a future workshop in March or April.
The Workshop recessed at 10:22 A.M. and resumed at 10:27 A.M.
IV. CAMA – Tax
Tony Rasmuson, County Assessor, said the Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative (MCCC) decided to change vendors. Rasmuson said he informed the County Board of this in early August. It is critical that they find a Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) Tax product. The current product expires in 2021. Rasmuson would like a new system in place before then.
Andrea Benedict, Business Analyst in the Information Technology (IT) Department, said the County CAMA Tax revenue data is living in an outdated AS400 IBM main frame. IT is working to find a host with expertise in that field. They do not want to find at some point that tax statements and items can’t be processed and there is no backup. They have done demonstrations with other counties. There is another system in SharePoint that was supported by IT employees. Some of that functionality won’t be available if the County goes to another system. They need to find a product that works versus overlapping or duplicating efforts. AS400 is a main frame that lives on a server. It is extremely old. IT does not have anyone who knows how this program was structured, and there is little documentation. IBM no longer supports it. IT is looking at cloud-based systems.
Rasmuson provided two quotes (see attachments):
1) Tyler iasWorld CAMA and Tax Billing & Collection ($421,838); and
2) Tyler Cashiering SaaS ($80,780), Field Mobile & Services ($66,900).
Rasmuson said he recommends Tyler for both packages as the best solution. Other counties are choosing Tyler as well. Funding has been earmarked for the Tax and CAMA projects for a long time. Rasmuson said Cashiering is a separate module. The Auditor/Treasurer’s office will decide whether they want that module. They have seen a demonstration. Rasmuson said at this point the recommendation is to proceed with the Tyler CAMA and Tax product, and leave the Cashiering and Field Mobile modules as optional until CAMA and Tax are installed.
Rasmuson would like authorization to pursue a contract with Tyler. Time is of the essence. The County would get placed on a list in order for conversion. Six counties comparable to Wright have already signed up with Tyler. He would then bring the contract to the County Board for approval. He and his staff went to Dakota to see a Tyler demonstration. They saw a Vision demonstration at Chisago County, which is CAMA only. He has worked with Andrea Benedict, a Business Analyst in IT, Alek Halverson at the Surveyor’s Office on GIS, and also with the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office. Tyler is working on a ditch application to be used in the future. The Tyler system offers many benefits to the County.
Rasmuson would like to talk with the Attorney’s Office regarding the contract, and also with Benedict regarding integrating some SharePoint functionality with the Tyler application. They said there were parts of their current application that could be used by the County, but other parts would have to be integrated. The functionality is related to Parcel maintenance and name or address changes.
Rasmuson said the $310,500 quoted for the CAMA and Tax product may be closer to $320,000 due to additional programming hours to customize them to accommodate Wright County-specific workflows. Rasmuson said implementation may take more than 18 months.
Vetsch said to go forward with the CAMA as it has been well vetted. Unless the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office decides against the Tax portion, it is likely they would move forward with that product as well.
Vetsch said the total cost is approximately $580,000 for all components. Rasmuson said some of that cost will be delayed until he gets more information on better pricing on the Field Mobile application. It won’t be needed until the CAMA is installed. This will all be overseen on the Cloud. IT resources will not be needed as much.
Recommendation: Authorize contracting with Tyler for iasWorld CAMA, Tax Billing, Cashiering, and Field Mobile modules, with the understanding that the latter three may not be installed until a later date.
V. Additional Repairs for County Ditch 20
Matt Detjen, Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator, said last October they moved forward with repairs for County Ditch 20. They found issues are worse than previously thought. He distributed a multi-page document with details on the repairs to be made and satellite photos of the areas and costs to be repaired (see attached). The original bid came in at $72,500 for placing 2,500 feet of 12” dual-wall tile, proper bedding, and connections to the existing system. They found there are additional areas that need to be repaired as shown on the photos. The main issue is a portion of the repairs are flowing into a basin which is a public waters wetland overseen by the Department of Natural Resources. They will need to be notified regarding the repairs. It is more involved than originally thought. He has discussed the design of the structure with the Soil and Water Conservation District Engineer.
Discussion continued regarding redetermination of benefits costs. Vetsch said those costs could run about $200,000 plus the previous repairs, along with the $72,500 mentioned above. Detjen said there is also another repair request for County Ditch 20 that he just received that will be about $25,000. Vetsch said at some point the Board will need to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether affected landowners are getting enough benefit to charge them for the repairs.
Detjen the type of tile used in the 1980’s was single-walled tile that was buried 12 to 13 feet deep. That was too much pressure and should be replaced regardless. In addition, a landowner may have caused some of the issues, although that can’t be proven. Now they are looking at about $100,000 to replace the entire line of tile through those two basins. The tile line is completely nonfunctional. There is no water running through the County Ditch line. Detjen said water flows from two basins to Mink and Somers Lake, and then flows south. This repair benefits one land owner in particular. He recommends doing this additional work on top of the original work. The best approach would be to have a full repair plan. The consensus was to get a bid from Houston regarding the cost and extent of repairs.
Recommendation: Authorize Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator to contact Houston Engineering regarding the extent and cost of a complete repair to County Ditch 20. Current contracts should be cancelled.
VI. Agricultural Drainage Coordinator Position
Marc Mattice, Parks and Recreation Director said there has been discussion in the past year about an Agricultural and Ditch Inspector position that would do labor and work with ditch records. Throughout this process, there have been discussions with Detjen about what Department he should work in, and his role with the proposed Inspector position. The Parks Department has purchased a truck and trailer for the new Inspector position, and have developed a PAQ (Position Analysis Questionnaire) and a job description. Mattice has discussed with Detjen about potentially becoming a division of the Parks and Recreation Department. If Detjen transfers to Parks and Recreation, he would take over the supervisory role of the proposed Inspector position from the Parks Maintenance Supervisor. Detjen’s job description would need to be updated to include the supervision component and his position repointed. Storage for equipment, work spaces for both Detjen and the new Inspector, and adjustments to the budget need to be discussed.
Vetsch said his vision would be to create separate line items such as Ditches. There would be revenue lines for grant funds and for monies charged back through redetermination of benefits, for example. There was discussion about other budgeting options. Detjen said this new position would be paid out of the General fund and would be a joint position with possibly a 50/50 split. Daleiden said it makes sense for Detjen to be located at the Parks and Recreation Department. Detjen said some statutory details have to be worked through with the Auditor/Treasurer regarding petitions that have to be filed with the Auditor/Treasurer, handling assessments, mailings, and other items. Mattice said Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, told him Detjen’s transfer would leave a void related to elections, but he understands the fit.
The consensus was to authorize the transfer of the Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator from the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office to Parks and Recreation under the supervision of the Parks and Recreation Director.
Detjen will be able to access records online. His biggest concern is when assessments are sent out and residents come to the Auditor/Treasurer Office with questions. He wants to be able to help staff out at that busy time.
Mattice said he and Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, are proposing that the County Board adopt a resolution regarding the processes done by the Auditor/Treasurer, and that a division of the Parks and Recreation Department called Agricultural and Drainage be developed. Details should be included about what that encompasses, where those roles and responsibilities lie, and how funding will be allocated. The processes Detjen follows would not change. The day-to-day supervision would shift from Hiivala to Mattice. Some budget details may change such as developing an Agricultural and Drainage workbook.
Discussion followed regarding available office space at the Public Works Building, the costs, and configuration. Mattice said there is a need for additional storage for the Ditch equipment and tools. After discussion, Mattice was directed to speak with Virgil Hawkins, Highway Engineer, regarding use of the shed south of the impound lot or Shed A.
Mattice will also talk with IT regarding developing a page for Agriculture and Drainage page on the County web site. With this transfer, Mattice said his job description will change as well.
Recommendations:
1) Authorize transfer of Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator Position from the Auditor/Treasurer to Parks and Recreation.
2) Authorize Parks and Recreation Director and the Auditor/Treasurer to work together regarding adding a division budget for Agriculture and Drainage.
3) Authorize work spaces to be dedicated at the Public Works Building for the Agricultural and Drainage Coordinator and proposed Inspector positions.
2) Direct Parks and Recreation Director to discuss use of a shed for with the Highway Engineer.
VII. State Vehicle Testing
Becky Aanerud, License Bureau Supervisor, said she has only heard hearsay. The State testing stations are extremely short of examiners and staff members. The Buffalo testing site does 12 road tests per day, two days per week versus 20 at the Plymouth site per day. Each tester does 20 road tests per day. They are booking out months in advance. Vetsch said the State will not hire any more examiners, which means the problem will never be solved.
Discussion continued regarding a proposed legislative amendment to Minn. Stat. § 171.13, Subdivision 1 to create a third-party testing program and authorize the appointment of third-party testers to administer any knowledge, road or skills tests as required under this section and as defined in Minn. Rule 7410.4100, subpart 11. This would allow a deputy registrar to establish and collect fees for any knowledge test, or combination thereof, not exceeding $5.00 and for the road or skills tests not exceeding $30.00.
Vetsch said Kryzer drafted the potential bill. Representatives Eric Lucero and Marion O’Neill are interested in this bill and its potential to address the problem. Daleiden said he didn’t think this bill will pass this year, but will stimulate interest and hopefully action to improve the situation. Kryzer said Lucero already jacketed the proposed bill. It is in process. Kryzer also talked with the lobbyist for the Deputy Registrar’s Association. He is in favor of the amendment, provided it is only passed as an add-on to the fee increase they are pushing right now. He does not want this to be a substitute for the fee increase. He was happy with the proposed legislation.
Vetsch said this bill would delegate county deputy registrars to do vehicle testing.
Recommendation: Informational only.
The meeting adjourned at 12:24 P.M.
County Board Workshop Minutes submitted by Deb Schreiner, Administrative Specialist
(End of 2-11-20 County Board Workshop Minutes
ADVISORY COMMITTEE / ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
1. Administrator Updates:
A. Soil & Water Conservation District Planning Meeting. The meeting was attended by Kelly and members of the Board. Borrell referenced the excellent cooperation and buy in from the agricultural community.
B. ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Meetings. This week’s focus is Human Resources related. Next will be the benefits administration piece.
C. Negotiations. Last week, negotiation meetings were held with the 49er’s and an agreement will be presented to the Board in the next few weeks. A meeting with AFSCME will be held later this week.
2. Monticello Safe Schools Meeting. Vetsch attended. Letters are being sent to students on missing school. The letters are sent out uniformly instead of hand picking who they should be sent to.
3. Buffalo Safe Schools. Husom attended a recent meeting. February is “I love to read” month. She encouraged reading to students at area schools. Other discussion at the meeting centered on the inequity of funding for different schools.
4. Mentorship Education and Drug Awareness Meeting. Husom said the group is looking at a drug-free communities grant which will provide $125,000/year for five years. That funding will go a long way toward drug education. An overdose map was reviewed by the group reflecting 57 overdoses in 2019 from multiple substances. Not all were opioids. Sixteen people received Narcan and fourteen lives were saved. There was a presentation from Know The Truth, which is part of the Adult and Teen Challenge. As part of their presentations at schools, anonymous surveys are completed. Data obtained shows that in Wright County, 24% of students indicated they are using drugs, 41% admitted to nicotine use, and 75% admitted to using e-cigarettes. Husom said grants are available to schools that implement programs related to making good choices on these substances. Public Health has become more involved with the program which has been positive.
5. Husom said there is an urgent need for drivers for the Volunteer Transportation Program. They provide transportation to schools, medical appointments, visitations, etc. The Program is through Health and Human Services.
6. Husom said there is a need for foster care for teens. For more information, contact Health and Human Services.
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 A.M.
Minutes submitted by Susan Backes, Clerk to the County Board
Warrants Approved For Payment 1/30/2020
Warrant Amount
Bond Trust Services Corp. 167,730.00
Final total $167,730.00
Published in the Herald Journal March 6, 2020