HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 10-10-1986CITY OF
PUMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1986
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS...,..
1. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE TRAINING WORKSHOP --
5:00 p.m. Mr. Clayton Le evere of the aw firm
Kennedy, O'Brien and Drawz will conduct
fundamentals of parliamentary procedure for
Commission members and City staff in the City
light dinner will be provided.
Tuesday, October 14,
of LeFevere, Lefler,
a workshop on the
City Council and
Center lunchroom. A
2. TOWN MEETING - AREA 2 •-- Tuesday, October 14, 7:30 p.m. The Town
Meeting for Area 2 will be held in the City Council Chambers. A
copy of the invitation and agenda is attached. (M-2)
3. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, October 20, 7:30 p.m. Plymouth
Forum at p.m.
4. ALPHA HUMAN SERVICES COMMUNITY MEETINGS -- Thursday, October 16, and
Monday, October 20. Alpha Human Services will hold the final two
community meetings at its facility, 2712 Fremont Avenue South,
beginning at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission will continue its
consideration of the petition on Wednesday, October 22.
5. CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for October, November and December
are attached. (M-5)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT RESERVE FUND -- As required by law, we
published Public Notice of theCouncil's intent to levy $220,000 for the
Infrastructure Replacement Reserve fund in the City's official newspaper
on September 25. Law provides that if petitions are served on the City
Clerk within ten days following such Public Notice, signed by a number
of voters equal to ten percent of those who voted in the last general
election, the levy may not; be certified until it has been favorably
voted upon by the citizens. No petition was received by the City Clerk
with respect to this levy, and accordingly, the levy will be certified
to Hennepin County for collection in 1987.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
1.111 1.VURU1L 1wrUnMM11UML MLrIUMANUUM
October 10, 1986
Page two
1. PLYMOUTH METROLINK - SEPTEMBER REPORT -- Shown below is a table
displaying our average daily ridership for the commuter/reverse
commuter, internal circulator and total system for each week of
September. The second table displays the year to date averages in
each service area compared with the target which we must achieve in
order to have a successful project.
MONTHLY
PLYMOUTH METROLINK
DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY WEEK BY SERVICE TYPE
SEPTEMBER 1986
Total
System
SERVICE TYPE
Commuter/
Internal
Total
TARGET
337
Reverse Commuter
Circulator
System
WEEK OF:
- 9%
+ .3%
9/1 - 9/5
347
37
384
9/6 - 9/12
365
31
396
9/13 - 9/19
353
38
391
9/20 - 9/26
343
29
372
9/27 - 9/30
361
29
390
-----------------
MONTH LONG
------------------
-------------
----------------
AVERAGE
354
33
387
YEAR TO DATE
Item
Commuter/
Reverse Commuter
Internal
Circulator
Total
System
YEAR TO DATE
RIDERSHIP AVERAGE
343
51
394
TARGET
337
56
393
% OVER/(UNDER)
TARGET
+ 1.8%
- 9%
+ .3%
Ll I T l UUNLIL 1Nt UKMA 1 lUNAL MtM)KAMUUM
October 10, 1986
Page three
A number of observations are in order:
1. Internal circulator ridership dropped substantially in September
averaging only 33 passengers per day, which is below the 42
passengers per day average established in September 1985. The
drop in ridership during September was anticipated as a result
of students returning to school.
2. As expected, the commuter/reverse commuter portion of the
service gained in September with an average of 354 persons per
day, which is above the 332 posted in September 1985. This
portion of the service should continue to strengthen as the year
progresses.
3. In terms of our system -wide ridership target of 393 passengers
per day, we remain slightly above our goal by one at 394
passengers per day.
DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY
MONTH
FOR CALENDAR
YEARS
1984 -
1986
SERVICE
TYPE
Commuter/
Internal
Total
Reverse Commuter
Circulator
System
MONTH:
1984
1985
1986
1984
1985
1986
1984
1985
1986
January
330
307
351
21
51
40
351
358
391
February
310
292
350
25
50
47
335
342
394
March
307
311
338
25
56
64
332
367
402
April
301
295
354
27
55
44
331
350
398
May
295
298
332
27
36
35
322
334
367
June
276
314
349
41
53
64
317
367
413
July
277
297
328
42
52
62
319
349
390
August
266
292
328
47
57
73
313
349
401
September
275
322
354
32
42
33
307
364
387
October
276
312
36
55
312
367
November
271
311
35
57
306
368
December
265
320
39
52
304
372
--------------
YEAR LONG
-------------------
------------------
--------------------
AVERAGE
287
306
343
36
51
51
321
357
394
L11 T LUUNLIL 1Nr UKMA 11UW%L MtM MMUUM
October 10, 1986
Page four
3. VISIT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE -- Thursday
morning, we met with three representatives of Moody's Investors
Service for breakfast at the Radisson Inn. Following breakfast and
a tour of the community, I had an opportunity to chat briefly with
Ms. Diana Roswick, Assistant Vice President; Steve Hochman,
Assistant Vice President, Manager of Midwestern Regional Ratings;and
William Streeter, Analyst, regarding their impressions. They were
particularly impressed with the presence of both the Council members
and the staff at the breakfast and the exchange of information.
Apparently, they do not frequently have the opportunity of meeting
with so many council members and staff persons at the same time.
They obviously were not in a position of making any commitments to
the City with respect to future bond ratings, however, I am
confident that the impressions they received during their visit were
highly favorable. A letter thanking Moody's representatives for
their visit is attached. (I-3)
4. JEFF HOWARD -- City Attorney dim Thomson called me Friday morning to
report that the five cases the City was pressing against Mr. Howard
have now been resolved. Mr. Howard plead guilty to a dog license
violation and received a 30 day sentence to the Hennepin County
Adult Corrections facility, which sentence was stayed for one year
subject to no further violations of the City's ordinances. He also
was fined $100 for this offense. A second complaint involving an
animal trespass was continued for a period of one year, and there-
after will be dismissed providing no similar offense occurs. Costs
of $50 were assessed. Three other cases, two of which were nuisance
complaints and one animal trespass complaint, were dismissed.
5. ANNUAL ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES LEGISLATIVE POLICY
MEETING -- The AMM has scheduled its annual egislative Po icy
Td -option meeting for Thursday, November 6. The meeting will be held
at the Fox and Hounds Restaurant (I -35E and Larpenteur Avenue in
Maplewood) commencing at 5:30 p.m. Dinner will be served between
6:30 and 7:30 p.m., with the adoption meeting commencing at 7:30
p.m. and concluding around 9:30 p.m. Reservations for this event
are to be made by November 3. Please let Laurie know if you plan to
attend. Attached are copies of the proposed 1987-88 legislative
policies of the AMM for your review.
6. EMPLOYEE SAFETY LUNCHEON -- On Thursday, October 2, we conducted our
9th annual Employee Safety Luncheon at the Radisson Inn Plymouth.
Over 100 City employees participated in the two luncheons held.
Fifty employees won cash for their safety activities. Dave Volker,
Safety Director for Employee Benefit Administration Company, our
Workers' Compensation administrator, complimented City employees on
another excellent year from an accident prevention standpoint. He
cited statistics (see attached) regarding the vehicular and personal
injury accidents in which City employees have been involved in the
last year. Each participant in the Safety Luncheon received a key
chain as a token of the City's appreciation for their participation
in the Plymouth Employee Safety Program. I've enclosed a key chain
for each Councilmember. (I-6)
L11T LUUNLIL 1NtUKMAI1UNAL MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1986
Page five
7. LELS REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ARBITRATION DECISION -- In my last
memorandum, I advised the Council that Roland Miles, representing
Plymouth Police Officers for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
has requested that two aspects of the Arbitrator's award be
clarified. I'm attaching for Council information, a copy of Mr.
Mile's lengthy arguments in this regard. Also attached is a
two-page letter from the City Attorney's office setting forth the
City's position on the matter. We hope to receive a ruling from the
Arbitrator within the next four weeks in order that we can proceed
with the implementation of the 1986-1988 Labor Agreement for police
officers and investigators. (I-7)
8. GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION AWARD -- Plymouth Police Officer Sohn Stirratt
filed a grievance earlier this year concerning the amount of time he
owed the City for 1984 and 1985 during his paid suspension period.
A hearing was held on this matter by the Minnesota Bureau of
Mediation Services on duly 22, 1986. Attached for your information
is a copy of the Arbitrator's decision and award, together with a
memorandum from Frank Boyles to Dick Carlquist on this subject.
(I-8)
9. ALPHA HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE -- The City has received the attached
correspondence this past week concerning the Alpha House facility.
Copies of the Mayor's response to each letter is also attached.
(I-9)
10. COUNCIL FOLLOW UPS:
a. Community Improvement Reminder Cards -- The following City staff
responses to Community Improvement Reminder Cards submitted by
Councilmembers are attached:
Trash and debris on vacant lot adjacent to 4040 Pilgrim Lane -
Dave Crain
- Erosion at Larch Lane between 45th and 47th Avenues -Bob Zitur
(I -10a)
b. Easement to Medicine Lake - 28th Avenue & Evergreen Lane --
n September, Mr. Harry bauer, who lives M the area -77 -the
easement to Medicine Lake, contacted me to request the City
remove weeds and debris from the easement prior to ice fishing
season. Mr. Bauer indicated that neighbors had placed various
debris on the easement. In addition, since the easement is not
used generally by the public in the summer months, that it had
become overgrown by weeds. All work requested by Mr. Bauer was
completed by City crews on October 4.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1986
Page six
11. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter to State Department of Revenue Commissioner Tom Triplett,
from Senator Jim Ramstad, on the Department's interpretation of
the transit "tax feathering" statutes. Also attached is a
letter to Mr. Triplett from Roger Peterson, Legislative Affairs
Director for the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities.
(I -11a)
b. Letter of congratulations to Plymouth Volunteer Fire Department
from Mayor Schneider, on the Department's October 5 open house
at Fire Station 2. (I -11b)
c. Letter of appreciation from Thomas Kellenher, Kellenher
Construction, Inc., for assistance provided by Mike Kluczyk,
Building Inspector. (I -11c)
d. Memorandum from Public Safety Director concerning a police
appreciation night sponsored by the Plymouth Lions on Tuesday,
October 14. (I -11d)
e. Memorandum from Sara McConn regarding building modifications and
site modification for the Progress Casting Group facility
located at 2600 Niagara Lane. (I -11e)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:Jm
attach
September 29, 1986
CITY OF
PUMOUTR
Dear Plymouth Resident:
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING, OCTOBER 14
Because Plymouth is a developing community, there are many actions underway
or in the planning stage which could impact upon you. In order to maintain
open communication channels with residents of the community, the City
Council has scheduled a Town Meeting for Tuesday, October 14 for residents
of your area. In order to keep the meetings on an informal basis while
dealing with specific topics of interest to you, the Town Meeting will be
for residents living north of Highway 55 east of I-494 around the southerly
portion of Medicine Lake north to 17th Avenue on the east and County Road 9
on the west. (See map below.)
The Town Meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Plymouth City
Center. On the reverse side of this letter is a list of possible topics for
discussion at the Town Meeting. If you have other matters of interest we
will seek to address these also.
I encourage you to join Councilmembers Crain, Vasiliou, Sisk, Zitur and
myself at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 14 at the Plymouth City Center. We
are anxious to meet you and look forward to this opportunity to meeting
informally to discuss matters of mutual interest. If you have any questions
about the Town Meeting, please feel free to call your City Clerk, Ms. Laurie
Brandt at 559-2800, ext. 204.
Sincerely,
1 .A)a0000%,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESGTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
AKLA IWU
October 14, 1986
7:30 p.m.
I. THOROUGHFARES
A. 10th Avenue/frontage road improvements.
B. Relocation of West Medicine Lake Boulevard from 12th Avenue to 23rd
Avenue along Forestview Lane alignment.
C. Access points from residential properties to Highway 55
D. County Road 9 construction project.
II. DRAINAGE
A. Bassett Creek/Medicine Lake control structure. Corps of Army
Engineers proposes to relocate control structure to the north side
of the railroad tracks south of 13th Avenue.
III. PARKS
A. County Road 61 Neighborhood Park
B. West Medicine Lake Park
*IV. DEVELOPMENT
A. Groves Office Park
B. Northwest Business Campus
C. Commercial development
V. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Police/Fire Report
B. Neighborhood Watch Program
VI. OTHER ITEMS
A. Solid Waste Recycling
B. 2-5 a.m. parking ban
C. Local Government Cable Access Channel 7,
D. Public Transportation Feedback - Plymouth Metrolink
* NOTE: The Alpha Human Services petition will not be discussed at this
meeting. Separate community meetings are scheduled for October 7,
9, 16 and 20 for this purpose. The October 7 and 9 meetinqs are
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The October
16 and 20 meetings are scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at 2712 Fremont
South, Minneapolis.
-Q-
bl� 00
o t—
tn
W
GC
U
� z x C�
U
dtO'1Q
PaLr�OU
c�
O
C\l
w.
w
I
• x
Z w ;
z
Hacuo
o
Lo
Ln0°4
Z t1
r�
I
o U
I
i
RF
n
z
O
H 9 H
T
i
P.. i
1
�
^tell
W I
�I
I
o t—
tn
W
GC
U
� z x C�
U
dtO'1Q
PaLr�OU
O
C\l
w.
�
• x
Z w ;
z
Hacuo
o
Lo
Ln0°4
Z t1
r�
z�
o U
I
i
RF
o t—
tn
W
GC
U
� z x C�
U
dtO'1Q
PaLr�OU
cq
O
C\l
w.
�
• x
Z w ;
z
Hacuo
o
Lo
Ln0°4
Z t1
r�
00
o U
r-.4
en
n
z
H 9 H
P.. i
F+ v'1H�U
CAU
O
ra.
a O
cq
00
Ln
N
Q
w
cn
H
W
a
O
C\l
�
• x
Z w ;
z
Hacuo
o
cq
Z t1
r�
a.M
N '�
O U
^,
cV
U
U,
O
P.. i
00
Ln
N
Q
w
cn
H
W
a
�
• x
Z w ;
z
Hacuo
o
Ey U
Z t1
r�
a.M
N '�
00
F+ v'1H�U
CAU
I
H w!
U
w
Aj 6
c�c
U E x
a
'caal�
to
oa
O
U O U
0
U 0 U
6.2
U
u •U
U
I+u
44Cd;�U
�
u
W U
00
Ln
N
Q
w
cn
H
W
a
cc
W
m
W
O
Z
W
LO
C\l
`v l
cq
I
iv`
I
i
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
w
U
>+ H A
A W Cf)
i
I
I
H
U
H^,
'�
H
a o 0
l y
, V
aH
x H U
i
j i
I
U o
M
•• O
I
I
I �
U
Ca
oa
ZUP4
zzo
c
c
Dov
•.
C� M
WN n
a po
a
CL
H n H
6zU
n H
I
j
oao�
ooC)xo�
azo
c�.azUl
d i
W
U
I
N
CIO
O Ln
00
N J
gH
^iV?+
O�
UII
x H U
442
O a H
j
rz
I
j
to
M
W
w
Lo I w
1-4 L4
5U,`i
cn
A
�nN?N
U�PCI
W
UPCi( cn
oUcn
0UcU
M
O
�� r�
M a
W a
^
9 a
n H Y1
�O
d n H
LLJ
0N^c�
OM
I
W C7
I
U
azo
O.E.,r��Oj
c°,a�z�I
U C7
c°��zv
Lo -v
Ll. Co
Lu co
C\l
i�l
w ^
1�' ✓
/�/���
c 3
^:0
/c/�am�
Lo
cq
r
i
i
Vi
V]
i
t
J
wi
M
Li. Liz
'^
U
W
i r�
cq
I
C C) O
w
Ln
•�
^�
$4
a � U
In
cq
c lob
I
"41
A UI
Ogo � Oi
I
i
'�
oa•
Lo
cq
ooa'
o
U oU
I c
U
r]
«5L
14
ff�GU
cq
c i
October 10, 1986
CITY C�
PLYMOUTH+
Ms. Diana Roswick
Assistant Vice President
Moody's Investors Service
99 Church Street
New York, N.Y. 10007
Dear Diana:
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to meet with you yesterday
morning here in Plymouth. The brief meeting you had with our Council
members and staff hopefully gave you some insight into not only the caliber
of the persons serving Plymouth, but also their foresight and commitment to
the City's future. I am sure you now appreciate even more the City
Council's commitment to fiscal planning and stability. Our Council,
together with City staff members, continue to work diligently to insure that
we plan effectively for the future and yet execute those plans in a
conservative fashion.
The tour of Plymouth that- we provided you was far too brief to give you a
true picture of the overall quality of our community. I hope, however, it
gave you a taste. On your next visit I hope we would have more time to
spend with you in order that we can show you more of our community, and
perhaps meet with others who might give you additional insights regarding
Plymouth, its future and its fiscal strengths.
Please extend our thanks also to Steve Hockman and Bill Streeter for their
meeting with us. I know you were all extremely busy during your stay here
in the Twin Cities, and I therefore appreciate all the more the fact that
you made time in your schedule to visit our community.
Yours truly,
J ��----
mes G. Willis
Ci y Manager
OGW:jm
cc: Mayor & City Council
Mr. Steve Apfelbacher, Ehlers & Associates
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
. �.... .w.. v.•i ��n nwnnu rnvwv%n
VEHICLE ACCIDENT PROFILE
1986
1985
1984
1983
TOTAL VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS REVIEWED BY SAFETY COMMITTEE:
17
19
22
18
Total Accidents Determined Preventable:
4
9
12
10
Total Accidents Determined Non -Preventable:
13
9
10
8
Total Accidents Undeterminable:
0
1
0
0
1. Three accidents occurred while backing up a City vehicle. (1985 - 4)
2. Twelve of the accidents involved collisions with other vehicles. (1985 - 10)
Four of these accidents were considered preventable. (1985 - 3)
3. Two accidents involved a City vehicle rearending another vehicle. (1985 - 1)
4. The following were contributing factors in four accidents:
a. Snow and Ice - One accident (1985 - 3)
b. Fog - One accident
c. Vehicle exhaust - One accident
d. Obstructed view (trees) at intersection - One accident
5. Four preventable accidents occurred during the daytime. (1985 - 6)
6. There were zero preventable accidents occurring during evening hours.
(1985 - 1)
7. Two accidents occurred when city vehicles collided with parked
veFiicles. (1985- 2)
8. Four accidents occurred while plowing snow (1985 - 2). Two of these accidents
occurred as the result of city plows improperly tripping.—TT985 - 0)
9. Two accidents involved police squad cars protecting accident
scenes. Both vehicles were stationary and had their emergency lights
activated. (1985 - 0)
10. One city vehicle was struck while responding to an emergency call for
assistance. (1985 - 1)
11. Two of the preventable accidents involved temporary Park Maintenance employees
X85-0)
12. Two of the preventable accidents involved Police Department employees. (1985
=4 )
13. Two accidents involved personal injury to employees. (1985 - 1)
14. Fire, City Center (office), Public Works Streets, Sewer and Water, Equipment
Center, and Park Maintenance (permanent full time employees) had a record
of ZERO preventable accidents.
15. Vehicula acci ents resulted in an estimated $6,870 damage to City vehicles.
(1985 -8,090
THREE YEAR AWARD = Total 1
PS POL Oie, Timothy 3
FOUR YEAR AWARD = Total 8
ADM
ADM
ONE YEAR AWARD =
Total 13
CD
BLD
Kilian, Don
1
CD
BLD
McLellan, Scott
1
CD
BLD
Rasmusson, Arnold
1
PR
ENV
Cook, Steve
1
PR
PARK
Brown, Ruth
1
PS
FIRE
Elliott, Dwan
1
PS
FIRE
Nolting, Jim
1
PS
FIRE
Robinson, Lyle
1
PS
FIRE
Scofield, Stan
1
PS
FIRE
Sheldon, Rick
1
PS
POL
Barg, Steve
1
PS
POL
Buske, Michael
1
PW
STR
Koncar, Michael
1
TWO YEAR AWARD =
Total 6
CD
BLD
Ryan, Joe
2
PS
POL
Bevins, Mark
2
PS
POL
Lindman, Craig
2
PS
POL
Thompson, David
2
PW
ENG
Campbell, Dan
2
PW
ENG
Goldberg, Sherm
2
THREE YEAR AWARD = Total 1
PS POL Oie, Timothy 3
FOUR YEAR AWARD = Total 8
ADM
ADM
Brandt, Laurie 4
PR
PARK
Patterson, Mary 4
PR
PMT
King, Bruce 4
PR
PMT
Wenner, John 4
PS
POL
Herman, Richard 4
PS
POL
Wronski, Marynia 4
PW
S&W
Morris, Alex 4
PW
STR
Pouti, Gary 4
FIVE YEAR AWARD = Total 10
CD
PLAN
Cottingham, Al 5
CD
PLAN
McConn, Sara 5
FIN
ACC
Hahn, Dale 5
FIN
ACC
Kelly, Thomas 5
FIN
ACC
Sulander, Daryl 5
PW
S&W
Konop, Gil 5
PW
S&W
Ritter, James 5
PW
STR
Schmitz, Kenneth 5
PW
STR
Smith, Gary 5
PW
STR
Wenner, Roger 5
- =—
SIX YEAR AWARD = Total 13
FIN
ASG
Bye, Nancy 6
PR
PARK
Blank, Eric 6
PR
PARK
Busch, Rick 6
PR
PMT
Heitke, Dan 6
PS
POL
Duerksen, Dale 6
PS
POL
Forslund, Karen 6
PS
POL
Franz, Joel 6
PS
POL
Larson, Theodore 6
PS
POL
Nelson, Mary 6
PS
POL
Way, Robin Luke 6
PW
ENG
Johnson, Darrell 6
PW
ENG
Johnson, Robert 6
PW
STR
Eccles, Jon 6
SEVEN YEAR AWARD = Total 16
CD
PLAN
Tremere, Blair
7
FIN
ACC
Tufte, John
7
FIN
ASG
Hovet, Scott
7
FIN
ASG
Mauderer, Susan
7
PR
PMT
Hanson, Jim
7
PS
POL
Carlquist, Richard
7
PS
POL
Larson, John
7
PS
POL
Ward, John
7
PW
ENG
Pouliot, Dick
7
PW
ENG
Sweeney, John
7
PW
EQC
Elzy, Russell
7
PW
EQC
Nelson, Thomas
7
PW
S&W
Cook, Bruce
7
PW
STR
Hebzynski, Robert
7
PW
STR
Johnson, David
7
PW
STR
Lehtola, Randolph
7
EIGHT YEAR AWARD = Total 14
ADM
ADM
Willis, James 8
PR
PMT
Simons, Gordy 8
PS
POL
Anderson, Darrell 8
PS
POL
Levens, Robert 8
PS
POL
Nesbitt, Robert 8
PS
POL
Nielsen, Niel 8
PS
POL
Ridgley, Michael 8
PS
POL
Stirratt, John 8
PS
POL
Twaddle, Daniel 8
PW
ENG
Moore, Fred 8
PW
ENG
Weidner, Gary 8
PW
EQC
Kolstad, James 8
PW
S&W
MacDonald, Michael 8
PW
STR
Elam, ,Alan 8
NINE YEAR AWARD = Total 20
ADM
ADM
Boyles, Frank
9
CD
PLAN
Dale, Milt
9
FIN
ASG
Carroll, Michael
9
PR
ENV
Peterson, Mark,
9
PR
PMT
Ertz, Greg
9
PR
PMT
Jewett, Richard
9
PS
POL
Dahl, Thomas
9
PS
POL
Foreman, Ronald
9
PS
POL
Hanvik, William
9
PS
POL
Holzerland, Larry
9
PS
POL
Paulson, Dennis
9
PS
POL
Rogers, Lawrence
9
PS
POL
Saba, Thomas
9
PS
POL
Solberg, Mel
9
PW
ENG
Johnson, Ken
9
PW
EQC
Fasching, Robert
9
PW
EQC
Hyovalti, Ramon
9
PW
EQC
Vetsch, Thomas
9
PW
S&W
Cook, Greg
9
PW
S&W
Willey, Glen
9
GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES RECEIVING AWARDS = 101
.�.... vw � nv.v�u• nR/YW rfWfVY'1
PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT PROFILE
(10/1/85 - 6/30/86)
1986
TOTAL PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS REVIEWED BY SAFETY COMMITTEE: 19
Total Accidents Determined Preventable: 0
Total Accidents Determined Non -Preventable: 19
(Total P.I. Accidents 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 = 30)
1. The 19 personal injury accidents reviewed by the Safety Committee resulted
in 1 --lost person hours, with an estimated $900 in medical expenses.
2. Areas of the body injured most often were finger/hand (7), back (5), and
foot (2).
3. Employees attempting to lift objects accounted for five of the accidents.
4. Five accidents involved Sewer and Water division employees.
5. Four accidents involved Park Maintenance division employees, two of which were
temporary Park Maintenance employees.
6. Three accidents involved Police Department employees.
7. Streets and Fire divisions each had two employees involved in accidents.
8. Engineering, Equipment Center, and Environmental each had one employee involved
in an accident.
LeFeN cre
A4h•r
hellil dy
01triell
14mv/
� 1'n�lr..inn.rl
�..(u iari�nr
This letter is served upon you as the City's Response to
the Union's Request for Modification of your Award dated
September 2, 1986.
The Union has put forth 25 pages of rambling argument for
the arbitrator's consideration. The arbitrator is
reminded that he must not reconsider the merits of the
issues before him. See, Local P-9 United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. George
A. Hormel and Company, 599 F.Supp. 319, 324 (D. Minn.
1984) rev'd. on other grounds,' 776 F.2d 1393 (8th Cir.
1985). The statute relied upon by the Union in
requesting reconsideration was clearly not intended to
allow the arbitrator to accept new evidence and
redetermine the merits of the controversy. Id. Only
those mistakes which are apparent on the face of the
award may be corrected by the arbitrator. Id.
October 3, 1986
2100 First Bank Place West
Vinneat,olis
Vinnesota 55402
I-lephone 16121 333 0543
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Iolecovier (612) 333-0540
Arbitrator
Clayton L. LeFovere
5313 Minnehaha Boulevard
Ilorhert P. Lnnar
Minneapolis, MN 55424
I. Dennis O Brien
11(4n E. Crmr.;
1)1vidJ Kennedy
In the Matter of Arbitration
.I(,seph E Hamilton
John B Dean
between
Glenn E Purdue
Richard J. Schioffor
Charles LLeFevere
the Law Enforcement Labor
Hnrhert P Lefler III
Services, Inc.,
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Dayle Nolan
—and—
Rrian F. Rrre
John G. Kressel
Jnmes M. Strommen
the City of Plymouth.
Ronald H. Batty
W Iliam P. Jordan
k(,rt J. Erickson
VVilliarn R. Skallnrud
RE: Union's Request for Reconvening Arbitration Hearing
Rodney D. Anderson
and/or Modification of Award on Case No.
Corrine A Heine
86 -PN -290-A.
osrvid D. Beaudoin
Paul E. Rasmussen
craven %I Tallen
Dear Mr. Fogelberg:
M 3ry F. Skala
This letter is served upon you as the City's Response to
the Union's Request for Modification of your Award dated
September 2, 1986.
The Union has put forth 25 pages of rambling argument for
the arbitrator's consideration. The arbitrator is
reminded that he must not reconsider the merits of the
issues before him. See, Local P-9 United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. George
A. Hormel and Company, 599 F.Supp. 319, 324 (D. Minn.
1984) rev'd. on other grounds,' 776 F.2d 1393 (8th Cir.
1985). The statute relied upon by the Union in
requesting reconsideration was clearly not intended to
allow the arbitrator to accept new evidence and
redetermine the merits of the controversy. Id. Only
those mistakes which are apparent on the face of the
award may be corrected by the arbitrator. Id.
- -7
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
October 3, 1986
Page 2
The City will not re -argue the merits of this case. From
the onset, the City emphasized the need for the
arbitrator to understand the integration of the City's
various disability programs, and it provided.- the
arbitrator with supporting information. See, Employer's
Brief at 31-34; Employer's Tab 23-27. In rendering his
award, the arbitrator did not confuse the issues of
disability and injury on -duty pay. He simply responsed
to the City's request that the benefits be viewed in a
integrated context by merging the discussion of the two
issues in his award. He clearly awarded a 90 -day career
cap on disability pay and granted the City's final
position with respect to injury on duty. See, Award at
36. Contrary to Union allegations that the City proposed
eliminating injury on -duty pay, the City actually
proposed that the existing contract language be
maintained with respect to that program. See, Employer's
Brief at 33-34. Since the arbitrator's award required
that the City's final position be implemented, it is
clear that the City will provide 84 calendar days of
injury on -duty pay for each qualifying injury.
The Union has also asserted the arbitrator erred in
deciding that the Martin Luther King Holiday hours should
be deducted from the 54 pay -back hours the officers
actually owe the City. The Union alleges the City
"slipped" the 54 -hour backpay information "in the back
door". That assertion is not true. The City put forth
its position with respect to that issue at the hearing
and in its brief. See, Employer's Brief at 22-23. The
City requested that the MLK holiday hours be deducted
from the 54 payback hours the 6 and 3 employees owe the
City each year. That position necessarily implied that
if the City's request was granted, the employees would
owe the City 46 payback hours. The arbitrator granted
the City's request.
The arbitrator should not be lured into reconsidering his
analysis of the issues that have been presented to him.
If anything, it was the Union's disorganized laundry list
approach to this arbitration that caused confusion and
extra work to all involved in this proceeding.
Very truly yours,
J.IDennis O'Brien
JDO:cmt
cc: Roland Miles
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
10800 LYNDALE AVENUE SO. • BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55420
Phone: 612/881-5005
September 11, 1986
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Arbitrator
5313 Minnehaha Blvd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55424
IN THE MATTER OF:
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.,
-and-
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
RE: Request for convening of Arbitration Hearing and/or Modification
of Award on Case No. 86 -PN -290-A.
Dear Mr. Fogelberg:
Pursuant to M.S. 572.16, I am requesting a modification of your
award dated September 2, 1986, and received by the Union on September
8th, 1986. M.S. 572.16 reads:
"CHANGE OF AWARD BY ARBITRATORS. On application of
a party or if an application to the Court is pending
under Sections 572.18, 572.19, or 572.20, on
submission to the arbitrators by the Court under such
conditions as the Court may order, the arbitrators
may modify or correct the award upon the grounds stated
in clauses (1) and (3) of Subdivision 1, Ser*ion 572.20,
or for the purpose of clarifying the award... written
notice thereof shall be given forthwith to the opposing
party, stating he must serve his objections thereto,
if any, within ten days from the notice..."
In the above cited case, the arbitrator failed to render a
decision thereby not rendering a complete award on the disability
pay issue certified as Issue 5 and clearly misunderstood the
Injury on Duty issue of Issues 7 and 13, mistaking disability
leave benefits for Injury on Duty leave benefits.
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 2
The effect of not issuing a ruling on disability leave, i.e., what
Plymouth has instead of sick leave, could open the Contract to the
interpretation that disability leave may be capped at ninety (90)
days for the career of an employee. Indeed, the City has already
made this assertion.
Moreover, he misunderstood the holiday practice of certified
Issue 3.
Specifically, restating the Disability and Injury on Duty
benefits that currently exist in the 1985 Contract:
1. Article_XII_1_Disability - Provides up to 65 days of pay
per disability due to incapacity from work _due _to_personal
illness_ or accidental_ bodily_injy1:y. Such disability
benefits must be used in units of not less than one work
day. In order for the benefit to be "recharged", i.e.,
for the employee to utilize up to another 65 days for
another disability, he/she must return to work without
being off for any disability for any period of six (6)
months.
In short, this program in Plymouth is the equivalent of
the sick leave program that other cities have, whereby
the employee accrues one (1) day of sick leave per month
of service.
2. Article_ XIV_,_Injy1:y_on_Duty_Leave - This benefit provides
that where an employee is inJmred_on_duty through no
misconduct of the employee's own, and while safely performing
assigned duties, the employee shall be eligible, after a
ten (10) working day waiting period, for up to eighty four
consecutive calendar days, of supplement any pay equal to
the difference between the total amount of all other
injury -related benefits and their rate of pay. Employees
must utilize "Disability Pay" for the first ten (10)
days of the waiting period. Injy ry_on_Duty_benefits_are
for _in,furies_on_the_j2o _and_ must_ be utilized before
disability_leave_benefits.
--------- ----------
On Issue 5, "Disability Pay" - The Union's final position was
outlined on p. 95 through 96 of the Union Casebook, which requested
that disability leave benefits be used in units as small as one (1)
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 3
hour and that some Employer's sole discretion as to whether an
employee would receive the benefit be taken away.
The City's position on that issue was that Article 12.3
should be amended indicating the maximum number of work days for
which an employee may receive disability pay benefits during his/her
career shall be ninety (90) days.
On Issues 7 and 11, Worker's_ Compensation_Supplement and
IpJgry_On_Duty, the parties take the position as follows:
The Union proposed Sections 14.1 through 14.5 be
deleted and substituted with:
"In those cases where an employee is injured
on duty, the employee shall receive the
difference between his/her salary and the
Worker's Compensation payments up to 180
working days per injury. Such supplementary
payments shall not be deducted from disability
leave."
The City proposed that:
"Since disability leave benefits are used to
supplement Worker's Compensation payments to
bring the employee to full pay on cases of
injury on duty, the existing injury on duty
is unnecessary and therefore Sections 14.1
through 14.5 should be deleted."
The Arbitrator did not make an award for Issue 5, "Disability
Pay," but rather made an award for "Worker's Compensation Supplement
and Injury on Duty" issues as "the maximum number of work days for
which an employee may receive disability pay benefits shall be ninety
(90) work days," obviously confused that disability pay and injury
on duty pay were the same benefit, when they are in fact separate
benefits, in separate Articles of the 1983-1985 Labor Agreement.
T.--7
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 4
It is obvious that the City promoted this confusion when
in its final positions for the issues of "7. - Worker's Compensation
Supplement" and "11. - Injury on Duty Leave" it simply stated "See
Paragraph 5 above".
It did not make any sense to refer to Paragraph 5, "Disability
Pay" when "Injury on Duty" was a separate Article in the Labor
Agreement, Article XIV., and was a separate benefit from disability
pay. Section 14.3 of the 1983-85 Agreement states:
Such supplementary payments shall not continue
for more than eighty four (84) consecutive
calendar days and shall_ not_be_charged_against
the_employee's_disability_leave_"
Thus it is clear Injury on Duty supplements Worker' -s
Compensation for the 11th working day through the 84th calendar
day of injury. On the other hand, disability pay may be used as
a supplement from the first through the 10th working day of
of injury and after the 84th calendar day of injury. However,
that does not make a "Injury on Duty Article unnecessary" as
it stated in its final position. It is a benefit that initially
supplements Worker's Compensation before "Disability Pay" is
issued. It appears the City mislead the Arbitrator b referring
to it as the same benefit. I
The Arbitrator fell for the bait and in his haste of writing
the award not only ignored the disability pay issue but mistook
l - !
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 5
"Disability Pay" for Injury on Duty.
In his rationale he stated:
"A careful review of the background information
relative to these issues as well as the testimony
of employee David Thompson leads the Arbitrator
to the following conclusion:"
"1) The City's dis_ab_ility_plan_ is relatively
new and provides employees with a certain
amount of flexibility." (Yet it has
been in the Contract since the 1979-81
Agreement, seven_years as an Article separate
from In,�ury_on_Duty. - See City Exhibit 4,
page 13-21).
"2) That due in part to its infancy, the
experiences of Officer Thompson do not
necessarily constitute a longstanding problem
relative _to_ the _Worker's _ Compensation_SupplementL
In,�ury_on_Duty. As pointed out at the hearing,
the officer did not lose any pay once the
administrative error was discovered and corrected"
(City Exhibit). (It is clear Thompson's direct
testimony dealt with Injury on Duty, not the
Disability Pay issue, although he and all
employees would adversely be affected in the
future by a ninety (90) day career cap on
Disability Pay).
"3) That the Union's evidence supports the ninety
(90) day cap proposed by the Employer as the
majority of Stanton V Cities (23 of 41) currently
have language in their respective positions
calling for a ninety (90) day limitation."
(This statement is evidence that the Arbitrator
is confused about 1) the issue he is addressing
and the City's position on it, 2) and the
evidence provided by the Union regarding it).
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 6
Although the issue is "Injury on Duty", the
Arbitrator has taken the City's final position on
Disability Pay as their final position for Injury on
Duty. The City has actually proposed a 90 day career
cap on disability leave (equivalent of sick leave)
and proposed to delete the Injury on Duty.
Finally, the Union's evidence supports a 90 day
cap per_in1ury for Injuries on Duty not a 90 day career
cap on disability_pay. (Union's Book, p. 103 & 104).
All other Stanton V departments, not only M.A.M.A.
cities, with the exception of Eden Prairie, Maple
Grove, Ramsey, and Stillwater provide Injury on
Duty benefits, separate from sick leave provisions
with a majority providing 90_working_days_per_in,�ury_
Plymouth's 1985 Contract provides for Injury On Duty
benefits up to 84_ calendar_days_per_in!Mry, to be used
without deduction from disability leave except for the
first ten (10) working days.
"4) That the ninety (90) day career cap on disability
leave as proposed by the administration would ensure
that the provision he used only as a transition or
secondary supplement to the other City disability
programs."
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 7
Again the Arbitrator thinks the 90 day career
cap is only capping the Injury on Duty benefit and
that other disability programs exist that would fill
in the gap. However, in spite of the City's assurances
in the brief, the Contract does not provide such protection.
A new employee could easily reach the 90 day career cap in
15 years, assuming the use of six (6) sick days per year.
For current_ employees_they_may_ be close_ to the_cap_already_
Long term disability, the only other "disability" plan
available for sickness once a 90 day career cap is reached
on disability pay, only provides benefits payable commencing
with the 91st calendar day of disability and pays 60% of
salary subject to a $1,500 cap. Therefore, an employee
reaching a 90 day cap on disability pay would_not_receive
any income until the 91st calendar day of disability.
Calendar days mean consecutive days. That is, an
employee would have to be off 90 consecutive days on the
calendar before he would receive any benefit for a particular
sickness. In addition, the City's Book, Tab 24, states there
is a 91_calendar_day_elminiation_period. In addition, LTD
does not cover job related injuries. (See 1985 Contract,
P. 18).
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 8
Moreover, the Arbitrator was never provided a
copy of the long term disability insurance policy to
know the coverage it would provide to supplement the
disability leave which would be capped at 90 days.
Instead, the Arbitrator appears to have accepted as
fact the City's statement in its brief, p. 31 & 32
(which are not supported by the record) that:
1. "The City's v_arious_disability_programs_are
designed, at least for a significant period of
time, to make up the difference between the injured
employee's regular salary and his/her disability
benefits."
That is simply untrue, the Contract indicates
the contrary as indicated above, and no evidence was
presented at the hearing to indicate otherwise. In other
words, once the ninety (90) days is reached, the employee
has no coverage until the 91st calendar day of disability
read Injury or illness).
2. "The employee has the discretion to utilize
disability in several ways. Id".
No where in the City Book, Tabs 23 & 24, is there
mention made that employees have discretion to use
disability leave in a variety of ways. On the contrary,
employees are limited by the Contract to utilize the
disability benefit for "personal illness or accidental
bodily injury," (1985 contract, p. 12) and "Emergency
leave" (1985 Contract, p. 18). Moreover, the decision
to grant such disability is up to the City Manager, who's
decision "shall be final." (1985 Contract, P. 17).
k --
',1r. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 9
3. The City stated:
"It was also not intended to short circuit the
Injury on Duty Program by providing an avenue
by which the latter need not ever be drawn
upon for any particular injury."
Of course the Union has never taken that position.
In fact, Dave Thompson's case was presented to show that
the City had done the opposite and refused to correct
it. It only corrected the problem long after the City's
position was challenged and the City was faced with the
issue in negotiation. Again, Franz and Thompson knew
nothing about City Exhibit 8 until the Arbitration hearing.
Dave Thompson, injured on the job, was charged
for disability leave when he should have been given
Injury on Duty benefits which the Contract requires.
(1985 Contract, P. 20, Section 14.3, last sentence).
4. The City Stated:
"Rather, the City's disability program was envisioned
as and should be used as a 'gap filler' which protects
employees during the transitions between the City's
other disability benefit programs. That is not how
it is being used. Rather, employees are first using
disability as their primary disability program, because
of its rechargeable nature. The City's proposed
ninety (90) day career as disability leave usage would
ensure that it only be used as a transition or
secondary supplement to the City's other programs."
There is no evidence on the record to support such
a contention. It is a specious argument not supported
by the record or the 1985 Contract. In fact, employees
use the disability pay benefit, not because of its
"rechargeable nature", but because it is the only benefit
that is available in order to be paid when sick or
injured off the job for less than 90 calendar duys.
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 10
(See 1985 Contract, p. 12 & 18). Therefore, the
City's proposed ninety (90) day career cap would
not create the incentive to ensure that it only be
used as a transition or secondary supplement because
it is the only "gap filler" available to employees
and that the proposed ninety (90) day career cap
disability pay would result in employees not receiving
any pay when they were sick after they had reached
the ninety (90) day career cap, which could be reached
fairly quickly.
Finally the Arbitrator stated:
"5. That no member of the bargaining unit would
suffer hardship or be otherwise prejudiced by the
imposition of a ninety (90) day cap as proposed by
the Employer."
The Arbitrator could not reach such a conclusion
based on the record. The only evidence presented by
the City was in its Casebook (Tab 26), showing disability
leave usage to four_J41_years for the Police Officers
and Investigators. The Arbitrator has no way of knowing
how many days of disability pay were used in 1979, 1980,
1981, and 19PR. Therefore1_he_has_no way_of_knowing_how
close _they_are_to_ the _ ninety_J901_days_and_or_if_they
have_surpassed_it. Therefore, the Arbitrator accepted
as gospel a statement by the City, unsupported by the
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 11
record, it made in it's brief that:
"The members of this bargaining unit would
suffer no hardship from the City's proposal.
Employer's Tab 26 indicates that no Officer
would be prejudiced by the imposition of a
ninety (90) day career cap."
Moreover, the Arbitrator awarded a ninety (90)
day cap thinking he was only impacting on Injury on
Duty, i.e., injuries occurring on the job, not disability
leave, which covers for sick leave, emergencies and
injuries of the job. Therefore1_thg_ninety_i90Z_4ay
cap_for_disability_pay_is_much _ more_damaging_and_e_ven
devastating_more_than_a_ninety_l901_day_cap_on_"Injury
on_Duty"_only, and more than the Arbitrator realized when
he made his award.
Finally, the Arbitrator stated in error:
"6. That implementing the City's final position would
provide equal treatment for all City employees consistent
with the personnel policy of Section 3-3.5."
As the Union Stated on its brief that policy does
not cover all City employees, namely the other Unionized
City employees Maintenance Contract who are not covered by
the ninety (90) day career cap, but rather receive
disability benefits for 1986-1988 the same as Police
Officers had for 1985.
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 12
Finally, on Issue 3., "Holidays", labeled by the Arbitrator
as Issue 5 in his listing, the Arbitrator awarded that the City's
position be adopted "relative to the deduction from the original
54 hours payback figure for 6-3 employees...".
The Arbitrator further states as the City's position:
"That an additional holiday be added to Article X.,
which would include Martin Luther King's Birthday,
provided, however, that this additional holiday be
deducted from the 54 payback hours for current
'6 and 3' employees."
However, the existing payback is 44 hours, therefore, the
stated "54 hours" is an error by the Arbitrator. Section 4.2 of
the 1985 Labor Agreement states that "employees whose normal work
schedule is six (6) days on duty and three (3) days off duty shall
be required to work an additional 44_hours per year."
Chief Carlquist on September 12, 1986, at a department meeting
has stated that the City is interpreting your award to mean that
employees owe the City two (2) more hours of payback, raising the
total payback hours to 46 hours, i.e., 54 hours less eight (8) hours
holiday totalling 46 hours.
However, it appears you intended that the current practice for
6-3 employees to continue, when you states:
"Additionally, the Arbitrator favors the City's
rationale concerning the payback hours for the
6 and 3 employees in the bargaining unit, as it
essentially continues the existing practice
between the parties."
Mr. J.C. Fogelberg
Page 13
Owing an additional two (2) hours per employee at no pay
would be a considerable loss for employees.
Moreover, the City in its brief, Page 22, stated:
"Those employees owe the City 54 payback hours
each year. The City only holds those employees
liable for 44 hours of those hours [pursuant to
Labor Agreement]. Since the City is already
granting the employees a discount of ten (10)
payback hours, the Martin_ Luther_King_holiday
hours_ should_ be -deducted from-those_ten_J101
---- - --- ---------- ------- ---
hours. Thus1_the_44_hour_payback_would_remain
intact."
However, the City then slips in the back door, the following
language:
"The City is granting a concession in allowing
the holiday and already forgives ten (10) hours
for 6 and 3 employees. It_ is only_ fair_ that the
holiday_be_deducted_ from_ the_ original_ 54_ hour
-- -- --- -- - -- -- - -
payback."
It is not fair to go back to 54 hours payback and then deduct
eight (8) hours of holiday resulting in 46 hours owed, when the parties
had negotiated 44 hours of payback in the 1974 Labor Agreement. (City
Exhibit 6, Page 4). The City without announcing its intentions at
the hearing and without submitting this language in its final positions,
(See Union Book, Page 11, "For employees who work a '6-3' schedule,
the holiday status of Martin Luther Hing will be adjusted accordingly")
it has tried to slip it past the Arbitrator through obfuscation, in the
brief. Moreover, it never said in the hearing when the original 54 hour
payback was or made an argument why it should be deducted from. In
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 14
fact, as already quoted from its brief, it gave the impression
that the 44 hour payback would continue.
If the Arbitrator had intended in his award that the 44
hour payback should continue, he should state:
"10.1 Employees normally scheduled to work five
(5) eight (8) hour shifts shall receive eleven
J111 days of holiday per year. 10.2. Eight {8)
hours of holiday leave shall be granted to
eligible employees for each of the following
elev_en_j111 holidays: New Year's Day, Lincoln
and Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, thanksgiving Holiday,
(Thanksgiving Thursday and Friday), Christmas Day,
Martin_ Luther_ King's_ Birthday, and a floating holiday
governed by the provision of 10.3".
The above was the language that the City proposed at the
hearing, Tab 11, and the Union proposed in its brief, (P."5). At
no time did the City submit a concise written final position regarding
the payback issue, prior to the hearing or at the hearing, in violation
of P.E.R.B. Rule 5510.2910, Subpart 4A, which states: "Final positions
must be in the form of the contrct language desired by the party".
Given such lack of a final position before the Arbitrator it is
understandable why he was confused. By adopting the above language
which both parties proposed and leaving the payback issue for "6-3"
employees alone, the Arbitrator will accomplish the original stated
intent of the City that: "Thus the 44 hour payback would remain
intact." A clear statement by the City regarding its final position
consistent with its declared intentions on this issue could have been:
ir. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 15
"The past practice for '6 and 3' employees
of requiring them to make up 44 hours, in
lieu of the holidays, in effect granting
them ninety (90) paid hours off per year
shall continue."
Instead, it proposed language about an "original" 54 hour
payback and deducting eight (8) hours for the holiday, increasing
payback to 46 hours, thereby taking away two (2) hours of paid
time off for "6 and 3" employees that the parties had negotiated
12 years ago.
Finally, the issue of payback for 6-3 employees was not
certified to arbitration, only the issue of "Holidays" was. Article
IV of the Labor Agreement deals with payback for "6-3" employees
and makes no mention of holidays and the Holiday provision makes no
mention of payback. Therefore, it is beyond the authority of the
Arbitrator to make an award effecting the payback issue. It is
quite probable that the reason the City did not submit to the
BMS in its final positions a required concise statement of its
final position on this issue was because it knew that a final position
on payback for 6-3 employees was illegal and would have drawn the
Union's attention to an illegal final position. Instead, it
slipped the illegal final position into the brief.
Given_the_incompleteness_ of the Arbitrator's Award by_not
addressing_the_"Disability_Pay"_issue, _ the Award_ is not final and,
therefore1_the_record_is_still_open. Additionally, given the
--------- --- -- - -
1_ -
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 16
complexity of the three issues: Injury On Duty, Disability Pay,
and Holidays, the misrepresentation of fact by the City, and
the resulting confusion by the Arbitrator, it would_ be beneficial
— ---- — ----------
to_ the Arbitrator_ to_ set _another _day_of_hearings_to_hav_e_a_ hearing
of_the _issues and the facts presented_by_the_parties and issue_a
----------------------------
complete_ award_ that is clear. Therefore, the Union proposes that
an additional day of hearing be scheduled for the parties to
submit evidence and provide rebutted evidence on the three isues
of Injury on Duty, Disability Pay, and Holidays. In that way,
a lengthy and expensive exchange of clarifications and responses
can be avoided and all facts and arguments can be aired at the
same time.
On the other hand, if the Arbitrator chooses to not set
another day of hearings on these issues or for only some of
these issues, the following is the Union's request for modification
and clarification of his award:
ISSUE 5 DISABILITY PAY - As the Arbitrator did not address
-----------------------
the Disability Pay Issue, the Union requests that he award that no
changes be made on the Disability Pay Issue, specifically Article
XII. Given the fact that all of the reasons stated by the Arbitrator
were based on the Arbitrator mistaking "Disability" for "Injury on
Duty", the rationale offered he listed as 1 through 6 are not a
substantive basis for a change in the Disability Pay language of
the Contract.
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 17
Specifically, the City's disability program is not
relatively new, but rather was negotiated into the Labor Agreement
seven (7) years ago in the 1979-81 L.E.L.S. - City of Plymouth
Labor Agreement. (See City Exhibit 4, P. 13). Prior to its
inception, employees instead had a sick leave provision similar
to other cities, whereby officers accrued eight (8) hours of
sick leave per calendar month up to a maximum of 960 hours.
Such a system allows employees to accrue up to the maximum of'
960 hours then draw down the accrued sick leave when needed,
and reaccrue up to the 960 hour maximum again. Therefore,
it had a rechargeable nature to it albeit the recharge
took longer. However, it did not have a ninety (90) day career
cap. Therefore, over a career of 30 years, for example, an
employee using six (6) days of sick leave per year could still
accrue to the 960 hour maximum in 16 years. (Of course, if he/she
used less during the course of a year he/she would reach the
960 maximum sooner). Then if an officer had a serious illness
or injury he/she could use the 960 hours if needed and begin to
accumulate up to 960 hours again. Under such a system the employee
could accrue and use up to 2,880 hours of accrued sick leave over
a 30 year career. (8 hours/month x 12 months x 30 years). Given
the accrued sick leave that several officers had on the books and
gave up at the time this provision was replaced with the Disability
Leave, the new provision of Disability Leave was not a gift. (See
Franz Testimony).
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 18
After making such a trade seven (7) years ago it is
inappropriate for an Arbitrator to place a ninety (90) day
career cap on this benefit, given the flimsy evidence provide
by the City. Despite the City's assertion, Officers such as
Nielsen and Thompson will suffer hardship if a ninety (90) day
career cap on disability is established. Both have used 58
days in four (4) years. The Arbitrator has no way of knowing
how much disability they used from 1980 to 1982 and how much
they used in 1986. Having reached the ninety (90) day cap
they would receive no disability leave benefits (read sick leave)
for the first 91 days of disability before long term disability
benefits came into efffect, if long term would cover the illness
or injury (which the Arbitrator has no way of knowing without seeing
the policy). Furthermore, Nielsen, with a seniority date of
October 1, 1986, (See Union Book, P. 189) would have given up many
hours of accrued sick leave under the 1980 negotiated Disability
Leave provision and now could be faced with the removal of any
disability leave benefits. Based on the sketchy evidence provided
by the City (City Book, Tab 26) he would have only 32 days of
disability left, 3.2 days per year left if he remains for another
10 years. That hardly seems a fair deal when he had several hours
already on the books under the old sick leave provision in the 1979
Agreement which he had to give up to be under the new Disability
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 19
Leave Plan. Under the proposed ninety (90) day cap if he
is injured or ill for longer than 32 days, he will be faced
with no income. That's some trade for giving up years of
accumulated sick leave. And that 32 days is assuming that
he has that amount left which we don't know of because we don't
have the data for 1980, 1981 and 1986.
Similarly, Officer Nesbitt with a seniority date of April 22,
1977, (See Union Book, P. 189) has used 35.5 days of disability
leave from 1982 to 1985. Assuming a thirty year career (it could
be longer), he has twenty-three years of service left with 54.5
days of disability leave left (90 - 35.5 = 54.5 days) or 1.8 days
per year. He had better be very healthy for the remainder of his
career and avoid situations where he could be injured or he will
begin losing pay if he is sick or injured when the 54.5 days are
gone.
David Thompson with a April 14, 1980 seniority date, who
used only seven (7) days of disability in 1982 and 1983 combined,
will have only 31.5 days of disability pay (90 - 58.5 = 31.5) for
the next 24 years of his career or 1.3 days per year. And a
majority of that disability that he used, 51.5 days, was used after
his injury on duty benefits had expired in 1984 and 1985 as a result
of being injured in the line of duty first in a fight and the second
time lifting a drunk out of the street.
I
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 20
Is this any way to repay a dedicated employee who was
reinjured saving a citizen's life? He never abused disability
leave or was neglectful in his duty.
Would any of the bargaining unit employees have given up
the sick leave provision of the 1979 Contract and their accrued
sick leave for a new disability leave provision if they knew it
would be subsequently taken away by an Arbitrator imposing a
ninety (90) day career cap? Over a thirty year career that is
only three (3) days of disability leave per year, when they were
accruing four (4) times that under the old 1979 provision (12
days/year).
The imposition of such a ninety (90) day career cap
would be disasterous for these employees and for the City. It
will have the reverse effect that longevity pay has. After
employees have reached the ninety (90) day career cap what
incentive do they have to stay with Plymouth, with disability
benefits having ended after ninety (90) days?
Other Employer's as stated by the Union at the hearing
and in the brief have sick leave provisions similar to what the
officers had in 1979. Such plans are far superior to what the
City is now proposing. If the ninety (90)_day career cap is
imposed future recruiting efforts for police officers will be
badly impaired and officer morale damaged. The proposal is
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 21
radical, taking away of benefits that the parties had negotiated
in 1980, nearly seven (7) years ago. Such a long past practice
should not be overturned lightly, not without substantive evidence of
abuse which has not been provided. The Union evidence of external
comparables does not support the imposition of a ninety (90) day career
for disability leave, but rather a ninety (90) day per injury cap
on Injury on Duty benefits. On the contrary, there is no external
data to support such a career cap. Other cities have sick leave
provisions similar to the 1979 Labor Agreement in Plymouth (See
City Exhibit 4) which do not have career caps.
Again, it is not true that all other City employees have this
ninety (90) day cap plan. True the non -unionized City employees had
it unilaterally imposed on them, which is unfair to them. However,
the Arbitrator and the Union don't know what benefits they received
in return. On the other hand, the other Unionized City employees,
the maintenance contract employees do not have the ninety (90) day
career cap in their contract.
Moreover, to compare Police Officers to other non-union
clerical and administrative jobs is not appropriate, especially
with regard to this benefit. Police Officers if they are injured
are not able to work their jobs, while office employees can work
around the injury such as a broken leg, hand, and strained back.
A Police officer due to.the demanding nature of his job must be
Mfr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 22
in good physical condition to perform his/her job. An office
employee_ can work_ with an_injury_ _ thatwould
_prevent_a_Police
Officer_ from_working1_who_then_must_take_disability_lea_ve.
Finally, to compare unionized Police Officers to non -
unionized administrative employees is to forget that these employees
have the power of collective bargaining. To impose a "me too" on
these employees, based, on what non -unionized employees had _
unilaterally taken away from the, would undermine the bilateralism
of collective bargaining and establish precedent that would impair
collective bargaining. The City could simply cut benefits for the
non-union group and without adequate reasons or negotiations cut
benefits for the Union employees that are forced to go to
arbitration if they cannot settle a dispute through negotiations.
For the Arbitrator to award a radical departure from the disability
benefits that the Police Officers negotiated in 1980, and have
enjoyed for the last seven (7) years would be unprecedented in
Minnesota arbitration history. Such a drastic change would be
contrary to his own reasoning on the merit pay/longevity issue
where he stated if "the procedure has been working successfully
for the past ten years, then the Arbitrator can find no compelling
evidence to warrant a modification of the existing current practice
per the Employer's proposal." (Award, P. 14).
Therefore, if disability leave which was voluntarily
negotiated by the parties (See Franz testimony) has not been abused
why fix it?
a:,-�
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 23
Accordingly, given the past practice of the benefit being in
the Labor Agreement without a cap (see City Exhibits 2,3, & 4), the
sev_ere_impact_on_bargaining_unit_employees_of_this_proposal,
that lack of accurate, reliable data supporting a need for such
a change, and the lack of such a cap in the maintenance worker's
contract, the present provision on Disability pay should remain
unchanged. Arbitrated changes of contract benefits should only
be made with a full understanding of the benefit that exists, the
proposed change the compelling reasons for the change, and the impact
of the change. For proposed changes that are as drastic such as
this one, the Arbitrator should require a standard of proof that
requires evidence, not simple assertions. Such evidence that is
accurate has not been provided in this case.
Regarding, the Injury on Duty Issue, since the Arbitrator
made his award thinking that it was the same as Disability pay, the
Union would support no change also. Injury on Duty benefits
externally compared are typically ninety (90) working days per
injury. Plymouth has 84 calendar days per injury. Although an
increase is justified, for the sake of consistency and since the
benefit has been at 84 days since 1980, it can remain the same as
the 1985 Contract.
On the Holiday Issue, the Union only asks that the award
be clarified that the additional holiday that was given to 915-2"
employees be clarified that it already has been given to "6-3"
afl
Mr. J. C. Fogelberg
Page 25
SUBMITTED BY:
----------------------
ROLAND J. MI ES
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
10800 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 220
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420
RJM/kl
LeFc%ere #----
Lxf ler
henncd� �,----
O`Briern K,
Drat�•z
i
�.., ialion, i
2000 First Bank Place West October 7 , 19 8 6
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone ;612) 333-0543
Telecop,er (612) 333-0540
Clayton L, LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler
J. Dennis O'Brien
Jchn E D13WZ Mr. James Willis
David J. Kennedy City Manager
Jchn B. Dean
G';enn E. Purdue City of Plymouth
Richard J Schieffer 3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Charles L. LeFevere Plymouth, MN 55447
Herbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Gait Re: Grievance Arbitration Between LELS and City of
Davie Nolan Plymouth (John Stirratt)
9 -tan F. R ce
John G Kressel
Lorraine S Clugg Dear Jim:
James M Serommen
'Ronald H. Batty Enclosed for your review and information are the follow -
.VI -am P. Jordan
K;rt J. Encxson ing documents:
b%,--I,am R Skallerud
Rodney D. Anderson 1 . A copy of a letter from Thomas Gallagher, the
Corrine A. Heine
Cavd D peaudoin arbitrator in the above matter.
Paul E. Rasmussen
V Ta`'e�' 2. Consent to Publication of Award.
3. A copy of the Arbitrator's Decision and Award.
If you have any questions, please call me.
sincerely yours,
Dayle Nolan
DN:kk
Enclosures
cc Richard Carlquist
Frank Boyles
�-g
THOMAS P. GALLAGHER
ATTORNEY AT IAW
4700 I D S CENTER
EIGHTH STREET AND NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 35402
TELEPHONE
October 4, 1986 612-330-3020
Ms. Dayle Nolan
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien & Drawz, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: The Grievance Arbitration Between
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.,
and The City of Plymouth
Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services
Case No. 86 -PP -672
(John Stirratt)
Dear Ms. Nolan:
I am enclosing a signed copy of my Decision and Award in
the matter referred to above. I am also enclosing my statement
for services in this matter. Please forward it to the proper
party for payment.
Please examine the enclosed form concerning publication
of the Decision and Award. You may use it to indicate your
consent to its publication or your wish that it not be
published. As the form states, you may indicate consent to
publication without returning it to me; if, after thirty days, I
have not received an indication otherwise, I will assume that
you consent to publication.
Yours very truly,
TPG:ww Thomas P. Gal her
CONSENT TO PUBLICATION OF AWARD
There are presently four publishers in the United States
that publish the text of selected arbitration awards issued in
labor cases. They are Commerce Clearing House, Inc., Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., Labor Relations Press and Prentice -Hall,
Inc. Their publications are distributed to subscribers
representing labor and management who are active in the field of
grievance handling. They are also distributed to libraries,
where they are available to advocates for use in grievance
handling, to arbitrators, and to others who may be interested in
research. The publication of awards is of great value to those
who are involved in the process of grievance handling.
If the parties consent to their publication, it is my
practice to forward to the publishers mentioned above a copy of
my awards. Please sign in the appropriate place below,
indicating either your consent to the publication of the award
in this case or your wish that the award not be published.
You may consent to publication and later decide that you
wish the award not to be published. If I receive notification
from you within thirty days after the date of the award, I will
not submit it to the publishers. If I receive no response from
you within thirty days after the date of the award, I will
assume that you do not object to its publication.
Please sign in the appropriate place:
For the Union:
For the Employer:
WE CONSENT
TO PUBLICATION
CASE NAME:
WE DO NOT CONSENT
TO PUBLICATION
g
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR )
SERVICES, INC., )
)
Union, )
and )
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, )
)
Employer. }
For the Union:
Roland J. Miles
Business Agent
Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc.
10800 Lyndale Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420
APPEARANCES
MINNESOTA BUREAU OF
MEDIATION SERVICES
CASE NO. 86 -PP -672
DECISION AND AWARD
OF
ARBITRATOR
For the Employer:
Dayle Nolan
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien & Drawz, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
On July 22, 1986, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a hearing
was held before Thomas P. Gallagher, Arbitrator, during which
evidence was received concerning a grievance brought by the
Union against the Employer. The grievance alleges that the
Employer violated the labor agreement between the parties by
requiring the grievant, John Stirratt, to work hours in addition
to those on his usual work schedule.
FACTS
The City of Plymouth (the "City" or the "Employer")
is a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Union represents
the non -supervisory sworn personnel employed in the City's
Police Department, including the grievant, who is classified as
a Police Officer.
On October 31, 1984, the Employer discharged the grievant
for alleged misconduct. Because the grievant had been hired
under the procedures established by the Minnesota Veterans
Preference Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 197.46, et seq.,
that Act permitted him to challenge his discharge in a
proceeding before a three-member panel of Hearing Officers. The
grievant elected to do so. The Employer continued to pay the
grievant his full salary during the pendency of the proceeding
challenging his discharge, because it was required to do so by
the Veterans Preference Act. The Employer refused to permit the
grievant to work during that period (the "paid suspension
period").
On June 20, 1985, the panel of Hearing Officers (of
which, I was the neutral member) ordered that the grievant be
reinstated to his position on condition that he agree to serve a
thirty -working -day suspension without pay (the "unpaid
suspension period"). He agreed to that condition and served the
unpaid suspension period, starting on June 27, 1985.
Article IV, Section 4.2, of the labor agreement between
the parties provides:
-2-
g
Employees whose normal work schedule is six (6) days on
duty and three (3) days off duty shall, be required to
work an additional forty-four (44) hours per year. It is
understood that the Employee shall continue to have the
opportunity to discharge this obligation through the
Employee's participation in departmental training
activities outside of the Employee's normal working
hours. All hours remaining which are not charged to
training shall be assigned to the Employee by the Police
Chief for regular police duties. The Police Chief shall
maintain individual time records for each Employee to
insure that the intent of this section is met.
This provision was first adopted by the parties in 1975.
For Police Officers assigned to patrol (most of the force), the
Employer wished to change the usual work schedule of five days
on duty and two days off duty (the "5-2 schedule"), which was
used throughout the City's other departments, to a schedule of
six days on duty and three days off duty (the "6-3 schedule') --
a work scheule that is used by many police departments. '.1e
parties reached an agreement that would permit the Employer to
do so. They agreed that the normal work year of 2,080 hours
would be accounted for in the following manner:
1. There are 40.56 periods of nine days in each 365 day
year. In each such nine -day period, each Patrol
Officer works six eight-hour days, thus accounting
for 1,947 hours of his annual work obligation.
2. In lieu of taking the ten holidays allowed by the
labor agreement, each Patrol Officer is given eighty
hours credit toward his annual work obligation.
3. The Employer agreed to waive nine hours per year as
an inducement to obtain the Union's agreement to the
use of the 6-3 schedule.
4. The final forty-four hours per year were accounted
for under the provisions of Section 4.2. Patrol
Officers were to have the opportunity to discharge
these hours through "participation in departmental
training activities outside of the Employee's normal
-3-
p
working hours," but "hours remaining which are not
charged to training," would be "assigned to the
Employee by the Police Chief for regular police
duties."
on January 3, 1986, the grievant sent the following
memorandum to Police Chief Richard Carlquist:
Chief, I would like for you to consider the following
items and take appropriate action. My period of
suspension lasted 283 days, which is 40.428 weeks. Using
a rate of .846 for time owed the City per seven day
period, this works out to a total of 34 hours that I
would like removed from owing the City for 1984 and 1985.
I would also like for you to examine other time that I
accumulated during my suspension, but did not ask
compensation for. These items relate to City business
and are not my personal consultation or hearings that I
attended. [Itemization is omitted of thirty hours spent
attending hearings for which the grievant's appearance as
a witness was required.]
Also, before my suspension I had a negative 6.25 hours on
time owed the City for 1984. [The balance of the
memorandum inquires about the treatment of those hours.]
on January 13, 1986, Carlquist responded to the
grievant's memorandum of January 3, 1986, by placing the
following memorandum in the grievant's correspondence box:
I have considered your memo dated January 3, 1986, and
have come to the following conclusion:
First of all, the majority of your suspension was paid
for by the City at your normal rate of pay. Therefore,
it seems inconsistent to me to compensate you for thirty
hours because of your attendance at nine separate
meetings during normal business hours between the dates
of November 19, 1984, and June 17, 1985. I would
certainly consider your paid suspension during that time
frame to include and absorb those hours.
With respect to reducing your time owed to the City,
i.e., the annual forty-four hours, I am not prepared at
this time to make any adjustment. If you had been put on
sick leave during that same time frame and had been
-4-
compensated by the City, just as you were with the paid
suspension, you still would have had to make up the
forty-four hours when you returned to work. Whether you
agree with this analogy or not, the bottom line is simply
the pay that you receive as an officer is predicated on
returning forty-four additional hours to the City.
With reference to your last question concerning the six
and one-quarter hours time that had been transferred to
another officer, I want you to personally visit with
Sergeant Paulson to discuss that particular transaction.
On January 21, 1986, the Union served upon James Willis,
the Employer's City Manager, a document entitled, "Section 19.5
Grievance." It alleged that Carlquist's requirement that the
grievant work forty-four hours to "make up hours owed" violated
provisions of the labor agreement relevant to discipline, wages
and work schedules, including Article IV. In addition, the
document alleges that the action of Carlquist constitutes a
penalty beyond the order of the Veterans Preference Panel and
that such action violates the Veterans Preference Act.
On January 23, 1986, Willis responded to the grievance,
asserting that it had not been brought within the five-day time
limit established by Section 19.5 of the labor agreement.
Article XIX of the labor agreement establishes a
procedure for processing grievances. Section 19.1 defines a
grievance as "a written claim or complaint by an Employee over
the interpretation or application of the express terms of this
Agreement." Section 19.2 provides:
A grievance shall first be presented to the Employee's
immediate supervising Sergeant, or a designated
representative. Within five (5) days after receipt of
the grievance, the Sergeant shall meet with the aggrieved
-5-
-L-: YS
Employee to resolve the grievance. Within five (5) days
after such meeting, the Sergeant shall make a decision
and communicate the same to the aggrieved Employee.
Section 19.3 provides for another step in the procedure.
If the grievant is not satisfied with the disposition made by
the Sergeant, he "may within five (5) days after receipt of the
disposition of the grievance submit the grievance to the
Lieutenant." Under Section 19.4, if the grievant is not
satisfied with the disposition made by the Lieutenant, he "say
within five (5) days after receipt of the disposition of the
grievance submit the grievance to the Chief." Under Section
19.5, if the grievant is not satisfied with the disposition made
by the Chief, he "may within five (5) days after receipt of the
disposition of the grievance submit the grievance to the City
Manager." Section 19.6 provides for arbitration of the
grievance if agreement is not reached with the City Manager.
Section 19.12 provides:
If any Employee does not file a grievance in writing
within seven (7) days after the Employee knew or should
have known the act or condition on which the grievance is
based, then the grievance shall be deemed to have been
waived and the Employee shall not have recourse to this
grievance procedure.
n V11TQTAM
The Timeliness of the Grievance.
The Employer argues that the grievant's memorandum to
Carlquist dated January 3, 1986, was the original statement of
the grievance and that, after Carlquist responded to it on
January 13, 1986, the Union was required by Section 19.5 to
bring the grievance before the City Manager within five days.
Because the Union did not do so until January 21, 1986, the
Employer argues that the Union may not process the grievance
further.
The Union argues that the first statement of the
grievance was the January 21, 1986, statement addressed to the
City Manager. It regards the grievant's January 3, 1986,
memorandum as nothing more than an inquiry to Carlquist, because
that memorandum does not contain the elements of a grievance
that are required to be included by Section 19.15 -- "reference
to the specific portion of the Agreement at issue in the
grievance" and "requested actions of the Employer to resolve the
grievance." Further, the Union argues that the memorandum of
January 3, 1986, was not even recarded as a grievance by
Carlquist. If he had regarded it as a grievance, he would have
responded to it according to Section 19.4 -- by arranging a
meeting with the grievant and disposing of it within five days
after such a meeting. The Union also argues that bringing a
grievance at an advanced step is impliedly authorized by the
first sentence of Section 19.16 -- "any grievance arising from a
decision or interpretation of the provisions of this agreement
made at a given level cannot be grieved.at a lower level."
I agree with the Union that the document of January 21,
1986, was the first statement of complaint that meets the
definition of a grievance under Section 19.15. Carlquist's
treatment of the memorandum of January 3, 1986, confirms this
conclusion. He did not consider it necessary to process that
-7-
memorandum in strict compliance with the procedures established
for processing a grievance at the Chief's level under Section
19.4. I conclude that because Carlquist's memorandum of January
13, 1986, was not a response to a grievance, the Union was not
under an obligation to respond to it within five days.
Interpretation of Section 4.2.
The Union argues that the Employer's position in this
case improperly assumes that the the grievant continued to be an
employee on a 6-3 schedule when he was placed on paid suspension.
The Union contends that the grievant should be treated as if he
were on a 5-2 schedule during the paid suspension.
I disagree. First, the grievant's normal duties were to
patrol, and, as a Patrol Officer, his schedule was a 6-3
schedule, both before his suspension and after he returned zo
work. There is no justification for assuming that his placement
on paid suspension changed that status.
Second, and most important, the Employer, was paying the
grievant's full salary during the period of paid suspension_.
The labor agreement provides that upon payment of salary to an
Officer, the Employer may require him to work a 6-3 schedule.
Indeed, the Employer could have required the grievant to
continue to work a full schedule in return for the full salary
it was paying him pending disposition of his challenge to his
discharge. That the Employer chose not to require work on a
full schedule should not prevent the Employer from requiring
work on less than a full schedule. Carlquist's memorandum of
-8-
g
January 13, 1986, states this principle with regard to the
grievant's thirty hours of appearances as a witness during the
time of his paid suspension. Certainly, the Employer could
treat its payment of full salary over more than seven months as
adequate compensation for those thirty hours.
The same principle should apply with regard to the forty-
four hours of work that are here in dispute. Section 4.2
requires such additional work of an employee on a 6-3 schedule.
The Employer chooses to treat the grievant as one who continued
to have the obligations of an employee on a 6-3 schedule to
account for 2,080 hours of service per year. By paying full
salary to the grievant, the Employer acquired that right.
The Union argues that during the period of suspension the
Employer denied the grievant the opportunity to discharge the
annual forty-four hours of additional work through
"participation in departmental training activities outside of
the Employee's normal working hours." The Union urges that that
denial of opportunity should prevent the Employer from imposing
the obligation after the grievant's reinstatement.
This argument assumes that there is a requirement to
provide the opportunity to use departmental training activities
on a monthly basis so that the obligation to do forty-four hours
of additional work can be discharged ratably as it accrues.
Section 4.2, however, does not state such a requirement. The
evidence shows that training opportunities do not occur evenly
throughout the year, but, instead, are grouped at several times
during the year. I agree, however, that the Employer must
-9-
comply with this requirement of Section 4.2 in the future. It
must allow the grievant the opportunity to discharge his
obligation by participating in departmental training activities.
The obligation to perform forty-four hours of additional
work is one that arises because of the Employer's payment of
full salary to the grievant. Correspondingly, no such
obligation arose during the period of unpaid suspension that
followed the order of the Veterans Preference Panel.
Accordingly, the Award makes a pro -rata reduction of the
grievant's work requirement for the portion of the year for
which he was not paid.
The parties did not present evidence concerning the
grievant's claim of credit for 6.25 hours extra work accumulated
in 1984, and therefore I assume that they have reached agreement
on that part of the grievant's claim.
AWARD
The grievance is denied in part and sustained in part.
The Employer may, under the terms of Section 4.2 of the labor
agreement, require the grievant to account for forty-four hours
of additional work for 1985, less 12.3% for the period of unpaid
suspension.
October 4, 1986
`fihomas P. Galla
-10-
Arbitrator,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: October 7, 1986
TO: Dick Carlquist, Public Safety Director/
'� l
FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager'\�
SUBJECT JOHN STIRRATT ARBITRATION AWARD
Dayle Nolan called me today to advise that an award has been received
regarding the John Stirratt arbitration. You will recall that John
had requested that the City remove 34 hours of his time owed to the
City for 1984 and 1985 for his paid suspension of 283 days. He also
asked you to consider an additional 30 hours for which he was
allegedly involved in City business during the paid suspension.
We took the position that the majority of John's suspension was paid
by the City. Consequently, he did receive compensation for all hours
worked. We initially advised him that we would not reduce the time
owed the City whatsoever, and ultimately offered to reduce John's time
owed the City by approximately 5-1/2 hours for the period of time
during which he was on unpaid suspension.
The arbitrator has ruled that John Stirratt's time owed the City for
1985 is to be reduced by 12.3% or 5.4 hours. He continues to owe the
City 38.6 hours minus any hours he may have worked off his 1985
balance since the arbitration was initiated. Please review your
records accordingly and let me know when you will expect John to
reduce the 1985 time owned balance to zero.
FB:jm
cc: Personnel File
James G. Willis
Mayor & City Council
October 7, 1986
Susan Enright
256 Peninsula Road
Medicine Lake, MN 55441
Dear Ms. Enright:
rf
CITY O�
PLYMOUTH+
Thank you for your letter sharing your concerns about the Alpha Human
Services development petition. I am sharing your letter with other members
of the Council. For your information, a series of four public meetings have
been scheduled by the petitioner to afford you the opportunity to share your
concerns with the petitioner. Two meetings are scheduled in the Plymouth
City Council Chambers, the first on Tuesday, October 7, and the second on
Thursday, October 9 beginning at 7:00 p.m. The final two meetings will be
held on Thursday, October 16, and Monday, October 20 at the Alpha Human
Services facility, 2712 Fremont Avenue So., Minneapolis, commencing at 7:00
p.m. In addition, the Planning Commission will continue its consideration
on this matter on Wednesday, October 22 beginning at 8:00 p.m. at the
Plymouth City Center Council Chambers. Because there may be need for a
larger meeting room, you should call the City Center on or after Monday,
October 20 to determine if an alternate location has been arranged.
The City Council will act upon this petition at a public meeting, but will
not reconduct the public hearing as we will have the benefit of the public
hearing materials from the Planning Commission, as well as telephone
conversations and correspondence such as yours. The decision before the
City Council is whether the petition as submitted conforms with City Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The adopted City Council policy is to allow ten
minutes each for the proponents and opponents to state their case. I can
assure you on behalf of the Council, that we will carefully weigh these
matters using ordinance standards prior to taking any action regarding the
proposal.
Yours truly,
��z'<
q
gil Schneider
Mayor
VS:Jm
cc: City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
=_
October 2, 1986
Dear Honorable Mayor Schneider,
This letter is to oppose the proposal before the planning
commission to build Alpha House in Plymouth (specifically:
located off highway 55 on South Shore Drive.) There are
several issues that should be considered with respect to
this proposal.
The primary concern is for the safety of the neighborhood
children. The minimum security charter that Alpha House
operates within does not alleviate my concerns regarding
the children's safekeeping. Further, consideration must
be given regarding how appropriate it is to locate this
type of facility immediately adjoining a housing complex
sheltering 104 children. Particularly since 92% of these
felons have been convicted of sexually abusing children.
Finally, it is further known that 50% of the resident
abusers are chemically dependent= therefore, locating this
facility near 2 bars, 2 restaurants with bars and 2 liquor
stores is clearly inappropriate.
I understand the decision for this proposal is a difficult
one, but you must consider that the emotional damage
inflicted on a child is a lifelong scar that can never be
erased. As a public health nurse I have dealt with many
victims of sexual abuse, and this abuse has certainly
affected their lives. It is my request that you strongly
consider the appropriateness of the location forthis facilitys
particularly considering its consequent endangerment to the
public health of the community --and its potential for tragedy.
Sincerely.
7� f�,4 -
Susan (& William) Enright
256 Peninsula Road
Medicine Lake, MN 55441
I
!fit
October 7, 1986
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
Phyllis Roisum
1304 West Medicine Lake Drive
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Ms. Roisum:
L
Thank you for your letter sharing your concerns about the Alpha Human
Services development petition. I am sharing your letter with other members
of the Council. For your information, a series of four public meetings have
been scheduled by the petitioner to afford you the opportunity to share your
concerns with the petitioner. Two meetings are scheduled in the Plymouth
City Council Chambers, the first on Tuesday, October 7, and the second on
Thursday, October 9 beginning at 7:00 p.m. The final two meetings will be
held on Thursday, October 16, and Monday, October 20 at the Alpha Human
Services facility, 2712 Fremont Avenue So., Minneapolis, commencing at 7:00
p.m. In addition, the Planning Commission will continue its consideration
on this matter on Wednesday, October 22 beginning at 8:00 p.m. at the
Plymouth City Center Council Chambers. Because there may be need for a
larger meeting room, you should call the City Center on or after Monday,
October 20 to determine if an alternate location has been arranged.
The City Council will act upon this petition at a public meeting, but will
not reconduct the public hearing as we will have the benefit of the public
hearing materials from the Planning Commission, as .well as telephone
conversations and correspondence such as yours. The decision before the
City Council is whether the petition as submitted conforms with City Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The adopted City Council policy is to allow ten
minutes each for the proponents and opponents to state their case. I can
assure you on behalf of the Council, that we will carefully weigh these
matters using ordinance standards prior to taking any action regarding the
proposal.
Yours truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:Jm
cc: City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
- _`A
October 7, 1986
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Mr. Gordon Alston, CPCU, President
Professional Liability
Underwriting Managers, Inc.
10801 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 300
Minnetonka, MN 55343-5479
Dear Mr. Alston:
Thank you for your letter sharing your concerns about the Alpha Human
Services development petition. I am sharing your letter with other members
of the Council. For your information, a series of four public meetings have
been scheduled by the petitioner to afford you the opportunity to share your
concerns with the petitioner. Two meetings are scheduled in the Plymouth
City Council Chambers, the first on Tuesday, October 7, and the second on
Thursday, October 9 beginning at 7:00 p.m. The final two meetings will be
held on Thursday, October 16, and Monday, October 20 at the Alpha Human
Services facility, 2712 Fremont Avenue So., Minneapolis, commencing at 7:00
p.m. In addition, the Planning Commission will continue its consideration
on this matter on Wednesday, October 22 beginning at 8:00 p.m. at the
Plymouth City Center Council Chambers. Because there may be need for a
larger meeting room, you should call the City Center on or after Monday,
October 20 to determine if an alternate location has been arranged.
The City Council will act upon this petition at a public meeting, but will
not reconduct the public hearing as we will have the benefit of the public
hearing materials from the Planning Commission, .as well as telephone
conversations and correspondence such as yours. The decision before the
City Council is whether the petition as submitted conforms with City Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The adopted City Council policy is to allow ten
minutes each for the proponents and opponents to state their case. I can
assure you on behalf of the Council, that we will carefully weigh these
matters using ordinance standards prior to taking any action regarding the
proposal.
Yours truly,
it it Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
cc: City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
w
n
fflrojressional Xiabilt
Underwriting Managers, iWUmp . Gordon t;Pf.. President
D.
October 2, 1986 0 t.+ow
i' r'
Honorable Mayor Virgil Schneider t� ,
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
` Plymouth, MN 55441
F
Honorable Mayor:
I would like to relate a happening in my office to you./ My office
is located at 10801 Wayzata Blvd. and my firm employs 72 people, perhaps
12 to 15 live in Plymouth.
I am moving a manager type person from Chicago. He and his family
were looking for a place to live proximate to the office. They had
pretty well settled on a location in Plymouth. Then, upon investigation,
he was told that Plymouth had been more or less designated by Hennepin
County as a dumping ground for problem situations. Cited as proof
was the workhouse, a "detox" center and a new park-facility,at
north end of Medicine Lake which "destroyed the privacy of the lake♦. tT +h '
I did not have much to say about the first two items. ' I did take �issu�`t '
with the last and told him that I felt the park was a;positive factor'it j
tv
He now has told me that Plymouth is going to be given end6
institution. I looked into this and from what I can gather the parolees.''I
or whatever they are called, are being transferred 'out:.=of Minneapolis"
i to Plymouth and that the entire project will involve l0 .acres. ,.room
bTry ,{ for lots of expansion. <4� r�
_ , %vr 4J
L
^ Whether or not this is entirely accurate, my employee has t'dropped;� ' >'
Plymouth from his considerations and settled on a place in Eden Prairie. .¢�
4.1
NO
W+-n�,°'`t.:
4 T _, �'F`}.y -� y'.:t 3' - i .�'�`^ ��T.4. »� '�,Y'y RG •.�� zY.
v ,;. .. _ - F u„}��_�_. i q+F,fi�zY'": 'yS��� # Zvi �., •t 'y,�, r �"11f,
'15i
v
r 10801 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota 53433.3 79i = x5
(612) 546-4131 *Telex 2974842LIN "I
w�'W}
44
err .' .. .. -.. ,• � � ' — N 3 r.� ,F�,,�� «
�k�t r _ _ ni a^r e.•zt 1 �'�, � �i � ' r� �� ' �'t,. `�n'r� ,;•51i�' r � -
jiy
fflrqfessional ba14
Uuderwrking Unas Inc.
October 2, 1986
Honorable Mayor Virgil Schneider
Plymouth City Hall
Page -2-
As the community leader in Plymouth you must be attuned to the direction
in which the city is going. While it is true that you feel some
responsibility to shoulder some county problem situations, it may be
that Plymouth already has its share. Is Plymouth going to be a,
desirable, safe place to live or evolve into a place from which peoplex
will move to get into "a nice suburb"? "$
K Ia{ "
I understand that the sex offender institution is not yet a done deal.
If so, you may wish to reflect upon the wisdom of proceeding. -
Cordially, -
1
S�s4 3 'POE
Community Improvement Reminder
I have noticed a problem with: �v 5
OS
Resident has noticed a problem wi"U �% s�
Street/Potholes Watermain/Hydrant
Brush/Weeds/Trees filling/Excavating
Drainage Junk Cars
Traffic ar ng Violation Garbage/DebrTs
Traffic/Street Sign/Signal— Erosion/Dirtytlreets
Dead Animals in street Broken/Damaged Equipment
Sign_ Streetlight
Other
Description
Location
741/,l „ e ,
Your name
Resident's Name
Date 1?/
Address , ��,�-�,, PhoneC�_ , ti
J
=" k o
' U Jk
r l
L)
LLI:.L
G
=- � CD
PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
DATE/TIME REPORT MADE
MESS. KEY CONTROL NUMBER OCA CONT. AGENCY NCIC (DENT. CAG
E C 1 1$ O, 113 1 / MIN 0 1 2 1 7 1 1 7 0 LO / �`-�-��
DAY:j S I M I T JW F S
LNBR ��D/ATE REPORTED RP� TIME RPD , ' 'LOCAITION ID NBR (LGN)
/ ' ' ' L7 1 / � U / PLACE COMMITTED (PLC)
nm
?
O LNBR HRO SQUAD OR BADGE s (SBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARR. (TAR) TIME CLR. (TCL) HRD Codes " a
T O/ �/ l l v$ oc� l1 01 S 0,s l 1 P Phone v
R -Radio
A - Alarm
LNBR ISN UOC UCS OFFICER ASSIGNED ASSISTED BY
r / 1 - In Person
® / / / ❑L� �u c/ V Visual
�L-NNBBR (L—IISN—�J—U—OC—�j UC M - Mail
I I I/ IT Other
OFFENSE[; OR IfjITkAL COMPLAIN
DATE & TIME OCCURRED
VICTIM (IF FIRM, NAME OF FIRM & NAME OF PROP)
BUSINESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS PHONE
HOME ADORE
HOME PHONE
I 63
4o fo 4, e,
D.O.B.
OCCUPATION
SC OOL
GRADE PARENT'S NAMES
IF VICTIM IS
IF
JUVENILE
I
A PERSON
DERSON REPORTING OFFENSE TO POLICE
BUSINESS ADDRESS
BUSINESS PHONE
HOME ADDRESS
HOME PHONE
FINDINGS, DISPOSITION OR LOSS ` e—I 1 �� ` �` L
DATE Ocr I � M54.o
TO �� A�(��v��f
UJ✓ ss435
PUBLIC NUISANCE REPORT
RE:- Property located at:
INSPECTION DATE was on 10--3-Su
OBSERVATIONS: The following violations were observed:
'(4� 4-4
i
+
—1'•i.t • w1• t.t... �..��yj Cl, �.f'K.:i. C Ltc, c 7z� t�Y �. GL �Gc� lC :.- c41; /�"—:�.• i o� c-.v..�tGO_c-L� �/ �L.j� .
a'.e e .; <. �..., - . ,ate
1 � "1
NECESSARY CHANGES: The following changes need to be made before the reinspection
date in order to abate the nuisance:
REINSPECTION DATE will be 0- zZ- VL,
Thank -you!
OFFICER TT
ommuntty Service officer
I
"�ommunity Improvement Reminder S C�
I have �
noticed a problem with: _
Resident has noticed a problem with:
"treet/Potholes
1Klush/Weeds/Trees
Drainage
Traffic/Parking Violation
Traffic/Street Sign/Signa—'
Dead Animals in street
Sign
Other
Descri
Watermain/Hydrant
Filling/Excavating
Junk Cars
Garbage/De r s
Erosion/Dirtyt-Teets
Broken/Damaged Equipment `
Streetlight
Location
5—! %-7T1
Your name_��-�
Resident's Name
Address Phone
9
=- kc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: October 6, 1986
TO: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Joe Ryan, Building Official
SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD #50 (EROSION AT LARCH LANE BETWEEN
45TH AND 47TH AVENUES).
On Thursday, October 2, 1986, I contacted Mr. Douglas Paulson of Paulson Construction
regarding this matter. This company is building a home located at 12350 46th Avenue
North. The back of this home faces Larch Lane, where construction materials were
being delivered. I informed Mr. Paulson that he would need to clean up the dirt and
erosion along the curbside of Larch Lane extending down to the intersection of 45th
Avenue North.
Mr. Paulson informed me that the work would be completed by Friday, October 3, 1986.
On Friday, the site was re -inspected and the street was satisfactorily cleaned.
Please contact me if I may be of any further assistance.
cc: File
October 2, 1986
Commissioner Tom Triplett
Department of Revenue
Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Tom:
Senate
State of Minnesota
The purpose of this letter is to express my concern about your
Department's interpretation of the transit "tax feathering"
statutes.
The Department has interpreted that while transit revenues may
be calculated on a modified, (increased) mill, any reductions
brought about by feathering will be calculated using the municipal
mill. For example, if the City of Plymouth becomes eligible for
the 1.5 mill levy, instead of saving $300,000, or one-half of the
increased mill, Plymouth taxpayers will save only $198,400, accord-
ing to Regional Transit Board figures.
However, the legislative intent in adopting tax feathering was
to save a community receiving a 1.5 levy, twenty-five percent
and not the fifteen percent of the levy.
It appears that the Revenue Department's interpretation is
designed to cut state losses since any revenue lost by the RTB
because of feathering must be made up dollar -for -dollar by the
state.
On behalf of some 43 metropolitan area communities who are being
adversely affected by your Department's -current interpretation
of the statute, I respectfully urge the Department of Revenue
to comply with the law.
CON1N11TTEES • Education . Employment . Finance . Judiciary
SERVING: Golden Valley. Medicine Lake. Minnetonka. Plymouth. %'Vakzata
J1N1 RAMSTAD
Assistant Minority Leader
_
Senator 45th District
r'
3618 Croshv Road
Wav7ata. Minnesota 55391
(612)475-3365
Office:
123 State Office Building
Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155
(612) 296-9251
October 2, 1986
Commissioner Tom Triplett
Department of Revenue
Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Tom:
Senate
State of Minnesota
The purpose of this letter is to express my concern about your
Department's interpretation of the transit "tax feathering"
statutes.
The Department has interpreted that while transit revenues may
be calculated on a modified, (increased) mill, any reductions
brought about by feathering will be calculated using the municipal
mill. For example, if the City of Plymouth becomes eligible for
the 1.5 mill levy, instead of saving $300,000, or one-half of the
increased mill, Plymouth taxpayers will save only $198,400, accord-
ing to Regional Transit Board figures.
However, the legislative intent in adopting tax feathering was
to save a community receiving a 1.5 levy, twenty-five percent
and not the fifteen percent of the levy.
It appears that the Revenue Department's interpretation is
designed to cut state losses since any revenue lost by the RTB
because of feathering must be made up dollar -for -dollar by the
state.
On behalf of some 43 metropolitan area communities who are being
adversely affected by your Department's -current interpretation
of the statute, I respectfully urge the Department of Revenue
to comply with the law.
CON1N11TTEES • Education . Employment . Finance . Judiciary
SERVING: Golden Valley. Medicine Lake. Minnetonka. Plymouth. %'Vakzata
Commissioner Tom Triplet
October 2, 1986
Page (2)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
JI RAMSTAD
State Senator
JR:ve
cc: Honorable Rudy Perpich
Honorable Virgil Schneider
Plymouth City Council
✓Jim Willis, Plymouth City Manager
Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
t
r �
Presdertt � � r•"�i --
CA—
Robert D. Thist:e
CoenR-2lids � as ociation o _
Vice President metro olitan
Neii W. Peterson
BIo;m nEt;,n municippalities
Past President
iaires A. szhe;tne.
\''. P 311 October 2, 1986
Directors
".`for Addicks ir.
Commissioner Thomas Triplett
Department of Revenue
11-1-2. tiari
Sa,
2XX Centennial
`.'aatetiand
Centennial Office Building
C.
658 Cedar St.
Larry Bakken
St. Paul, MN. 55155
...,ic;er a1!ey
Dear Commissioner Triplett:
R^bort �. Benke
Sen. Steve Novak
\ev. 3•`.:hT.on
Rep. William Schreiber
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities strongly
'Bema�
urges you to reconsider the Revenue Department interpretation
of section 473.446, Subd. 1 concerning mill reduction from the
5. LV �r;it�r?t
MTC Transit levy for communities receiving limited service.
The initial 2 mills levied are adjusted by Section 273.13
subd. 7a for homestead property recalculation, Section 275.49
for personal property exempted in 1967, and Section 272.64
for class 2 personal property so that when levied against
actual taxable property they become approximately 3 mills.
When adopting the 'feathering' property tax provisions in Sectic
�:.
473.446 subd. 1, the legislators intent was to reduce like
=�
mills so that one half mill reduction was equal to a 25%
levy reduction not just a 16% reduction.
The AMM feels that the one half and three quarter mill MTC
Transit property tax reduction mills should be adjusted is the
„l
original levied mills prior to the reduction. We believe this
was the legislative intent. Your consideration of this matter
is appreciated.
-
Respectfully,
Roger E. Peterson, Director
C.
Legislative Affairs
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
cc: Sen. Tad Jude
Sen. Steve Novak
Exec.. v,e>rcctcr
Rep. William Schreiber
AMM Member Cities
1RZ rmiurrcity avr nrrn r�ct ct n�nl mi;innc�rt-+ i�?M (F i7! �� _-cnn
October 8, 1986
Members of the Plymouth
12000 County Road 9
Plymouth, MN 55442
Ladies and Gentlemen:
f
�e
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Volunteer Fire Department
Councilmembers Crain, Zitur and I had the pleasure of visiting your open
house on Saturday, October 5. I was gratified with the turnout and
particularly impressed with the displays and demonstrations which members of
the department assembled. I particularly enjoyed the demonstration of
"Pluggie". I am confident that efforts such as this to reach the public pay
rich dividends in the future by assuring that residents become aware of
important fire prevention concepts and when in doubt, feel comfortable in
contacting members of their fire department for potentially life saving
information. I took particular interest in the extrication exercise as in
1978, I was involved in a car accident which required my extrication from
the vehicle.
Once again, on behalf of the City Council, congratulations on a job well
done and thank you for your continuing contributions to our community.
Sincerely,e X/ " - - C -
Virgil Sc neider
Mayor
VS:dma
cc: City Councilmembers
Dick Carlquist, Director of Public Safety
Lyle Robinson, Fire Chief
James Willis, City Manager
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
KELLEHER CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11300 RUPP DRIVE, SUITE 1
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
612-890-6772
September 16, 1986
City of Plymouth
Joe Ryan
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn. 55447
Mr. Ryan,
I want to express my appreciation for your departments
assistance on such a short notice in the inspection of
Artograph project. Due to the help we avoided the heavy
rain on Sunday which would have set us back at least a week.
Please thank Mr. Kulczyk for picking up the extra load
on a already heavy schedule.
Sincerely,
t _
Thomas Kelleher
President
T:-��d�'
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
DATE: October 9, 1986
TO: James G. Willis - City Manager
FROM: Richard J. Carlquist - Public Safety Director
SUBJECT POLICE APPRECIATION NIGHT BY PLYMOUTH LIONS
Next Tuesday, October 14, 1986, the Plymouth Lions will be sponsoring an appreciation
night at the Medina Ballroom. I have enclosed a copy of the letter that I received
in April concerning this subject matter. I will be briefly attending this event in
order to specifically thank them for their generosity.
Since the town meeting for Area 2 is on the same night and approximate time, I have
told the chairperson that I will be unable to attend the entire event because of a
previous commitment. The reason for this memo (late as it may be), is because I
couldn't remember whether I had told you previously. And, I thought you may want
it for the Council information packet.
RJC:gs
Enclosure
SON
PLYMOUTH LIONS
�FRrust����
'VE SERVE"
April 8, 1986
Chief Carlquist
Public Safety Director
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Chief Carlquist:
The Plymouth Lions would like to extend an invitation to you and all Plymouth
police officers to attend a dinner as our guests in October.
The Plymouth Lions are a community service organization which works with
the needs of residents who require assistance in diabetes related illnesses
such as blindness and other handicaps. This year we are involved in the
community awards program in Plymouth, but decided to do something a little
extra for all of the law enforcement officers in the city. We feel that a
dinner would be an appropriate way for us to acknowledge their fine service
to our community.
This should be an enjoyable evening for all.
DATE: October 14, 1986
TIME: 6:00p.m. Social Hour 7:00p.m. Dinner
PLACE: Medina Ballroom
Sincerely,
oj
Ge g f
Cb irp on
Police Appreciation Night Committee
Plymouth Lions
ssg- i 7
GAH/lc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: October 10, 1986
TO: dames Willis, City Manager & Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
FROM: Community Development Coordinator Sara McConn
SUBJECT Progress Casting Group, Inc.
Over the past couple of months the staff review committee has worked with the Progress
Casting Group, Inc. with respect to interior building modifications and minor site
modifications for their company at their new Plymouth location.
The modifications were reviewed for compliance with the administrative approval provi-
sion as stated in Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Last month we were able to
obtain appropriate application materials which allowed us to proceed with it, admini-
stratively approving their work.
Part of the site modifications included the installation of two silos. The silos are
located in such a manner that a block wall is being constructed from the building and
connecting to these silos. Interior of the block wall, between the silos and the
building, are connecting doorways.
This information is provided to you in case you receive inquiries as to the installa-
tion/erection of the silos.
If you need further details please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: File 86073