HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-11-2003 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
6:00 p.m.
Public Safety Training Room
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss Brooklyn Park State Auditor's Report and related
policies
3. Schedule future study session topics
4. Adj ourn
Anda Number:
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager; Dale Hahn, Finance Director;
Jeanette Sobania, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Review Expenditure Policies
DATE: March 4, 2003, for City Council study session of March 11, 2003
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff on any changes desired in Plymouth's
expenditure policies or practices.
2. BACKGROUND: In 2002, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued the results of an
investigative report relating to various spending practices of the City of Brooklyn Park. A
copy of the OSA report is attached (Pages 22-71). The report generally discusses spending in
the following areas:
Employee recognition events
Employee social events, such as summer picnics or holiday parties
Employee meals and/or food as part of employee meetings
Chamber of Commerce dues
The report further noted areas where the city's financial accounting for expenditures could be
improved.
The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has the responsibility to supervise the financial
accounts of Minnesota cities and to conduct investigations of city accounts and records. Its
reports are advisory; however, suspected violations of law are forwarded to the city or county
attorney for possible prosecution. The report has no binding effect on other communities,
although observations made in the report should be carefully considered. The findings in the
OSA report rely heavily on advisory opinions issued by the Attorney General's office, which
are also not binding on cities, but are given careful consideration by the courts. Some of these
opinions are decades old.
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) received many questions from cities when the OSA
report was released, and it is likely that many of the questionable practices addressed in the
report are common practices in cities. The LMC General Counsel, Tom Grundhoefer, issued
a memo explaining and responding to issues in the State Auditor's report. A copy is attached
Pages 72-79).
The test for any city expenditure is two -fold: There must be a public purpose for the
expenditure, and there must be specific or implied authority for the expenditure found in the
State statute or the city's charter. The Minnesota Supreme Court has generally concluded
that "public purpose" means an activity that meets all of the following standards:
The activity will benefit the community as a body.
The activity is directly related to functions of government.
The activity does not have as its primary objective the benefit of a private interest.
When the OSA report was released, City Manager Johnson established a staff committee
comprised of Laurie Ahrens, Dale Hahn, and Jeanette Sobania to review Plymouth's policies
and practices. The committee attempted to identify whether a public purpose and specific
statutory authority exists for each area of expenditure. The committee also reviewed the
City's existing financial accounting policies and practices in the areas addressed in the
Brooklyn Park report to ensure adequate accountability.
The committee's initial reaction to the OSA report was that many of the issues do not apply
to Plymouth. The Brooklyn Park report addressed expenditures of the Economic
Development Authority, as well as the City Council. We do not host events on the scale of
the Brooklyn Park Annual Business Appreciation Golf event. We also do not have similar
issues with accountability related to certain financial accounting practices. For example, it
appears from the OSA report, that 146 employees had access to City credit cards in Brooklyn
Park, and some of the receipts were questionable. Only the seven department directors have
access. to City credit cards in Plymouth. Receipts are required for every purchase, and the City
Manager reviews the expenditures on every monthly bill.
We took a "middle-of-the-road" approach when considering the issues in the report. Many of
the issues in the OSA report are absolute, with little "gray area." We tried to be reasonable
by considering the City as an employer as well as a service -provider, but at the same time, we
wanted to be conservative on issues related to accountability which can affect public trust. In
addition to identifying the public purpose and statutory authority of expenditures, it is
important that the City Council feel comfortable with the practical, legal, and political
implications of the policies and that specific authorization be provided.
3. DISCUSSION: In response to the audit report, we recommend the following new or
revised policies:
Employee Recognition and Incentive Prop -rams. We recommend that the Employee and
Retiree Recognition Policy (Pages 5-6), which is currently an administrative policy, be
formalized into an Employee Recognition and Incentive Programs policy (Pages 7-9) to be
adopted by the City Council. The amended policy largely formalizes existing programs and
practices. It would better identify the public purpose and specifically authorize the existing
employee recognition, safety, and wellness/fitness programs.
One proposed change in this policy is that the costs for retirement celebrations and for
retirees attending recognition events would no longer be paid by the City, due to a lack of
public purpose. Retirees would receive a retirement plaque and would still be invited to
recognition events at their own cost.
A second proposed change relates to the City providing flowers for significant events. The
City currently sends flowers for funerals, sickness, and births. Flowers are sent for funerals
a.
for immediate family, defined as the employee, spouse, domestic partner, mother, father,
brother, child, grandchild, sister of the employee, or grandmother or grandfather of the
employee or spouse, mother-in-law or father-in-law. The OSA report found no public
purpose in a city sending flowers at any time for any occasion. We can find no public purpose
or statutory authority for the City to send flowers to an individual. While it is certainly a nice
caring action, there is no public purpose relative to safety, health, or performance. In fact, the
OSA report criticized Brooklyn Park for administering a fund that was completely paid by
employees for this purpose. We are recommending that the policy be amended to eliminate
the sending of flowers by the City. It is very likely that the practice will continue as
employees join together to send a card or flowers for very significant events.
A third item to consider is whether the City should continue to provide coffee for employees.
We are proposing that the policy state, "Coffee is provided to the visitors, volunteers, City
Council, board and commission members, and employees in their work areas." We believe
that there are productivity reasons to continue to provide coffee for employees in their work
areas. Our experience is that very few employees take a break (which they are legally entitled
to) away from their work area because coffee is available in their work area. It would also be
somewhat difficult to provide coffee for the public, volunteers, or visitors to City Hall, Public
Safety, the Plymouth Creek Center, etc., but prohibit employees from drinking it. An
alternative would be to charge employees for coffee or to eliminate the City's involvement in
providing coffee completely.
A fourth item that the Council should review is the current program for health club
reimbursement, which is in a separately adopted Council resolution (Page 10-12). The City
Council adopted this program in 1998. Approximately 27 employees participate in the
program at any given time, and the cost to the City for this program during 2002 was
5,462.13. However, this amount was spread to about 40 employees because it is common
for an employee to have inconsistent eligibility over the year. We have concerns about the
public purpose of this policy.
A fifth item for the Council to consider is the employee social and recognition events. The
OSA report states that employee social events do not have a public purpose. Recognition
events appear to be possibly allowed if appropriately authorized by the City Council. We
have reviewed the various events currently offered to employees and are recommending that
the annual employee recognition event, police recognition event, fire recognition event,
volunteer recognition event, and reserve police officer event be continued. Each of the
recognition events proposed to be continued include service awards and other recognition
awards with clearly defined criteria. In the previous policy, the City also offered an
alternative for shift employees, such as gift certificate. The OSA report specifically stated
there this is not appropriate, and it has been eliminated from the proposed policy. The City
has historically offered two additional employee events (a summer and winter event);
however, these are generally social in nature and have been deleted from the proposed policy.
Expense Reimbursement and Travel Policy. We recommend that the existing Travel Policy
Pages 13-14) and Expense Reimbursement Policy (Page 15) be combined into a revised
Expense Reimbursement and Travel Policy (Pages 16-19). These would continue to be
Council -adopted policies. Although the policy changes are few, we believe there is value is
combining these policies since the use of credit cards is often combined with expense
reimbursement and/or travel, and there is duplicate language in these policies.
The only substantive change in the portion of the policy relating to expense reimbursement is
a provision to allow the City Manager, under unique circumstances, to approve
reimbursement for items submitted after the 90 day limit. In practice this is rarely needed,
but occasionally occurs with a new employee or in a situation of a regular monthly meeting
such as the Plymouth Civic League) where it is more cost efficient for the City to reimburse
a Councilmember for an entire year of $10 per month meetings, rather than reimburse the
expenditure each month.
The travel policy also remains largely unchanged. The section on transportation is proposed
to be amended to allow someone who is not a City employee to ride -share in a City vehicle
with department head approval. Employees occasionally ride -share either in a Plymouth
vehicle or in the other City's vehicle when attending the same meeting. Ride -sharing is not
allowed under the current policy.
Chamber of Commerce Dues, While the State Auditor does not believe there is authority for
a city to belong to a Chamber of Commerce, we believe that there is a public purpose, as well
as statutory authority for membership. This is primarily due to the services that the City
receives in exchange for being a member, such as training opportunities and communication
with businesses. The statutes also give authority to expend city funds to advertise the
resources and advantages of the community, and our local chambers of commerce help serve
this function for Plymouth. When the Council approved the most recent dues payment, the
resolution clearly identified the public purpose and statutory authority (Page 20).
Meals and Refreshment Policy. We recommend that the Council adopt a new Meals and
Refreshment Policy to document when meals or refreshments are provided. There are no
significant changes from our existing practice, although there could be situations where, for
example, refreshments are eliminated from employee training sessions.
4. BUDGET IMPACT: There would be some cost savings with the adoption of these revised
policies. In 2002, the City spent $1,689.52 to send flowers for various significant employee
events and $5,462.13 for health club reimbursements. These would be eliminated under the
proposed policies. About $5,000 would be saved through elimination of the employee social
event. There may be some additional incidental savings in other areas.
5. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on any desired changes to City policies
or practices. Resolutions will be prepared for Council consideration at a future regular
meeting.
4
Employee and Retiree Recognition Policy
The City of Plymouth believes in recognizing the work and contributions of active
employees and retiring employees. The following general guidelines will apply to
employee recognition programs. Other forms of employee recognition may be approved
and implemented from time to time.
This policy was developed and approved by the Plymouth Labor Management Committee
in January 1998.
Annual Employee Recognition
Annual Recognition Luncheon. A recognition luncheon will be held in the spring of
each year. City Hall will be closed for two to three hours so that all employees may
attend. Service awards, safety awards, retiree recognition, and other employee
accomplishments will be given at this luncheon. Retired employees (PERA eligible)
will be invited to the annual recognition luncheon.
Service Awards. Employees completing five years of service, and subsequently in
increments of five years, will receive U.S. Savings bonds.
Flowers. Flowers will be sent to the employee or retired employee on behalf of the
City for the death of an immediate family member (as defined by the Personnel
Policy), or other significant event.
Other Employee Events. In addition to the annual recognition luncheon, other
employee events will be held each year: summer event, winter event, and other
optional activities as budgets allow.
Alternative Events for Shift Employees. Efforts will be made to have equivalent
events, scheduled at an alternative time, for employees who are regularly scheduled to
work hours which preclude them from attending the recognition event during the
work day.
Retiring Employee Recognition
City Council Recognition. Retiring employees will be invited to a city council
meeting to be recognized and thanked by the City Council, and to receive a plaque
from the City Council.
Retirement Celebration. The City will contribute toward each retiree celebration.
The city contribution helps to defray the cost of the retirement celebration, and does
not go directly to the retiring employee. The contribution dollar amount shall be a
minimum of $100 for an employee retiring with ten years of service, to a maximum of
250 for an employee retiring with twenty five or more years of service. From ten
years of service forward, the dollar amount contributed by the city will increase in $10
increments for each year of service, i.e. 14 years of service, a $140 city contribution.
Actual retirement celebration planning will be the responsibility of the retiree and the
department. A retiring employee does not have to have a celebration
Inclusion in Employee Events. All retired city employees will be invited to the three
major employee events (Annual Recognition luncheon, Summer Event, Winter
Event), and their expenses for the annual recognition event will be paid by the city.
le
Proposed
Employee Recognition and Incentive Programs
Employee Recognition
The City of Plymouth recognizes the hard work and contributions of active and retiring
employees through a formal Employee Recognition Policy. The public purpose for this
program is recognizing employee accomplishments according to sound human resource
management practice. The recognition program encourages productivity, creativity, and
good morale.
The Safety program follows established principles of safe workplace practice. It fosters
attention to and compliance with good safety practices, thereby preventing accidents
while saving both financial and human resources.
The Wellness/Fitness program provides ongoing information on various health issues,
remedies, and suggestions for improved health. The programs are designed to encourage
healthy lifestyles and to make employees aware of the risks associated with common
health problems. Such programs are recognized for reducing absenteeism among
employees and for reducing health insurance premiums.
The following general guidelines will apply to employee recognition programs. Other
forms of employee recognition may be approved and implemented with the authorization
of the City Council.
The budget for the program is included in the City's annual budget that is approved by the
City Council.
Annual Recognition Events. A recognition luncheon is held each year. City Hall is
closed for two to three hours so that all employees may attend. Service awards, safety
awards, retiree recognition, and recognition for other employee accomplishments are
given at this luncheon. Retired employees (PERA eligible) will be invited to the
annual recognition luncheon.
Volunteer Recognition Event. A recognition event is held for all volunteers and the
City employees who supervise them. The event includes a dinner that is provided to
staff and volunteers alike.
Police Department Recognition Event. A recognition event is held once each year to
recognize citizen and police officer achievement. Citizens, the families of citizens
and all police staff are invited. Hors d'oeuvres, cookies and beverages are served.
Officers and citizens receive awards. The employee awards are specified in the
Department's Policy and Operations Procedures Manual.
Reserve Police Officer Event. A recognition event is held annually for all the police
reserves and the officers who coordinate the program. The event includes a dinner
that is provided to officers and reservists alike.
Fire Department Recognition Event A recognition reception is held annually for all
firefighters and department staff. Hors d'oeuvres and dinner are served. The event
includes the department's awards ceremony.
Service Awards. Employees completing five years of service, and subsequently in
increments of five years, will receive U.S. Savings bonds.
Years of Service Bond Amount Bond Cost
5 50.00 25.00
10 75.00 37.50
15 100.00 50.00
20 150.00 75.00
25 200.00 100.00
30 250.00 125.00
Coffee. Coffee is provided to visitors, volunteers, the City Council, board and
commission members and employees in their work areas.
Retiring Employee Recognition
City Council Recognition. tion. Retiring employees will be invited to a city council
meeting to be recognized and thanked by the City Council, and to receive a plaque
from the City Council.
Inclusion in Employee Events. All retired city employees will be invited to major
employee events; however, they will be charged for their attendance.
Safety Program
Safe Driving Awards. The program includes providing recognition to employees in
the form of savings bonds for years of safe driving and the consciousness of safety in
the workplace.
Identification. Certain employees are provided with badges or items of clothing
and/or vests that clearly identify them as City employees.
Fitness/Wellness Program
The City currently has a committee that seeks out and sponsors programs that encourage
healthy living and avoidance of illness. Current programs include the following but
0
others may from time to time be added or substituted. The budget for this program is
drawn from the City's health and welfare fund.
Health Fair The City hosts a health fair at which risk assessments for
common health problems are performed. Information
about healthy life styles is provided.
Flu Shots Flu shots are provided each fall to employees and to retirees
insured under the City's health plan. It is hoped that this
program will encourage employees to get flu shots.
Shape up Challenge This program encourages employees to exercise.
The cost of this program is nominal.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 98-29
APPROVING THE EMPLOYEE FITNESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR 1998
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth Wellness Committee has proposed an incentive program to encourage
employee fitness and overall health;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota
hereby approves the Employee Fitness Incentive Program for 1998, based on the following guidelines:
Program P=ose. The City of Plymouth, through the Pathways Program, will reimburse employees for
health club monthly fees, subject to certain requirements.
General Program Guidelines.
Eligible Employees All regular full time and part time employees of the City of Plymouth are eligible
to participate. Seasonal and temporary employees are not eligible. Members of the City Council shall
not be eligible.
Membership at Health Club The employee must have an active mdmbership at a health club. The
employee will pay the initiation fee. A portion of the initiation fee may be reimbursed to the employee
at the end of one year, if certain participation requirements have been met.
Reimbursement Requirements The employee must show proof from the health club that he/she has had
eight workouts on eight different days in a given month to qualify for reimbursement. The city shall
reimburse the employee$15.00 per month if the employee has met the participation guidelines. Proof
of monthly participation shall be submitted on a quarterly basis. The employee is responsible for
providing proof of participation. The city shall reimburse all participating employees at the same rate
of $15.00 per month, regardless of the category of membership.
Initiation Fee Reimbursement If, at the end of one year, the employee has had at least nine months of
qualifying participation, the city shall reimburse up to $100 of the initiation fee to the employee. The
employee must show a receipt for the initiation fee and nine monthly participation forms. Initiation fee
reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of the initiation fee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employee Fitness Incentive Program shall be implemented on a
trail basis for 1998, that program costs shall be capped at $25,000, and that the program shall be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
Number of employees enrolled in program, January, 1998
Percentage of employees enrolled in January, 1998, who are still active participants,
September30, 1998. (Goal: 25% overall)
Percentage of employees enrolled meeting monthly participation guidelines (Goal: 25% each
month)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the source of funding for the Employee Fitness Incentive Program in
1998 shall be the Employee Benefit Fund, to be transferred from the Risk Management Fund.
Adopted by the Plymouth City Council on January 7, 1998
0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 99-52
RECEIVING THE 1998 REPORT ON THE EMPLOYEE FITNESS INCENTIVE
PROGRAM AND APPROVING MAKING THE EMPLOYEE FITNESS INCENTIVE
PROGRAM A PERMANENT PROGRAM FOR CITY OF PLYMOUTH EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the Employee Fitness Incentive Program was implemented on a trial basis
during 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Fitness Incentive Program has met or exceeded all of the
performance standards established by Resolution 98-29;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota that the 1998 report on the performance of the Employee Fitness Incentive Program is
hereby received; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employee Fitness Incentive Program is hereby made a
permanent program for City of Plymouth Employees.
Adopted by the City Council on February 2, 1999.
N:\REFERENC\Council\Council resolutions\Resolutions 1999\Res99-052.doc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 99-523
APPROVING INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE FITNESS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Employee Fitness Incentive Program has proven to be a successful
program for City employees; and
WHEREAS, the costs have increased substantially for employees to maintain their
memberships and participation requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Wellness Committee is recommending increasing the City's monthly
contribution from $15 per month to $17 per month; and
WHEREAS, the Wellness Committee is also recommending that the City pay 50% of the
cost of employees walking at the Plymouth Creek Field House.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Council authorizes
paying $17 per month for employee health club reimbursements effective January 1,
2000, and 50% of the cost of employees walking at the Plymouth Creek Field House
effective immediately. The cost will be paid from the Employee Fitness Account.
Adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999.
TRAVEL POLICY
Resolution No. 96-649
November 20, 1996
Supersedes Res. 95-223, Apr 4, 1995; Res. 94-399, July 18, 1994)
This policy establishes guidelines and procedures for the payment of travel costs for City
employees and City officials who travel on official City business.
1. Applicability. This policy applies to all City employees including temporary and part-time
employees, the Mayor, members of the City Council, and members of any Commission or
Committee of the City.
2. Travel Covered. This policy applies to all travel for official City business outside the seven -
county metro area and which requires overnight lodging. Other local travel expenses shall be
paid according to the City Mileage Reimbursement Policy or the Expense Reimbursement
Policy.
3. Eligible Expenses. The following expenses may be paid or reimbursed:
Lodging -single rate plus gratuities
Registration Fees
Meals, including gratuities
Transportation
Business related telephone calls
4. Authorization for Travel Expenses. Department Heads must give written pre -approval for
travel by employees. The City Manager must give written pre -approval for travel by
Department Heads or members of any Commission or Committee. The City Manager must
inform the City Council by written memo of all travel in advance or as soon as possible if an
emergency exists. The Mayor or any member of the Council must inform the City Council
and the City Manager by written memo of any travel in advance.
5. Specific Policies for Payment of Travel Expenses.
A. Transportation. Payment or reimbursement for transportation costs shall generally be
based on a comparison between the cost and convenience of the lowest available air fare
and travel by personal or City vehicle with attendant meal, lodging, parking, and loss of
work time costs. The City Manager must approve any exception to this general rule. If a
frequent flyer program is in effect, a separate program shall be established by the
employee or official so that credits are recorded to the City. Ground transportation,
including buses, taxis, rental cars, and attendant parking shall be reimbursed if receipts
are provided. The most cost-effective and efficient mode of ground transportation must
be used.
13
B. Lodging. Accommodations shall be appropriate to the purpose of the trip. Rates for
accommodations shall be comparable to those of other facilities in the area. The hotel
hosting a convention shall be deemed to be an appropriate accommodation. The City will
pay for the single rate only if the City employee or official is accompanied by a guest or
family member.
C. Meal Allowance. Expenses for meals, including gratuity, will be reimbursed according to
the following limits and procedures. No reimbursement will be made for alcoholic
beverages. Per diem meal expenses of $25 per day will be allowed without receipts being
required. Meal allowances up to a maximum of $40 per any 24 hour period shall be
reimbursed if receipts accompany the request for meal reimbursement.
If any meals are included in conference or seminar registration fees deductions to the per
diem will made in the following amounts:
5.00 Breakfast
7.00 Lunch
13.00 Dinner
D. Telephone Allowance. Telephone calls "shall be reimbursed only if they are for City
business.
E. Registration. Registration fees for seminars, conferences or workshops authorized under
Section 4 may be paid or reimbursed.
6. Procedure.
A. Direct payment. Whenever possible, the City will make direct payments for travel and
registration costs.
B. Reimbursement. An itemized expense report must be completed and submitted to
authorizing individual or the Finance Department within 15 days following the date of
return. Expense forms are available in the Finance Department. Receipts shall accompany
all expenses, including expenses for which advances were issued.
j f
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
Resolution No. 94-460
August 1, 1994
Supersedes Res. No. 94-401; July 18, 1994)
This policy establishes guidelines and procedures for the payment and reimbursement for City
expenses incurred by City employees and City officials which are not covered under the City's
Travel Policy.
1. Applicability. This policy applies to all City employees, including temporary and part-time
employees, the Mayor, members of the City Council, and members of any Commission or
Committee of the City.
2. Expenses Covered. This policy applies to all expense reimbursements and to expenses
incurred by use of City credit cards. The City Travel Policy should also be consulted for any
travel related expenses. In the event of any conflict of interpretation between this policy and
the Travel Policy, the most restrictive provision shall apply.
3. Authorization of Expense Reimbursements. Department Heads must give written pre -
approval for reimbursement of expenses or payment of credit card charges by employees.
The City Manager must give written approval for reimbursement of expenses for Department
Heads and members of any Commission or Committee. The City Manager must also approve
the payment of credit card charges by Department Heads or members of any Commission or
Committee. The City's outside auditing firm shall be instructed to specifically review
expenditures on all City credit cards, including credit card expenditures incurred by the City
Manager.
4 Procedure. Expense reimbursements shall be submitted within 90 days of the date the
expense was incurred or the reimbursement shall be denied. Expense reimbursements shall
be paid separately and not included on payroll checks.
s
Proposed
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
This policy establishes guidelines and procedures for the payment and reimbursement of
City expenses, incurred by City employees and City officials.
Applicability
This policy applies to all City employees, including temporary and part-time employees,
the Mayor, members of the City Council, and members of any Commission or Committee
of the City.
Expenses Covered
This policy applies to all expense reimbursements for items including travel and expenses
incurred by use of City credit cards.
Authorization
Department Directors must give written approval for reimbursement of expenses or
payment of credit card charges by employees. The City Manager must give written
approval for reimbursement of expenses for Department Directors and members of any
Commission or Committee. The City Manager must also approve the payment of credit
card charges by Department Directors or members of any Commission or Committee.
Purchases made under terms of a blanket purchase order are not deemed to be credit card
charges and do not require approval by the City Manager. The City's outside auditing
firm shall be instructed to specifically review expenditures on all City credit cards,
including credit card expenditures incurred by the City Manager.
Procedure
Expense reimbursements shall be submitted within 90 days of the date the expense was
incurred or the reimbursement shall be denied. The City Manager may, under unique
circumstances approve reimbursement for items submitted after the 90 day limit has
tolled. Expense reimbursements shall be paid separately and not included on payroll
checks.
Travel
Travel Outside the Seven -County Metro Area (Overnight).
4
Travel for City business outside the seven -county metro area and which requires
overnight lodging will be paid or reimbursed for the following items:
A. Lodging -single rate plus gratuities
B. Registration fees
C. Meals, including gratuities.
D. Transportation
E. Business related telephone calls.
Authorization for Travel Expenses.
Travel Outside the Seven -County Metro Area (Overnight).
Written approval (or notice) must be provided for travel outside the seven -county
metro area.
Department Directors must give written pre -approval for travel by employees.
The City Manager must give written pre -approval for travel by Department
Directors or members of any Commission or Committee.
The City Manager must inform the City Council by written memo of all travel
in advance or as soon as possible if an emergency exists.
The Mayor or any member of the Council must inform the City Council and
the City Manager by written memo of any applicable travel in advance.
An "Authorization for Travel Expenses" form must be filled out, approved by the
appropriate person and routed to the Finance Department in each instance.
Travel Within the Seven -County Metro Area (Non -Overnight).
Pre -approval of travel within the seven -county metro area is not required.
Specific Policies for Payment of Travel Expenses.
Transportation. Payment or reimbursement for transportation costs shall generally be
based on a comparison between the cost and convenience of the lowest available air fare
and travel by personal or City vehicle with attendant meal, lodging, parking and loss of
work time costs. The City Manager must approve any exception to this general rule. If a
frequent flyer program is in effect, a separate program shall be established by the
employee or official so that credits are recorded to the City. Ground transportation,
including buses, taxis, rental cars, and attendant parking shall be reimbursed if receipts
are provided. The most cost-effective and efficient mode of ground transportation must
be used.
If an employee is accompanied on travel by someone who is not a City employee a City
vehicle may not be used. This policy may be waived by a Department Director if it is
part of a ride -sharing arrangement with another public agency.
7
Travel to and from the worksite (commuting) is not eligible for reimbursement. This
includes commutes on evenings and weekends. If City business is conducted during a
commute to or from the worksite, reimbursement will only be granted for mileage above
and beyond that which would have been driven if a typical direct route were followed.
In instances where an employee chooses to proceed directly from their home to a meeting,
conference or seminar away from their regular or secondary worksite the employee will
be reimbursed for the distance from their home to the alternative destination minus the
distance of their typical commute to their regular worksite.
If a personal vehicle is utilized for travel on City business proof of automobile insurance
meeting state minimum requirements must be presented, if requested, before
reimbursement for mileage will be granted.
Lodging. Accommodations shall be appropriate to the purpose of the trip. Rates for
accommodations shall be comparable to those of other facilities in the area. The hotel
hosting a convention shall be deemed to be an appropriate accommodation. The City will
pay for the single rate, only, if the City employee or official is accompanied by a guest or
family member.
Meal Allowance. Expenses for meals, including gratuity, will be reimbursed according
the following limits and procedures for overnight travel outside the seven -county metro
area. No reimbursement will be made for alcoholic beverages. No reimbursement will be
made for anyone else other than additional City employees who are also actively
conducting City business. Per diem meal expenses of $25 per day will be allowed
without receipts being required. Meal allowances up to a maximum of $40 per any 24
hour period shall be reimbursed if receipts accompany the request for meal
reimbursement.
If any meals are included in conference or seminar registration fees deductions to the per
diem or the meal allowance maximum will be made in the following amounts:
5.00 Breakfast
7.00 Lunch
13.00 Dinner
Telephone Allowance. Telephone calls shall be reimbursed only if they are for City
business.
Registration. Registration fees for authorized seminars, conferences or workshops may
be paid or reimbursed.
Payment Procedure.
Direct Payment. Whenever possible, the City will make direct payments for travel and
registration costs.
Reimbursement. An itemized expense report must be completed and submitted to an
authorizing individual or the Finance Department within 15 days following the date of
return. Expense forms are available in the Finance Department. Receipts shall
accompany all expenses, including expenses for which advances were issued (receipts are
not required for per diem meal expenses). Receipts shall be itemized for all purchases for
which reimbursement is sought.
1
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2002 -
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF DUES TO THE
TWINWEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 469.187 — 469.189 give authority to expend city funds to
advertise the resources and advantages of the community and the TwinWest Chamber helps
serve this function for Plymouth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council works through the Chamber of Commerce to involve businesses in
issues of affordable housing and transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City works through the TwinWest Chamber on the Plymouth Environmental
Business Partnership; and
WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce offers the City affordable training opportunities such as
the practical politics series, leadership series, and seminars on a variety of workforce issues, such
as immigration and technology; and
WHEREAS, the Chamber of Commerce helps the City fulfill its mission of communication with
local businesses through the Mayor -Manager meetings, the Local Business Council, and the
State of the City Annual Meeting.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Plymouth City Council finds that membership in the
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce serves a public purpose and that a dues payment of $473.00 is
approved for the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003.
Adopted by the Plymouth City Council on November 12, 2002.
Meal and Refreshment Policy
The following guidelines will direct when meals and/or refreshments will be provided to
employees, Council and Commission members, volunteers and the public. Generally, meetings
must be scheduled to avoid the inclusion of meals.
If necessary, meals and/or refreshments may be provided at the following:
At City hosted meetings in which the meeting involves primarily non City employees but where
some City employees are providing staffing services.
When City Council, official Commissions or subgroups are meeting during a time commonly
earmarked for breakfast, lunch or dinner. In general, meals will be provided for meetings
beginning at or before 6 p.m. that run through 7 p.m.
During meetings consisting primarily of City employees when the refreshment and/or meals
allow employees to continue the program with minimal disruption (particularly when the meal
time is less than that normally allotted for lunch or dinner). All day training, retreats, candidate
assessment processes are examples of this type of meeting.
During emergencies and elections when there is little control over the flow of work and
employees are obligated to work much longer than normal.
41
PUBLIC RELEASE OF
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
1999-2001
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
July 17, 2002
wo,
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Index
I. Minnesota Public Purpose Doctrine .......................................... 3
H. City Expenditure Procedures ............................................... 4
A. City Purchasing Cards .............................................. 4
B. Use of Petty Cash for Employee Expense Reimbursements ................. 6
III. Gifts to Private Individuals ................................................ 9
IV. Golf Tournaments...................................................... 10
A. Business Appreciation Events ....................................... 10
B. Other City Golf Expenditures ....................................... 16
V. Expenditures for Meals/Food.............................................. 19
A. Alcohol.........................................................21
B. City -Purchased Employee Meals/Food................................ 23
1. Mayor's Prayer Breakfast ..................................... 23
2. Staff -on -Staff Meals ......................................... 24
3. City Staff Meals with City Officials ............................ 25
4. Meals Prior to City Meetings .................................. 26
5. Staff Meetings/Gatherings.................................... 27
a. Quarterly Manager's Meetings ........................... 27
b. Food at Staff Meetings ................................. 28
C. Other Food and Products - No Purpose Provided ............ 28
C. Meals for/with Non -City Employees .................................. 29
D. Other Questionable Meals .......................................... 29
E. City Coding of Expenditures ........................................ 30
F. Lack of Limits on Meal Expenditures ................................. 30
G. Recommendations................................................31
a3
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Index
V1. Employee Events.......................................................32
A. Employee Gifts, Employee Celebrations, and Employee Recognition
Events.........................................................33
1. Gifts to City Employees ...................................... 33
2. Miscellaneous Employee Celebrations .......................... 34
3. The City's Annual Recognition Event ........................... 34
B. Annual Employee Picnic ........................................... 37
C. Annual Holiday Party ..............................................38
D. Spring Clean -Up Breakfast ......................................... 39
E. Shape -Up Challenge..............................................40
F. Make -A -Difference Day Campaigns .................................. 41
VII. Chamber of Commerce Dues .............................................. 42
VIII. Come Home To The Park, A Non -Profit Corporation ........................... 43
IX. Conclusion............................................................47
ii
a
up TO
ryp 'O
aaa
All. x
s .
JUDITH H. DUTCHER
STATE AUDITOR
INTRODUCTION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SUITE 400
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139
PUBLIC RELEASE OF
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
1999-2001
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
July 17, 2002
651) 296-2551 (Voice)
651) 296-4755 (Fax)
stateauditor@osa.state.mn.us (E-mail)
1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service)
The Special Investigations Division of the Office of the State Auditor (hereinafter "OSA") received
concerns regarding the City of Brooklyn Park (hereinafter "City").' Specifically, concerns were
raised regarding the City's expenditure of public funds for holiday parties, employee events, golf
tournaments, employee gifts, and meetings at which food and/or beverages were provided.
BACKGROUND
The City is a home rule charter city.z The City Charter designates the City Manager as the City's
chief purchasing agent, and authorizes the City Manager to make or let contracts for the purchase
of merchandise, materials or equipment in the manner provided by state law for cities of its class,
after first obtaining the approval of the City Council.' The City's Charter also provides:
No disbursement of city funds shall be made unless authorized by the City Manager and
Director of Finance. Disbursements must specify the fund from which it is made. No
disbursement shall be made until the claim to which it relates has been supported by an
itemized bill, payroll, or timesheet approved and signed by the responsible city officer who
According to the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year
ended December 31, 2000, the City is the fourth largest city in the St.
Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area and the sixth largest city in the State of
Minnesota.
The City selected the Council/Manager form of government in 1966. The City
became a charter city in 1969. The City's current Home Rule Charter was
adopted on October 9, 1969.
City Charter § 7.05. The City Charter also designates the City Manager as the
City's chief accounting officer. City Charter § 8.12. The City's most recent City
Manager was appointed by the City Council in December 1995 and resigned
effective May 31, 2002. 1--
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 2
vouches for its correctness and reasonableness. The City may by ordinance make further
regulations for the safekeeping and disbursement of the funds of the city.'
In addition, the City Charter provides that the City Council has full authority over the financial
affairs of the City, and must provide for the safekeeping and disbursement of public monies.'
During 1999 through 2001, the OSA's period of review, the City Manager delegated purchasing
authority to the director in each of the City's seven departments.' Thus, the City maintained a
decentralized" system of purchasing.'
In order to determine whether the City's expenditures satisfied Minnesota law, the OSA requested
that the City identify disbursements related to holiday parties, employee events, golf tournaments,
employee gifts, and meetings at which food and/or beverages were provided by the City. In April
of 2002, the OSA received the final documentation required for its review.
Based upon the OSA's investigation, it appears that the City expended public funds for meals, gifts
and events contrary to Minnesota law. The OSA has identified $199,569.36 in questionable
expenditures during the OSA's period of review.
City Charter § 8.10.
City Charter § 8.01.
City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31,
2000 at 22. The seven departments are: Finance and Administrative Services (58
employees), Planning and Development (17 employees), Engineering and
Building Inspections (30 employees), Police (130 employees), Fire (11
employees), Operations and Maintenance (75 employees), and Recreation and
Parks (47 employees). The number of employees indicated in parentheses is the
number of employees listed on a 2002 employee telephone directory provided to
the OSA by the City. In addition, 12 employees are listed as part of the City's
Administration. The City has also created an Economic Development Authority
hereinafter "EDA"). The City employees working for the EDA are part of the
Planning and Development Department.
See City Purchasing Manual § 30.10 (May 1, 1996). For the majority of
purchases, each City department negotiates directly with its vendors and processes
the requests for payment. Given the City Charter's language, the OSA questions
whether the City Manager and the Director of Finance have the authority under
the City Charter to assign or delegate their disbursement authority.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 3
I. MINNESOTA PUBLIC PURPOSE DOCTRINE
The public purpose doctrine is based on the Minnesota State Constitution, Art. X § 1. Pursuant to
the doctrine, public entities may only spend public funds "[i]f the purpose is a public one for which
tax money may be used, and there is authority to make the expenditure, and the use is
genuine ...."' Thus, for an expenditure of a public entity to be proper, the public entity must first
have the authority to make the expenditure.' As explained in a Minnesota Attorney General Opinion,
public funds cannot be expended, regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose maybe,
unless there is statutory or charter authority to do so.10
Second, the expenditure must be made for a public purpose." The courts have generally construed
Public purpose" to mean "such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and
which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government. ,12 The benefit that the
public receives from the expenditure of public funds cannot be merely incidental.13 According to
the Minnesota Attorney General, any benefit which results from an employee social function is too
remote and speculative in nature to justify the expenditure as being for a public purpose.14
Furthermore, the public purpose requirement applies to funds of governmental entities derived not
only from taxation, but from other sources as well.15
Minnesota law also states that "[a]ll officers and agencies of... cities ... shall make and preserve
all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.i16 The chief
8 Tousley v. Leach, 180 Minn. 293, 296, 230 N.W. 788, 789 (1930).
Id.
10 Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
11 Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 (1958).
n Id.
13 See Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171, 174, 194 N.W. 404 (1923).
14 Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
15 Op. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) (expenditures from a hospital which
had been self-sufficient for several years were still required to satisfy a public
purpose because the hospital had been established with public funds).
16 Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 1 (2000).
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 4
administrative officer is responsible for the preservation of the records, which include written or
printed books, papers, letters, contracts, documents, computer-based data, and other records made
or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of public business." Therefore, a
city must maintain documentation to establish that all city expenditures served a public purpose.
II. CITY EXPENDITURE PROCEDURES
Many of the City expenditures reviewed by the OSA were incurred by employees through the City's
purchasing card and petty cash systems. The OSA determined that the City's procedures for
handling City purchasing card and petty cash expenditures during the OSA's period of review did
not provide the City with an adequate basis to ensure proper use of public funds.
A. City Purchasing Cards
Prior to May 2001, cities did not have specific statutory authority to use credit cards. The 2001
Minnesota Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 471.382 which authorizes the use of credit cards by
cities, but restricts their use to purchases made for the city. The statute does not provide for a city
credit card to be used to purchase personal items. Furthermore, if a city officer or employee makes
or directs a purchase for the city that is not authorized by the city council, the officer or employee
becomes personally liable for the amount of the purchase. 18 The statute also requires that credit card
use be consistent with other state law and city policy.
The use of "purchasing cards" was approved by the City Council on September 14, 1998.19 The
City's purchasing cards, also known as procurement cards, are a credit card based system used by
the City to purchase items and services. The City represented that such a system would reduce
paperwork and simplify the purchasing process.20 The purchasing card concept, similar to a credit
card, delegates the authority, responsibility and capability to make purchases directly to the
cardholder.21
17 Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 2 (2000). The City's chief administrative officer is the
City Manager. City Charter § 7.01.
18 Minn. Stat.§ 471.382 (2002).
19 See City Resolution #1998-248. The Resolution authorized the City to enter a
purchasing card arrangement with Norwest Bank and its successors or assigns.
20 See City's Purchasing Card Program administrative report (August 2001) and
City's Purchasing Card System User Manual (December 1998) at 1.
21 See City's Purchasing Card System User Manual (December 1998) at 1.
0?8
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 5
As of March 2001, 146 City employees were authorized to use City purchasing cards.22 According
to the City's Purchasing Card System User Manual, cardholders receive a copy of their statement of
account each week. The cardholders are to review the weekly statement of account for accuracy
including the accuracy of City accounting codes), obtain departmental signature(s), attach the
original receipts, and return the statement to Accounts Payable within five working days of receiving
the statement.
The OSA reviewed all purchasing card transactions completed by the City from 1999 through 2001.
The OSA observed several procedures that do not provide the City with adequate assurance that
purchasing card expenditures comply with Minnesota law. For example, during the OSA's period
of review, the OSA observed:
The employee who made the purchase with a City purchasing card was, at times, the
same employee who approved the expenditure;
The City did not consistently obtain an itemized receipt from employees who used
a City purchasing card;
The City did not consistently obtain a list of attendees at, or a stated purpose for,
meals purchased with a City purchasing card; and
The claims lists presented to the City Council during 1999 and 2000 described the
purchasing card transactions as simply "transactions thru [date]," thereby precluding
meaningful City Council review of purchasing card expenditures.23
As set forth below, the OSA found numerous instances in which purchasing card expenditures
appear to violate Minnesota law.
22 Excluding employees in the City's Police Department, it appears that
approximately one-half of all remaining City employees had City purchasing cards
as of March 2001. At the June 4, July 2, and August 20, 2001 work sessions, the
City Council discussed the use of purchasing cards by City employees. The City
expressed concern with the number of cardholders and the dollar limits placed on
the purchasing cards. According to a City Department of Administration report,
the number of cardholders as of August 2001 was 126 employees. The report also
indicated that the City Manager was attempting to reduce the number of cards by
an additional 20 cards.
23 Beginning in February 2001, the claims lists presented to the City Council contain
a brief description of individual purchasing card expenditures.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 6
The OSA observed that the City addressed many of these procedures during 2001, after questions
about the purchasing card procedures were raised by the City Council.24 As set forth more fully in
this Report, the OSA recommends that the City continue to review and modify its purchasing card
procedures to safeguard the public monies entrusted to it.
B. Use of Petty Cash for Employee Expense Reimbursements
The City had an employee reimbursement policy in effect during the GSA's period of review.25 The
OSA was informed that employees were encouraged to use the City's purchasing cards for work-
related expenses. However, if the purchasing cards were not used, the employees were to submit
their work-related expenses, up to $50.00, to one of four petty cash funds maintained by the City at
the City Hall in Customer Service, the Community Activity Center, the Police Department and the
City's Historical Farm .2' The OSA was also informed that the use of petty cash for reimbursements
has fallen significantly since the City began to use purchasing cards.
The City Charter is silent on the establishment of petty cash funds. However, Minnesota law
authorizes cities to establish imprest cash funds,27 commonly known as petty cash funds. Imprest
cash funds may be used for the payment in cash of any proper claim against the city which is
24 The minutes of City Council work sessions reflect that during 2001 the City
discussed whether certain City disbursements had a public purpose. The City
Council adopted, on February 11, 2002, after the GSA's investigation had begun,
Standing Executive Policy #12 entitled "Public Purpose Expenditures." The OSA
also notes that, on March 18, 2002, the City Council considered, but did not
adopt, a proposal to add a public purpose expenditure section to the City Charter.
The OSA recommends that the City review Standing Executive Policy # 12 in
light of this Report.
25 See City's Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20, 35.0 (travel) and 40.0 (petty cash) (May 1,
1996); City's Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20, 35.0 (travel) and 40.0 (petty cash)
April 2001).
26 Under the 2001 policy, reimbursements from petty cash for safety shoes may
exceed $50.00.
27 See Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000). If a city charter is silent on a matter
that is addressed in Chapter 412, and general law doesn't prohibit a charter from
addressing the matter or provide that the charter prevails, then a charter city may
apply the general law on the matter. Minn. Stat. § 410.33 (2000).
30
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 7
impractical to pay in any other manner .28 The law specifically prohibits the use of such funds for
personal expenses" of a city officer or employee."
During 1999 and 2000, City employees completed a "Petty Cash Voucher" form to receive
reimbursement in cash. The form sought the following information: description, account number
and amount.30 During 2001, the City appears to have implemented a new "Petty Cash Voucher"
form that requested additional information from the employee about the expense.31 Both of the
Petty Cash Voucher" forms used by the City during the OSA's period of review had signature lines
for the employee and the department head. Receipts were often attached to the "Petty Cash
Voucher" forms. The reimbursements from several of these forms were tallied on a "Requisition"
form which was then submitted to the City's Finance Department at least once per month to
replenish the petty cash ftmd.32
Generally, employee expenses that are reimbursed, including meal reimbursements for non -overnight
meals, must be included in the employee's gross income, reported on form W-2, and subject to
income tax withholding and FICA/FUTA taxes.33 The OSA was informed that the City does not
distinguish between taxable and nontaxable reimbursements.
28 Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000).
29 Id.
30 For both local mileage and business meal reimbursements, the City's 1996 policy
required an employee to complete an "Employee Expense Report" form which
requested additional information from the employee, and required the employee to
declare that the claim was just and correct and that no part of it had been paid.
See City's Purchasing Manual §§ 1.20(e), 3 5. 10 (mileage) and 35.20 (business
meals) (May 1, 1996). Under the City's 2001 policy, the employee is required to
complete "appropriate forms" for reimbursements. See City's Purchasing Manual
1.20(e) (April 2001). The OSA observed that the Employee Expense Report
form was not consistently used during the OSA's period of review.
31 The form used in 2001 expanded the "description" portion of the form to include:
for a meeting or seminar, the attendees, location, purpose and date; and for
mileage claims, the date, purpose, and number of miles claimed. The expanded
form also requires that original receipts be attached to the form.
32 See City's Purchasing Manual § 40.10 (April 2001); City's Purchasing Manual
40.10 (May 1, 1996).
33 26 C.F.R. § 1.62-2 (C)(5) (2000).
31
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 8
The OSA reviewed the City's petty cash reimbursements for 1999 through 2001. The OSA observed
several procedures that do not provide the City with adequate assurance that petty cash
reimbursements comply with Minnesota and federal law. For example, during the OSA's period of
review, the OSA observed:
The City's use of the petty cash funds for reimbursement of personal meal and travel
expenses of City employees and officers is inconsistent with Minnesota law;"
The employee who made the petty cash reimbursement request was, at times, the
same employee who approved the expenditure;"
The Police Department's petty cash voucher forms did not consistently contain a
department head's signature;
The City did not consistently obtain a list of attendees, a stated purpose, and an
itemized receipt for meals reimbursed through the City's petty cash;"
Mileage reimbursements did not consistently indicate the travel location or distance,
but simply a reimbursement amount for "mileage";
Telephone expenses were sometimes reimbursed without an itemization describing
the telephone calls made;
The claims lists presented to the City Council during 1999 and 2000 described each
petty cash reimbursement as simply "replenish petty cash," thereby precluding
meaningful City Council review of petty cash reimbursements; and
The City did not maintain a record of reimbursements that should have been included
in employees' gross income for tax purposes.
As set forth below, the OSA found numerous instances in which reimbursements from petty cash
appear to violate Minnesota law.
34 See Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5 (2000).
35 For example, when claims are submitted by department heads or supervisors, no
second signature appeared to be required.
36 For example, receipts from restaurants were often reimbursed through petty cash
with simply "meeting expense" or "business lunch" as the justification for the
reimbursement. The OSA's review disclosed that the Community Activity Center
and Historical Farm petty cash funds were rarely used for reimbursement of such
expenses.
J
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 9
III. GIFTS TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
During its review, the OSA found that the City purchased gifts for private individuals from the
catalogue company Harry and David in the amount of $527.15. The gifts included the following:
On March 31, 1999, a "Deluxe Good for You Tower/Treats" was ordered for Mr. Daniel
Rooke, with the message "Thank You for Your Help and Good Work, It's Much Appreciated
Mark Anderson and Staff." The cost to the City was $83.85.37 Mr. Rooke is identified in
City records as the City's insurance broker. The gift was ordered using Mr. Mark E.
Anderson's City purchasing card.38 Mr. Anderson is the City's former Human Resources
Director, who also approved the expenditure.39
On November 17, 1999, three "All -Occasion Bear Creek Banquets" were ordered with a
requested arrival date of "Thanksgiving." The OSA was unable to determine who received
the items, or any message which accompanied the items, because those lines on the invoice
had been blacked out. $202.66 of City money was expended on the order. The gifts were
purchased using Mr. Mark Anderson's City purchasing card. Mr. Anderson also approved
the expenditure.
On December 17, 1999, four "Giant Triple Treats" were ordered with a requested arrival date
of "Christmas," in the amount of $194.75, using Mr. Mark Anderson's City purchasing card.
The "Giant Triple Treats" were sent to Mr. Daniel Rooke, Mr. Rick Morley, Mr. Jim Sarych
and Mr. Mark Anderson. The OSA was informed that Mr. Morley and Mr. Sarych are
consultants for the City. The "Giant Triple Treat" for Mr. Anderson was sent to Mr.
Anderson's home address. A handwritten notation on the invoice states "Vendor & Staff
Recognition." The expenditure was approved by Mr. Mark Anderson.
37 $38.90 (46%) of the $83.85 was for delivery and expedited delivery charges.
38 According to the City's Purchasing Card System User Manual, the only person
entitled to use a purchasing card is the person whose name appears on the face of
the card.
39 The OSA has been informed that Mr. Anderson is no longer employed by the
city.
J
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 10
On August 21, 2000, a "Tower of Treats" costing the City $45.89 was purchased for Mr. Dan
Rooke, with the message "Thanks for all your work. Get better soon." The gift was ordered
using Mr. Thomas Suppes' City purchasing card. Mr. Suppes is the City's Loss Control
Coordinator in the Finance and Administrative Services Department. The gift was signed:
Tom Suppes & the City of Brooklyn Park." The expenditure was approved by Mr. Mark
Anderson.
The OSA questions the authority of the City to be sending gifts to private individuals such as
consultants or City employees .4' The OSA recommends that the City stop providing gifts to
individuals, absent specific statutory authority to do so. In order to secure internal controls, the OSA
further recommends that any person making purchases on behalf of the City be prohibited from
approving their own expenditures. Finally, the OSA recommends that the City consider seeking
reimbursement from Mr. Mark Anderson for the purchase he may have sent to himself at City
expense.
IV. GOLF TOURNAMENTS
It was alleged, and the OSA found, that the City expended public funds for City employees to attend
golf tournaments.
A. Business Appreciation Events
In August of 1999, 2000 and 2001, the City held a Business Appreciation event at Edinburgh, a City -
owned golf course. The City informed the OSA that the events were held to thank City business
partners for their partnership.' According to the City's Deputy Director of Community
Development, the events provided the City an opportunity to showcase past developments and to
promote new developments in the City.
Each year, the City's Deputy Director of Community Development invited people to play golf at no
charge to the participant. For example, the brochure for the 2001 event invited participants as
follows:
40 Additional Harry and David gift purchases for City employees are included in the
Employee Gift" section of this Report. The OSA also found a City expenditure
of $82.65 on December 2, 1999 for "paper, envelopes, etc., for vendor holiday
letters of appreciation."
41 Generally there is not authority for the City to enter into partnerships with
attendees of the Business Appreciation events.
34
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 11
Please join us in celebrating our many partners working with us to make Brooklyn
Park a place where businesses want to be.
So grab your golf bag, your hat, leave your worries at the office and come on out to
an exciting day of golf in sunny, warm and wonderful Brooklyn Park. We will
supply the fantastic golf course, the camaraderie and the great food. You supply your
dazzling golfing expertise and your exuberant personality.
If you are unable to attend, please designate another representative from your
company.
City employees were assigned to play golf in each golf foursome, and the Mayor was available
during the day. Other City employees staffed the events.az
The OSA was provided lists of Business Appreciation event. participants for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
According to the lists, it appears that the following people participated in the events:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT PARTICIPANTS
1999 2000 2001
Golf Dinner Golf Dinner Golf Dinner
Event Onlv Event Onlv Event Only
Brooklyn Park
Employees
and Officials 16 5 18 8 17 10
Representatives from
Other Cities 3 5 1
Local Colleges/Schools 1 4 1 4 1
CLIC4' 1 1 1
Met Council 1 1 1
Hennepin County 1 I
MN Legislature 1
Others 70 4 72 5 82 5
TOTALS 94 9 101 14 107 16
Employees attending the events were not required to use vacation -time and were42
provided a meal purchased by the City.
43 CLIC is the City's Citizen Long Range Improvement Committee comprised of 15
citizens.
3S
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 12
Included among those who attended all or part of the events at the City of Brooklyn Park's expense
were individuals from law firms and financial institutions. According to the City, the City's
attorneys, consultants, brokers and lending partners were invited as a "second level of marketing"
to promote their relationships with the City to the businesses attending the events'
Box lunches, participation gifts, dinner and a cash bar were provided to the participants by the City
during the events a5 Prizes were awarded from drawings and for various golf skills ab While most
of the expenditures for the events were charged to the EDA, the OSA found some expenditures that
were charged to the City. The OSA noted the following public expenditures for the Business
Appreciation events held during the OSA's period of review:47
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT EXPENDITURES
1999-2001
Date Vendor Amount Total
1999
03-26-99 Paperdirect Inc. 198.60
08-13-99 Benchwarmer Bob's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-13-99 Chili's Gift Certificate 20.00
08-13-99 Baker's Square Gift Certificate 15.00
08-13-99 Applebee's Gift Certificate 20.00
08-13-99 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-16-99 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-19-99* Edinburgh Certificates 32.00
09-07-99 Sampson Miller Advertising (golf caddy pack) 1,039.78
09-07-99 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
09-13-99 Lancer at Edinburgh 14.727.39
16,112.77
44 Examples of other participants included representatives from organizations
considering construction of a facility in the City, representatives from companies
working on projects in the City, and representatives from companies that had
recently completed projects in the City.
45 Participation gifts appear to have been golf caddy packs in 1999, golf shoe bags in
2000, and travel secretaries in 2001.
46 The City informed the OSA that City employees were not eligible to win the
prizes.
47 The OSA noted receipts for additional expenditures of City funds for Business
Appreciation Day events. However, the OSA could not determine whether the
additional expenditures were "gifts" or used for valid City purposes.
J
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 13
BUSINESS APPRECIATION EVENT EXPENDITURES (continued)
Date Vendor Amount
2000
06-07-00 Paperdirect Inc. 106.91
06-21-00 Paperdirect Inc. 97.90
06-21-00 Paperdirect Inc. 58.93
08-02-00 Sampson Miller Advertising (golf shoe bags) 1,172.79
08-02-00 Lancer at Edinburgh 9,600.00
08-07-00 Mail Boxes Etc. 57.51
08-09-00 Benchwarmer Bob's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Baker's Square Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Applebee's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Chili's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-00 Cub Foods 12.78
08-10-00* Blondie's Sports Grill & Bar Gift Certificate 15.00
08-10-00* Edinburgh Certificate 164.00
08-14-00 Lancer at Edinburgh 7,464.48
2001
02-07-01 Lancer at Edinburgh 3,750.00
04-25-01 Paperdirect Inc. 138.90
04-26-01 Paperdirect Inc. 45.98
05-02-01 Paperdirect Inc. 241.85
07-26-01 Lancer at Edinburgh 11,250.00
07-31-01 Golf Galaxy 41.50
08-01-01 OfficeMax 21.25
08-03-01 Latitude Map and Travel 56.45
08-03-01 Sampson Miller Advertising (travel secretary) 1,016.41
08-05-01 Benchwarmer Bob's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-05-01 Baker's Square Gift Certificate 20.00
08-05-01 Perkins Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Applebee's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Leeann Chin Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Chili's Gift Certificate 15.00
08-06-01 Caribou Coffee Gift Certificate 15.00
08-07-01 Menard's 107.35
08-07-01 Blondie's Sports Grill Gift Certificate 15.00
08-09-01 * Lancer at Edinburgh 1,007.34
08-09-01 * Edinburgh Certificate 165.00
TOTAL: $52,935.10
Date of the event used since actual date of the expenditure was not provided to the OSA.
31
Total
18,855.30
17,967.03
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 14
Under Minnesota law, funds controlled by an EDA are public money.48 Public funds cannot be
gifted away by public employees or officials .
49 Nor may public entities give gifts to their
employees.50 According to the Minnesota Attorney General, implicit in these determinations is "the
assumption that a gift of public funds to an individual necessarily serves a private rather than public
purpose.s51 Similarly, the OSA knows of no authority that would permit a city to provide gifts,
prizes, green fees and meals to City vendors who have been fully paid for their services through prior
contractual arrangements, or to prospective vendors who have not provided any services to the City.
The City contends that its Business Appreciation events are authorized methods for the City to
promote economic development within the City. While cities have many tools available to further
the laudable goal of economic development, the City's Business Appreciation events resulted in City
taxpayer funding of a day of free golf and meals that benefitted only a select few.
Furthermore, the discretion afforded the City's Deputy Director of Community Development
regarding who to invite to the events creates the impression of favored treatment for those vendors
who were invited. The events are not open to every business that may wish to expand in the City.
Those not invited to participate in the events may feel they operate at a disadvantage in competing
for City contracts and development opportunities, having been excluded from the day of golf shared
by the City and its invited vendors.
The Citypoints to Minn. Stat. § 469.101, subd. 16, as authority for the Business Appreciation events.
The statute provides:
To further an authorized purpose, an [EDA] may (1) join an official, industrial, commercial,
or trade association, or other organization concerned with the purpose, (2) have a reception
of officials who may contribute to advancing the city and its economic development, and (3)
carry out other public relations activities to promote the city and its economic development.
Activities under this subdivision have a public purpose.
The OSA does not believe that this statute authorizes the City or the EDA to expend public funds
for box lunches, participation gifts, prizes, golf and dinner during the City's Business Appreciation
Days.
48 Minn. Stat. § 469.096, subd. 7 (2000).
49 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21, 1948) and 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
50 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
51 Op. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980.
3 /'
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 15
First, the statute authorizes an EDA, not a City, in furtherance of an authorized purpose, to hold
receptions and other public relations activities. In addition to $52,935.10 in EDA expenditures for
the events, the OSA found that the City expended City funds rather than EDA funds on the events
because the City paid City employees to attend and staff the events. The City also lost revenue when
it closed the golf course to the general public during the events.
Second, the size and scope of the City's annual Business Appreciation events exceed the scope of
a "reception" or "other public relations activities" that an EDA is authorized to host under Minnesota
law.52 The statute's limited grant of authority, permitting an EDA to host a "reception" and to carry
out other public relations activities, does not permit an EDA to give away, at taxpayer expense, gifts,
meals and green fees to thank selected vendors for participating in contracts with the City.53 The
expenditures incurred constitute gifts prohibited under the reasoning of the Attorney General's
opinions because the events are primarily gratuitous and social in nature and the vendor participants
had already been compensated for services at a previously agreed-upon rate."
Finally, the City's attempt to classify its Business Appreciation events as authorized "receptions"
or "other public relations activities" provides no limits on how a City might expend taxpayer funds
on potential, current and former vendors and developers. The statute authorizes "a reception of
officials who may contribute to advancing the city and its economic development." The law does
not authorize public expenditures to thank those who are already engaged in development within the
City. It does not authorize public expenditures for attorneys, brokers or representatives of other
52 Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where words of a specific and limited meaning
are followed by words of a generic or general meaning, the latter are to be
construed as applicable only to things of a like nature to those designated by the
former. See State v. End, 232 Minn. 266, 45 N.W.2d 378 (1950). The word
other" in such context is to be read as "other such like," and not of a quality
superior to, or different from, those specifically enumerated. Rhone v. Loomis,
74 Minn. 200,77 N.W. 31 (1898).
53 See Minn. Stat. § 469.101, subd. 16 (2000). Furthermore, the OSA questions how
the various gift certificates given away at the events serve as an enticement for
future economic development within the City. A $15.00 or $20.00 restaurant gift
certificate is too nominal in value to serve as an effective inducement for future
development within the City. However, the aggregate cost to taxpayers for these
gifts is significant.
54 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977).
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 16
cities who may well be using the EDA -funded events to market their own services rather than
advancing the City's economic development. It does not authorize an afternoon of socializing at a
City -owned golf course prior to a "reception." It does not authorize lunch and dinner for invited
guests at taxpayers' expense.
Cities/EDAs have a wide range of tools available to them to encourage economic development.
While the OSA recognizes that public funds may lawfully be expended in pursuit of economic
development, the City's expenditure of $52,935.10 for a select few to spend a day at the City golf
course at public expense exceeds the authority given to cities or EDAs to pursue such goals.
B. Other City Golf Expenditures
The City paid $6,914.00 in City expenditures for City employees, officials and private individuals
to play golf at various locations:
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES
ATTENDEES
Date of Elected City
Payment Paid To Officials Staff Others Amount
01-20-99 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass'n" __
56 $ 20.00
02-08-99 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass'n 1 $ 75.00
05-13-99 North Hennepin Chamber of CommerceS7 4 $ 620.00
55 The City informed the OSA that the Minnesota Golf Course Superintendent
Association participation fee expenditures came from the Recreation and Parks
Department budget and were most likely approved at the department level. All of
the other golf event participation fee expenditures were EDA expenditures.
56 City records appear to indicate that the City made partial payments on January 20
and February 8, 1999, for the same City employee to participate in the 1999
Minnesota Golf Course Superintendent Association golf tournament.
57 The North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce includes the Cities of Brooklyn Park,
Maple Grove and Osseo as members.
7
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 17
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES (continued)
58 In 1999, the City paid participation fees of $945.00 for six City department heads,
who were also Come Home to the Park (hereinafter "CHTTP") Board members,
and for the Deputy Director of Community Development to attend the Dick Koop
Classic (hereinafter "DKC"). The participation fees from 1999 through 2001 for
the DKC covered the cost of box lunches, green fees and dinner for participants.
CHTTP, a non-profit organization, is discussed further in Section VIII of this
Report.
59 The North Metro Mayors Association is a "coalition of 19 North Metro cities
working jointly to address their region issues." The City stated that the City
Manager determined which City employees would participate in the North Metro
Mayors Association golf events.
60 The five City staff members who attended the DKC were also CHTTP Board
members.
61 The OSA was informed that the charges were for a round of golf and two carts.
One of the private individuals was an accountant, and the second was the
Executive Director of the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce.
62 The golf participation fee was $85.00 per person. It appears that the City paid
30.00 for the Mayor to attend the diin'ner only.
7
ATTENDEES
Date of Elected City
Payment Paid To Officials Staff Others Amount
05-13-99 Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce68 7 945.00
07-27-99 North Metro Mayors Association59 3 5 625.00
03-30-00 North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce 4 580.00
05-09-00 Come Home to the Park60 5 675.00
05-12-00 Edinburgh 2 2 199.0061
07-01-00 North Metro Mayors Association 2 4 455.0061
09-01-00 North Metro Mayors Association 1 85.00
09-14-00 MN Golf Course Superintendent Ass'n 4 380.00
09-29-00 North Metro Mayors Association 1 85.00
03-26-01 North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce 4 660.00
58 In 1999, the City paid participation fees of $945.00 for six City department heads,
who were also Come Home to the Park (hereinafter "CHTTP") Board members,
and for the Deputy Director of Community Development to attend the Dick Koop
Classic (hereinafter "DKC"). The participation fees from 1999 through 2001 for
the DKC covered the cost of box lunches, green fees and dinner for participants.
CHTTP, a non-profit organization, is discussed further in Section VIII of this
Report.
59 The North Metro Mayors Association is a "coalition of 19 North Metro cities
working jointly to address their region issues." The City stated that the City
Manager determined which City employees would participate in the North Metro
Mayors Association golf events.
60 The five City staff members who attended the DKC were also CHTTP Board
members.
61 The OSA was informed that the charges were for a round of golf and two carts.
One of the private individuals was an accountant, and the second was the
Executive Director of the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce.
62 The golf participation fee was $85.00 per person. It appears that the City paid
30.00 for the Mayor to attend the diin'ner only.
7
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 18
OTHER CITY GOLF EXPENDITURES (continued)
Date of
Payment Paid To
05-21-01 Come Home to the Parle'
06-12-01 Hospitality Political Action Committee'
08-16-01 North Metro Mayors Association
08-30-01 North Metro Mayors Association
ATTENDEES
Elected City
Officials Staff Others Amount
840.00
200.00
360.00
110.00
TOTAL: $6,914.00
The governing bodies of cities are authorized to appropriate necessary funds to provide city
membership in county, regional, state, and national associations of a civic, educational, or
governmental nature which have as their purpose the betterment and improvement of municipal
governmental operations.65 Cities "are also authorized to participate through duly designated
representatives in the meetings and activities of such associations," and the governing bodies of
cities "are authorized to appropriate necessary funds to defray the actual and necessary expenses of
such representatives in connection therewith."66
63 In 2001, the City paid participation fees of $700.00 for five City staff members
who were also CHTTP Board members to attend the DKC. The City also paid the
140.00 participation fee for a City Council member to attend the DKC.
64 The City confirmed that the EDA paid $135.00 for green fees and dinner to the
Hospitality Political Action Committee for one person in June 2001. To equal the
200.00 participation fee, the OSA found that the City also donated $65.00 in gift
certificates for the Edinburgh Pro Shop to be used as prizes.
65 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000) (emphasis added). The Minnesota Attorney
General's Office has determined that this statute does not give a city the authority
to pay dues to a local chamber of commerce. Letter of June 27, 1997 from
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., to Staples City Attorney
regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
66 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000) (emphases added).
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 19
In examining this authority, the Minnesota Attorney General noted that Minnesota law has a
ndamental prerequisite that the expenses are necessary expenses.67fuWhen an event is hosted by
an organization other than the city, when attendance at the event is necessarily beneficial to the city,
and when such benefits cannot be derived other than at the event itself, the Attorney General has
determined that "the propriety of such expenditures may become a factual determination vesting
within the discretion of the city council in the exercise of its sound and honest judgment.s6S
However, the Attorney General also noted that entertainment expenditures are not properly payable
for public employees."
The OSA is aware of no authority for the City to expend public funds to send City employees or
officials to golf outings. Such expenditures primarily appear to be prohibited entertainment
expenditures. Furthermore, public entities cannot give gifts to their employees or private
individuals.70
The OSA recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employees, elected
officials, and private individuals to play golf.
V. EXPENDITURES FOR MEALS/FOOD
It was alleged that some City expenditures for meals and food did not have a public purpose.
Generally, city employees may be reimbursed only for necessary meal expenses." Whether a meal
is necessary depends upon the necessity for holding a particular meeting during meal time rather than
at some other time, and upon the benefits derived from providing food during a meeting."
Furthermore, even if a local government unit routinely approves certain expenditures, it does not
necessarily satisfy a public purpose if the expenditure is not supported by statutory authority, or if
the expenditure is for the benefit of private individuals.73
67 Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965) (emphasis added).
68 Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
69 Id.
70 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
72 Id.
73 See State ex rel. Johnson v. Smith, 84 Minn. 295, 87 N.W. 775 (Minn. 1901).
3
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 20
The City's purchasing policy during the GSA's period of review addressed City expenditures for
business meals:
There are occasions when a City employee may be reimbursed for the cost of a meal or other
food items. This commonly occurs when there is a business meeting that goes through lunch,
or a council meeting that starts right after the end of normal working hours, or a training
session that lasts the entire day. The appropriateness of the expenditure should be
determined by the Department Head in relation to their budget and other policies, such as the
Gift Acceptance policy which does not allow a City employee to receive a free meal from a
vendor or other interested party.... An appropriate Employee Expense Report shall be
completed and approved for reimbursement.74
The City's policy provides minimal internal control procedures to provide the City with reasonable
assurances that City expenditures are proper. Further, the City's policy offers minimal guidance to
employees and supervisors in determining when, and to what extent, reimbursement for the cost of
a meal or other food item is warranted.
The majority of the City's meal and food purchases appear to have been made with the City's
purchasing cards or to have been reimbursed to employees through petty cash .7' Therefore, the OSA
reviewed the documentation provided by City employees to the City for City purchasing card and
petty cash expenditures for meals and food from 1999 through 2001. The OSA has concluded that
certain explanations provided by City employees for the meal and food expenditures do not satisfy
a public purpose or even the minimal standards set forth in the City's business meal reimbursement
policy that was in effect at the time of the expenditures. In addition, the GSA's investigation
revealed that insufficient documentation was submitted to the City at the time some expenditures
were approved or paid, failing to provide a full and adequate description of the expenditures, as
required by City Charter and statute.76
74 See City's Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (May 1, 1996). The City amended this
policy in April of 2001. The only change that appeared in the amended policy is
in the last sentence, which requires completion of "appropriate forms" instead of
an "Employee Expense Report." City's Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (April 2001).
75 See Section II of this Report for further discussion of the City's petty cash and
purchasing card procedures.
76 See City Charter § 8.10; Minn. Stat. § 15.17 (2000) (public officers "shall make
and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their
official activities").
9
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 21
A. Alcohol
The purchase of alcohol by employees at City expense does not serve a public purpose. The OSA
found City expenditures for alcoholic beverages:
The City paid for alcoholic beverages on August 19, 1999, according to an itemized
receipt that the OSA obtained from MacTavish's Grill and Pub (hereinafter
MacTavish's").77 The purchasing card expenditure totaled $29.53 for four beers,
one O'Douls, one Dewers, and one Southern Comfort. The non -itemized receipt
submitted to the City does not identify the attendees, and states that the purpose of
the expenditure was "Charter & M. Grove re: Master Plan." The time reflected on
the non -itemized receipt is 9:51 p.m. The employee who used his purchasing card for
this expenditure also approved the expenditure.
The City paid $54.61 for wine, beer and an appetizer at MacTavish's, according to
a September 14, 1999 itemized receipt obtained by the OSA .78 The non -itemized
receipt submitted to the City does not identify a purpose for the expenditure nor the
attendees. The time reflected on the non -itemized receipt is 10:11 p.m.
Two glasses of wine were paid for by the City in addition to two employees' dinners
on October 21, 1999, at the Timber Lodge Steakhouse in Duluth, Minnesota, during
a conference.79
77 MacTavish's is located in the clubhouse at the City's Edinburgh golf course. The
City received a non -itemized receipt as supporting documentation for this City
purchasing card expenditure. The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly
from MacTavish's.
78 The City received a non -itemized receipt as supporting documentation for this
City purchasing card expenditure. The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly
from MacTavish's.
79 Each employee provided the City with an itemized receipt reflecting purchase of
the wine when reimbursement was authorized from petty cash.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 22
The City paid $48.11 for alcoholic beverages and an appetizer at Champps - Maple
Grove on November 17,1999, at a "Maple Grove mtg" attended by four employees.80
The time reflected on the non -itemized receipt submitted to the City is 9:41 p.m. The
employee who used his purchasing card for this expenditure also approved the
expenditure.
The City paid $68.00 for a "Deck the Boulevard meeting" at MacTavish's on
November 22, 1999, attended by City employees and others. The itemized receipt
submitted to the City by the employee to support the purchase card expenditure
shows that the expenditure included payment for eight alcoholic beverages and five
appetizers. The time reflected on the itemized receipt is 6:49 p.m.
During a conference in Duluth, the City paid for dinner, wine and beer for three city
employees, the wife of one of the City employees, and a City of Woodbury employee
on September 21, 2000, at Pickwick Tavern, totaling $135.44.81 The employee who
used his purchasing card for this expenditure also approved the expenditure.
For both purchase card expenditures and petty cash reimbursements, the City accepted non -itemized
receipts for meal expenditures during the OSA's period of review.82 While non -itemized receipts
provide documentation that the expense was incurred, they do not provide sufficient documentation
that the expense was legitimate and should be reimbursed. The non -itemized receipts do not reflect
what was purchased or the number of items purchased. By obtaining the itemized receipt directly
from the vendor, the OSA learned that the City paid for alcohol in three of the examples listed above.
Thus, there may be additional City expenditures for alcoholic beverages, but the lack of
documentation prevents the OSA and the City from determining the extent of City expenditures for
80 The OSA obtained an itemized receipt directly from Champps - Maple Grove.
81 The OSA obtained the itemized receipt directly from Pickwick Tavern. The City
documentation for the purchase card expenditure included only the total amount
paid, a listing of the five individuals attending the Pickwick Tavern, and a note
that the purpose of the expenditure was dinner while attending a conference in
Duluth.
82 The OSA found that in 2001, the City began to require employees to provide
itemized receipts. For the reasons discussed in this section of this Report, the City
is encouraged to enforce that policy.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 23
alcoholic beverages. Similarly, the lack of itemized receipts precludes the City and the OSA from
determining for whom meals were purchased. 13
B. City -Purchased Employee Meals/Food
During its review, the OSA found $23,389.71 in questionable City expenditures for meals and food.
The majority of those questionable expenditures occurred in 1999 and 2000.
1. Mayor's Prayer Breakfast
The OSA found $467.00 in City expenditures for employees to attend the Mayor's Prayer Breakfasts.
According to the flyers for the 1999 event, this event is hosted by the Mayor and is "designed as a
time of prayer for our City, State and Nation, its leaders, and as a time of rededication of individuals
to God." In 1999, it appears that the City paid for ten people, including the City Manager, the Police
Chief, and the City's Finance Director, to attend the event ($15.00 per person, for a total of $150.00).
In 2000, it appears that the City paid for two tables ($150.00 per table of ten, for a total cost of
300.00) at the event .14 In 2001, the City informed the OSA that only $17.00 was paid by the City
for one individual to attend the event. The City informed the OSA that it is the City's understanding
that additional City employees attended the 2001 event, but paid their own fees due to the scrutiny
that City expenditures were receiving in 2001.
The OSA recommends that the City require City staff who wish to attend the Mayor's Prayer
Breakfast to pay their own fees for the event.
83 For example, the employee submitting the Pickwick Tavern purchasing card
expenditure to the City informed the City that there were five attendees at the
meal, including the wife of a City employee and a City of Woodbury employee.
By comparing the itemized receipt which the OSA obtained directly from the
Pickwick Tavern with the number of attendees at the meal, the OSA concluded
that the City paid for the meals of all five attendees. In addition, the OSA found
one instance where it appears an employee was reimbursed twice from petty cash
for the same meal expense, once submitting an itemized receipt, and once
submitting a non -itemized receipt. The OSA recommends that the City consider
seeking reimbursement where appropriate.
84 One of the tables ($150.00) was coded by the City as "4200 - operating supplies"
for the Recreation and Parks Department.
417
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 24
2. Staff -on -Staff Meals
According to the Minnesota Attorney General, "[e]ntertainment expenses are not properly
payable ... and to the same degree, officials holding luncheon meetings among themselves are not
compensable since neither are necessary expenditures."85 Absent evidence that it is necessary for
meetings to be held over meal times rather than at other times, public funds may not be properly
expended for employee meals.86 Stated another way, public employees who work together generally
cannot go to lunch and charge their employer, even if they conduct business while eating.
During its review, the OSA found instances where employees had lunch together at City expense.
Many of the meals paid for by the City were for employee staff meetings. Other employee meals at
City expense listed as their purpose such common work matters as staff evaluations or the discussion
of current projects. Some of the documentation submitted by the employee in support of the
expenditure provided no explanation for the purpose of the meeting. Furthermore, no evidence of
a necessity for routine work duties to occur over a meal was provided.87
From the documentation provided to the OSA, it was often difficult to ascertain who was present at
City -funded meals and whether all attendees were City employees. However, Attachment 1 reflects
6,254.93 in expenditures when the City paid for employees' meals, it appears no one other than the
City employees were present, and the expenditures do not appear to be for meals purchased while
an employee was away from the City or participating in a training program."
In addition to the staff -on -staff meals that the OSA has identified in Attachment 1, the OSA found
instances in which the City expended public funds for meals purchased for employees in
appreciation for work performed. Those additional staff -on -staff meals are discussed in the
employee recognition section of this Report.
85 Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
86 Id.
87 It appears the City's business meal policy was violated because documentation
that the meal was part of an all -day training session or a business meeting that
goes through lunch was not created and submitted to the City contemporaneously
with the reimbursement request or purchase card expenditure authorization.
88 All locations of the meals are in Brooklyn Park unless otherwise noted. The chart
also excludes meals for the Recreation and Park Department for which the OSA
could not determine if the meals were part of an activity program.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 25
As reflected in Attachment 1, the number of staff -on -staff meals dropped in 2001 when the City
Council began to question whether certain City expenditures had a public purpose.89 Indeed, the
OSA identified no questionable staff -on -staff meals from July through December 2001.
3. City Staff Meals with City Officials
The Minnesota Attorney General has specifically been asked to determine whether a city may
properly pay for the meals of its officials.90 The Attorney General considered the lack of statutory
authorization, the lack of charter reference, the lack of council approval, and the absence of any
evidence of "necessary" expenditures, and determined that a city may not properly pay for the meals
of its officials.91 Furthermore, the City adopted City Resolution No. 2002-18 on January 14, 2002,
which states that it has been the policy of the City Council that business expenses incurred by
members of the City Council are not reimbursed unless the activity is specifically directed and
approved by the City Council as a body.
During its review, and as reflected in Attachment 2, the OSA found that the City paid $1,016.25 for
meals that City staff had with the Mayor, City Council members, and Planning Commission
members. Although the City's documentation does not clearly identify whether the City paid for one
meal or two, the dollar amount of some of the expenditures appears to suggest that, on several
occasions, the City paid for meals for some of its officials.
Under the reasoning of the Attorney General's opinions, there does not appear to be any necessity
for the City to pay for the meals of City staff members or City officials at such meetings. Absent
89
For example, in February 2001, the claims lists presented to the City Council
began to provide the City Council with a brief description of individual
purchasing card expenditures. The minutes of June, July and August 2001 City
Council working sessions reflect that the City discussed whether certain City
expenditures had a public purpose. On February 11, 2002, after the OSA's
investigation had begun, the City Council adopted Standing Executive Policy #12
entitled "Public Purpose Expenditures." As previously noted, the OSA
recommends that the City review Standing Executive Policy #12 in light of this
Report.
90 Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-2 (May 6, 1965).
9' Id. (The Attorney General questioned the rationale which would compel a
meeting to be held at noon rather than some other time, and the necessary benefit
derived from eating while meeting, or meeting while eating, as distinguished from
just meeting.)
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 26
evidence of a necessity to meet over a meal, the expenditures for meals for City staff and City
officials appear to be improper. Furthermore, the meals for City officials do not appear to have been
specifically directed and approved by the City Council as a body, as required by City Resolution No.
2002-18.
4. Meals Prior To City Meetings
The OSA also found that the City paid for certain employees' meals prior to City Council and EDA
meetings scheduled in the evening. The limited information contained on the supporting receipts
maintained by the City makes it difficult to identify all City expenditures for such meals. However,
the OSA did identify at least $1,474.45 in such expenditures, as reflected in Attachment 3.
According to City Council meeting minutes, City Council meetings generally begin at 7:30 p.m.,
preceded by an open forum from 7:15 - 7:30 p.m. The OSA was informed that EDA meetings
generally begin at 7:00 p.m.
The City's policy permits reimbursement for employee meals when a council meeting "starts right
after the end of normal working hours."92 Furthermore, according to the City's policy, the
appropriateness of such expenditures "should be determined by the Department Head in relation to
their budget and other policies."93 Thus, according to City policy, the department heads who eat
City -funded meals prior to evening meetings are the same individuals who determine the
appropriateness of such expenditures.94
The EDA and City Council meetings are not held over meal times. Under the Attorney General's
reasoning, it does not appear that public funds should be expended for an employee's meal simply
because the employee will attend an evening meeting. In addition, the City's policy which allows
the person making the expenditure to determine the appropriateness of the expenditure fails to
segregate duties and does not provide the City with adequate internal controls.
92 City's Purchasing Manual § 35.20 (May 1, 1996); City's Purchasing Manual
35.20 (April 2001).
93 Id.
94 The OSA notes that not all City employees who appear before the City Council
have the City pay for their evening meals. For example, the OSA did not find any
evidence that the City purchased meals for the City Manager prior to evening City
meetings.
D
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 27
5. Staff Meetings/Gatherings
In addition to staff -on -staff meals at local restaurants, the OSA found that, during the OSA's period
of review, food appears to have been routinely served at City expense at many employee staff
meetings and at other gatherings involving City employees.
a. Quarterly Manager's Meeting
The City Manager held quarterly manager's meetings to which all City employees were invited. The
OSA was informed that the meetings, hosted by various City departments, consisted of an
approximately 30 minute presentation by the City Manager regarding City issues, followed by a brief
program.
During the OSA's period of review, the City appears to have paid $1,768.59 in connection with the
quarterly manager's meeting, as reflected in Attachment 4. The expenditures included food, gift
certificates, tuxedo rentals, and door prizes."
The OSA is concerned that the expenses for the same event have different expenditure codes and
could not be readily identified by the City.96 While most of the quarterly manager's meeting
expenditures were coded as "4200 - operating supplies," two door prizes were coded as Police
Department "7400 - miscellaneous expenses," and a gift certificate was coded as "8600 - meeting
and travel expenses."
The OSA knows of no authority for the City to purchase door prizes or gift certificates for employee
staff meetings.97 Similarly, expenditures identified in Attachment 4 for food and entertainment
items, such as tuxedos, do not appear to have a public purpose.
95
In addition to the expenditures reflected in Attachment 4, City expenditures for
the quarterly manager's meeting also included fees for guest performers/speakers.
96 For example, the City informed the OSA that the Cattle Company expenditure
reflected in Attachment 4 was for a City Manager meeting with an individual
Council member to discuss City issues and concerns. However, a handwritten
notation on the Cattle Company receipt indicates that the expenditure was for a
gift certificate for the 3`a quarterly manager's meeting.
97 Door prizes at staff meetings would appear to be employee gifts prohibited by the
reasoning of the Minnesota Attorney General. See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3
January 22, 1980).
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 28
b. Food at Staff Meetings
In addition to the food served at the quarterly manager's meetings, the OSA found that food was
frequently served, at City expense, at routine staff meetings. These expenditures appear to serve a
private, rather than a public function. Attachment 5 reflects $2,994.57 in food purchases by the City
for gatherings that appear to be employee staff meetings.98
The OSA was informed that the City has an open account at Jack's Bakery. The OSA found that
some City purchases from Jack's Bakery were made with City purchasing cards, some were
reimbursed from petty cash, and some were charged to the City's open account. The OSA found that
the City expended at least $3,785.48 at Jack's Bakery in 1999, and $4,440.21 in 2000.99
C. Other Food and Products - No Purpose Provided
The OSA also observed evidence of expenditures in 1999 and 2000 for beverages, food and paper
products (such as napkins and tablecloths) which contained no explanation regarding why the
products were being purchased at City expense. Generally, such expenditures stopped after April
2001 when the City began to review employee expenditures more closely. Without a detailed
explanation for the expenditure, the City and the OSA were unable to determine whether the
expenditures served a public or a private interest. The OSA found that the City purchased, with no
explanation at the time of the expenditure, $2,472.81 in food and other products, as reflected in
Attachment 6.100
The OSA is concerned that, during 1999 and 2000, it appears to have become commonplace for City
employees to bill the City for food consumed by employees who were attending meetings during the
workday. For example, included in Attachment 6 are City reimbursements from petty cash for the
following "meeting" expenses:
10.97 from Starbucks Coffee in Maple Grove at 8:48 a.m. on August 11,
1999, for four drinks; and
98 The chart excludes food purchased by the City as part of training programs or for
Recreation and Park Department activity programs.
99 The OSA was not provided with complete electronic data for 2001 City
expenditures.
loo This chart excludes food purchased for "training" or for Recreation and Park
Department activity programs.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 29
7.35 from Caribou Coffee in Brooklyn Park at 10:48 a.m. on August 17,
1999, for three drinks.
The City received insufficient documentation to establish that such expenditures served public rather
than private interests.
C. Meals for/with Non -City Employees
In addition to purchasing meals for City employees and officials, it appears that the City used public
money to purchase meals for consultants, independent auditors, and other members of the public who
were not City employees or officials.
In some instances, the OSA was unable to determine whether the City expended money for its own
employees, as well as private individuals, because an itemized receipt did not accompany every
expenditure. Attachment 7 reflects meal expenditures totaling $3,048.05 for which the OSA was
able to identity at least one non -City employee at the meal, and it appears that the City may have paid
for the meals of non -City employees in addition to meals for City employees.
The OSA is unaware of any authority which would allow public money to be gifted to members of
the public, such as City vendors, in the form of City -purchased meals. Furthermore, while it appears
that City employees who had meals with non -City personnel in 2001 more often had the City pay
only for the employees' meals, the OSA still questions the necessity of such expenditures.
D. Other Questionable Meals
In 1999 and 2000, the receipts provided by City employees as documentation supporting City
expenditures for meals did not consistently identify who attended the meal or what purpose the meal
served. This was true even though the forms used by the City for purchasing card transactions
required documentation regarding attendees and the purpose for all expenditures coded as
conferences, meetings, or travel.
The OSA found $1,779.59 in City expenditures for "business meals" for which the identity of the
attendees and the purpose of the meal were not provided to the City. The expenditures are reflected
in Attachment 8.
The OSA also found $2,113.47 in City expenditures for "business meals" for which the names or
initials of at least some attendees were listed, but the OSA was unable to determine the identity of
all the people present at the meal. The expenditures are reflected in Attachment 9.
J
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 30
When the purpose of the meeting is not provided, the City is unable to determine that the meal
served a public purpose. When the attendees are not identified, the City is unable to determine for
whom the City purchased meals. The City failed to obtain sufficient detail on these expenditures to
audit and allow payment of the claims. As a result, the public and the OSA are unable to ascertain
the merit of these expenditures.
E. City Coding of Expenditures
The OSA's review of City expenditures was hindered because of the City's expenditure coding
practices. For example, four people ate at Don Pablos during a training session on November 19,
1999. The expenditure was coded "4200 - operating supplies" by the City. Similarly, the OSA noted
that some departments within the City routinely coded food expenditures for routine staff meetings
as "operating supplies," rather than as "meeting expenses.i101 Prior to 2001, for example, most
expenditures from Jack's Bakery purchased with City funds by the Police and Fire Departments for
routine staff meetings appear to be coded "4200 - operating supplies," however, the expenditures
were for food served at staff meetings, according to the written descriptions contained on the receipts
reviewed by the OSA.
The OSA recommends that the City seek to have expenditure codes accurately reflect the purpose
of the expenditure. 102 Meals and food purchased for meetings should be coded by the City as
meeting expenses," not as "operating supplies." More importantly, the OSA recommends that the
various departments within the City code similar expenditures similarly. Only by consistently and
accurately coding expenditures can the City gain knowledge regarding how taxpayer funds are being
expended.
F. Lack of Limits on Meal Expenditures
The OSA notes that the City has not set a limit on the cost of employee meals. The OSA noted the
following:
The City spent $53.44 at John Barley Corn in Rochester, Minnesota, for an
August 30, 1999 "business dinner for IBM meeting in Rochester" for which the
receipt lists only one person, an employee, in attendance;
101 The City's expenditures for food at City staff meetings is discussed in Section
V.B. of this Report.
102 The OSA notes that in 2001, the City began to code its expenditures more
accurately.
4
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 31
The City spent $35.50 at Kincaid's for two employees' lunch during a training
session in Bloomington on February 9, 2000; and
The City spent $65.30 at Capt. Daniel Packer Inne in Mystic, Connecticut, on
June 13, 2000, for meals for two employees attending a conference. 103
The OSA also noted that some expenditures for City -purchased meals included tips comprising more
than 20% of the cost of the meal.
G. Recommendations
The OSA recommends that the City review its expenditures to insure that all expenditures are
necessary" and serve a public purpose. In addition, the OSA recommends that the City make and
preserve all records necessary for a full and accurate understanding of City expenditures.104
To assist the City in determining whether expenditures serve a public rather than a private interest,
the OSA recommends that the City require City employees purchasing meals with City funds to
provide the following information in writing:
An itemized receipt supporting the expenditure;'os
Who was present at the meal;
For whom the City purchased a meal; and
The necessity of the meal, including the necessity of holding a meeting over meal-
time if the meal was purchased as part of a meeting.
The OSA also recommends that the City:
Implement a review process for all expenditures that excludes the purchaser from
approving the purchase;
103 The City did not receive an itemized receipt for the expenditure.
104 See Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 1 (2000). See also City Charter § 8.10.
105 The City Charter requires that no disbursement of City funds shall be made until
the claim to which it relates has been supported by an itemized bill, payroll or
timesheet. City Charter § 8.10.
51__
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 32
Require claimants to sign a declaration that the claim is just and correct and that no
part of it has been paid; 106
Stop paying for employee meals simply because the employee will be attending a
meeting later in the evening;
Continue its recent effort to code City expenditures more accurately;
End its practice of providing food at routine staff meetings;
Consider imposing dollar limits on the amounts that an employee may spend on a
meal that is purchased with City funds;
Comply with City Resolution No. 2002-18 and Minnesota law as clarified in the
Attorney General opinions regarding meals for City staff and officials; and
Comply with federal tax regulations and include in an employee's gross income, as
reported on Form W-2, appropriate reimbursements.10'
VI. EMPLOYEE EVENTS
The Minnesota Attorney General has concluded that a municipality does not have the authority to
use public funds to pay the expenses of a Christmas party for city employees where the party is
primarily social in nature and for the sole benefit of the city employees. 108 According to the Attorney
General, any public benefit which results from the proposed social function is too remote and
speculative in nature to justify the expenditure as being for a public purpose.109 Similarly, the
Attorney General has quoted: "Without express authority, a municipal corporation may not
appropriate the public revenue for celebrations, entertainments, etc. Such power cannot be
implied."110 Thus, unless specific authority provides otherwise, employee social functions should
not be paid for with public funds.
106 See Minn. Stat. § 471.38, subd. 1 (2000) (claim shall not be allowed until the
person claiming payment signs a declaration to the effect that such claim is just
and correct and that no part of it has been paid).
107 See 26 C.F.R. § 1.62-2 (C)(5) (2000) and discussion in Section II.B. of this
Report.
los Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
109 Id.
110 Op. Att'y Gen. 59A-22 (January 8, 1957), quoting 15 McQuillan, Municipal
Corporations, 3' ed., Sec. 39.22.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 33
A. Employee Gifts, Employee Celebrations, and Employee Recognition Events
Public funds cannot be gifted away by public employees or officials."' Nor may public entities give
gifts to their employees.12 According to the Minnesota Attorney General, implicit in these
determinations is "the assumption that a gift of public funds to an individual necessarily serves a
private rather than public purpose.i13
The Attorney General has also opined that public entities cannot pay year-end bonuses to employees
for performance of past services.1' According to the Attorney General, such services could not be
consideration for a bonus because, when the bonus was approved, the services had already been fully
paid at a previously agreed-upon rate.
1' Therefore, bonus or incentive programs need to be set up
in advance, based upon objective criteria. The Attorney General has also concluded that in-kind
benefits need specific statutory authority in order to be provided to public employees.1'
The OSA determined that the City expended public funds to reward employees for work that was
already part of their job duties, and for which the employees had received compensation from the
City.
1. Gifts to City Employees
The OSA identified at least $4,933.04 in expenditures that could be construed as gifts prohibited
under the reasoning of the Attorney General's opinions. The OSA found that the City purchased
give-aways" for attendance at employee meetings. The City purchased gift certificates for
employees."' The City purchased holiday greeting cards, birthday cards, sympathy cards and
flowers. The expenditures are reflected in Attachment 10.
See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21, 1948) and 59a-22 (December 4, 1934).
12 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980) and 270-D (August 12,
1977) (prohibiting retroactive pay increases or bonuses to public employees).
13 Op. Att'y Gen. 107-a-3 (January 22, 1980).
ua Id.
lis Id.
16 See Ops. Att'y Gen. 359b (October 24, 1989) and 16lb-12 (January 24, 1989).
The gift certificates appear to be in addition to awards and gifts given to
employees at the City's annual employee recognition events, which are discussed
in Part 3 of this Section. s7
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 34
The OSA's review also disclosed instances where employees were taken to lunch at the City's
expense as a reward for "a job well done." Staff appreciation and recognition meals, totaling
1,107.23 and reflected in Attachment 11, are gifts for services already fully paid by the City at a
previously agreed-upon rate. Furthermore, a comparison of expenditures reflected in Attachments
10 and 11 reveals that some employees who were given gift certificates were also taken to lunch.
2. Miscellaneous Employee Celebrations
The OSA's review disclosed $2,882.43 in City expenditures for a variety of employee celebrations,
including birthday, employee departure and retirement parties, as reflected in Attachment 12.
These expenditures appear to be for events that are primarily social in nature. While employees may
wish to recognize special events in the lives of fellow employees, the OSA recommends that such
expenditures be made with employee funds, not with City funds.
3. The City's Annual Recognition Event
According to the City's November 8, 2000 policy on "Employee -Related Activities/Events," the
annual employee recognition celebration is one ofthree annual City events held solely for employees
and Council members."' According to the policy, other City employee events are encouraged but
must not use public funds."
According to the City's Employee Recognition Program Policy established on January 25, 1989, the
City provides awards to its employees based on longevity of service. Under the policy, employees
receive the following awards:
5 years Pin with number of years of service
10 years Gift, not to exceed $25.00
15 years Gift, not to exceed $35.00
20 years Gift, not to exceed $75.00
25 years Gift, not to exceed $125.00, and recipient may invite spouse or guest to
attend the employee recognition luncheon.
City information provided to the OSA indicated that the annual recognition event was held from
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the City's Community Activity Center on April 7, 1999, March 22, 2000,
18 The other two employee -related events are the annual employee picnic and the
annual Spring Clean -Up Day, discussed in Sections VI.B. and VI.D. of this
Report.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 35
and March 14, 2001. The City informed the OSA that approximately 240 employees attended each
event over their lunch hours. The invitations sent to employees offer all employees complimentary
luncheons, entertainment, and door prizes.
The Attorney General has determined that "in kind" benefits for public employees require explicit
statutory authority.
1' The Attorney General's Office has also stated that it is unaware of any
authority for the expenditure of public funds for annual employee appreciation dinners,120 and the
OSA knows of no authority for a city to provide a meal at such an event for an employee's spouse
or guest.
The OSA was not provided with complete supporting documentation regarding City expenditures
for the annual employee recognition events. However, the City did provide the OSA with a chart
summarizing the City's expenditures for the events. According to the City's summary, which the.
OSA was unable to independently verify, the City expended a total of $23,856.32 for the 1999, 2000,
and 2001 recognition events. According to the City's summary, $15,373.65 of that amount was
expended for awards and gifts:
1999 2000 2001 Total
Awards/gifts $3,506.15 $4,776.5012' $7,091.00 $15,373.65
19 See Ops. Att'y Gen. 359b (October 24, 1989) and 16lb-12 (January 24, 1989).
120 Letter of February 6, 1998 from Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke,
Jr., to Champlin City Attorney regarding employee recognition program.
Addressing the question of whether a city, pursuant to its employment policy
which was understood to be part of its employment agreement, can hold an annual
employee appreciation dinner at public expense for all employees, or award
recognition gifts for those employees with five to 25+ years of service, the
Attorney General's Office concluded: "Thus, while an agreed upon monetary
bonus might be provided as part of a salary plan to employees who meet
performance or longevity standards, we are at a loss to locate authority for
expenditures of funds for in kind awards or social occasions of the type
described." The Attorney General's Office also questioned a city's authority to
expend any public funds for award recognition gifts for employees based on years
of service.
121 The City indicated that $421.50 was expended in 2000 for "15 year pins." This
amount is included in the 2000 amount for "awards/gifts."
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 36
Although the City's Employee Recognition Program Policy set dollar limits for longevity awards,
it appears from City documentation that the City exceeded the limits set in the Policy. For example,
items and gift certificates exceeding $200.00 were purchased, and, in one instance, a $300.00 gift
certificate appears to have been provided to an employee who should have had an award limit of
125.00 under the City's Policy.
In addition to the $15,373.65 that the City reported to the OSA it spent on "awards/gifts" for the
annual employee recognition events, the City reported to the OSA an additional $8,482.67 in
expenditures for the events, as set forth below:
ANNUAL EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENTS
CITY'S SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
IN ADDITION TO "AWARDS/GIFTS")122
These expenditures, totaling $8,482.67, are questionable. It appears that the $820.00 in "gift
certificates" identified by the City for the events are in addition to the longevity awards authorized
122 The City budgeted $7,950.00 in 1999, $8,300.00 in 2000, and $11,700.00 in 2001
for its employee recognition luncheons. In all three years, the expenditures for the
events were coded as "operating supplies" (4200).
123 From the receipts provided by the City to the OSA, it appears that the 2000 "wrap-
up lunch" was held at TGI Friday's, and cost $103.91, not the $85.00 reported by
the City in its summary chart. The OSA also found that the City paid $104.26 for
nine people to have lunch at the Ground Round in Maple Grove on February 14,
2001 for the stated purpose of "Employee Recognition Luncheon
meeting/supplies pick up." i I
1999 2000 2001 Total
Food 1,584.00 1,608.00 1,680.00 4,872.00
Video Production 300.00 330.00 330.00 960.00
Pop 187.00 92.00 279.00
Entertainment 600.00 600.00
Decorations 200.00 184.00 120.00 504.00
Gift Certificates 240.00 340.00 240.00 820.00
Mooner Plaque 60.00 60.00
Wrap -Up Lunch 52.67 85.00123 137.67
Misc. 50.00 60.00 110.00
Target Cards for Staff 140.00 140.00
TOTAL: 3,273.67 2,699.00 2,510.00 8,482.67
These expenditures, totaling $8,482.67, are questionable. It appears that the $820.00 in "gift
certificates" identified by the City for the events are in addition to the longevity awards authorized
122 The City budgeted $7,950.00 in 1999, $8,300.00 in 2000, and $11,700.00 in 2001
for its employee recognition luncheons. In all three years, the expenditures for the
events were coded as "operating supplies" (4200).
123 From the receipts provided by the City to the OSA, it appears that the 2000 "wrap-
up lunch" was held at TGI Friday's, and cost $103.91, not the $85.00 reported by
the City in its summary chart. The OSA also found that the City paid $104.26 for
nine people to have lunch at the Ground Round in Maple Grove on February 14,
2001 for the stated purpose of "Employee Recognition Luncheon
meeting/supplies pick up." i I
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 37
in the City's Employee Recognition Program Policy. The OSA was informed that employees who
could not attend the event were provided box lunches. In 2001, fourteen employees who "covered
telephones" and did not attend the event were each given $10.00 gift certificates from Target. As
event expenditures, the OSA noted the rental of a Darth Vader costume, the inclusion of "door
prizes," and an expenditure for a "Mooner of the Year" award.
The employee recognition events appear primarily social in nature. The door prizes and gift
certificates appear to serve private, instead of public purposes. The City's expenditures for a "wrap-
up" luncheon following each event do not appear to meet the public purpose requirements for a
business lunch" because there was no necessity for employees to meet over mealtime to complete
any "wrap-up" activities from the events.
All expenditures of City funds must have both authority and a public purpose. The OSA.
recommends that the City review its Employee Recognition Program Policy to comply with
Minnesota law, consistent with the guidance provided by the Attorney General.
B. Annual Employee Picnic
The OSA reviewed the expenditures for the City's annual employee picnics from 1999 through 2001.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of approximately
the following amounts for the annual employee picnics:
The City provided documentation indicating that employees paid $2.00 each for the 1999 picnic, and
the employees' Sunshine Club reimbursed the City for the remaining expenditures, so there was no
cost to the City for this event. The Sunshine Club raises funds voluntarily contributed by employees
through payroll deductions. The purpose of the Sunshine Club is "to send a card, flowers, or similar
gesture on behalf of all city employees to all employees in the event of: the death of an employee's
immediate family member, household member or spouse; an employee's hospitalization or extended
6 /
City Employee
Date Expenditures Contributions Difference
October 1999 353.51 353.51 0.00
August 2000 2,151.87 0.00 2,151.87
June 2001 2,315.64 0.00 2,315.64
TOTALS: 4,821.02 353.51 4,467.51
The City provided documentation indicating that employees paid $2.00 each for the 1999 picnic, and
the employees' Sunshine Club reimbursed the City for the remaining expenditures, so there was no
cost to the City for this event. The Sunshine Club raises funds voluntarily contributed by employees
through payroll deductions. The purpose of the Sunshine Club is "to send a card, flowers, or similar
gesture on behalf of all city employees to all employees in the event of: the death of an employee's
immediate family member, household member or spouse; an employee's hospitalization or extended
6 /
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 38
illness; birth/adoption of a child by an employee.s124 While the Sunshine Club is a method to allow
employees to recognize events in the lives of fellow employees, the City has no authority to serve
as the fiscal agent for the Sunshine Club.
The OSA received a copy of the invitation used for the 2000 annual employee picnic. It was held
at the City's Historical Farm from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. City records indicate that approximately
207 employees attended the event. In addition to a meal, the City provided for "rodeo inflatable
horse racing" to entertain employees during the Western -theme event.
It appears that the City expended at least $4,467.51 of public funds for annual employee picnics from
1999 through 2001. The general public was not invited to these events. Instead, these expenditures
were for the benefit of City employees. Regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose
may be, public funds cannot be expended on an event that is primarily social in nature. The OSA
recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employee social events.
C. Annual Holiday Party
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for annual employee holiday parties:
City
Date Expenditures
December 17, 1998 $ 808.21
January 13, 2000 $1,273.14
January 19, 2001 $1,711.81
TOTALS: $3,793.16
Employee
Contributions Difference
0.00 808.21
0.00 1,273.14
1,215.00 496.81
1,215.00 2,578.16
The City indicated that it did not charge employees to attend the holiday parties held in December
1998 and January 2000. The OSA was informed that the City charged $15.00 for attendees at the
January 2001 holiday party. 125 However, City records indicate that employee contributions for the
party totaled only $1,215.00, with City expenditures of $1,711.81.126 As such, it appears that the City
expended at least $2,578.16 of public funds for these three annual employee holiday parties.
124 City Employee -Related Activities/Events Sunshine Club Funding Election Form.
125 Dinner was catered and cost $12.75 per person.
126 The City provided the OSA with records indicating employee contributions of
1,275.00, and a record of refunds totaling $60.00.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 39
The City provided the OSA with a copy of the invitation used by the City for the 2001 event.12' The
event for City employees and their guests was held on a Friday night in the City's Community
Activity Center from 5:30 to 10:00 p.m. It consisted of a social hour, dinner, a 30 -minute program,
karacke and dancing. A cash bar was available. Door prizes, such as three $20.00 cash prizes
awarded to employees who played a trivia game, were purchased with City funds.
In addition to annual holiday parties for all City employees, City records indicate that, from 1999
through 2001, certain City departments expended at least an additional $1,699.87 of public funds
for intra -departmental holiday parties, as reflected in Attachment 13. The City did not provide the
OSA with any record of employee contributions for these events.
According to the Attorney General, public expenditures for employee holiday parties do not serve
a public purpose.12' The OSA recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for
employee social events.
D. Spring Clean -Up Breakfast
City records provided to the OSA indicate that the City expended at least $1,132.88 for annual
Spring Clean -Up Breakfast events in May of 1999, 2000 and 2001. According to the invitations for
the events, breakfast was prepared by department directors and their assistants, and served at the
City's Community Activity Center from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. The events were free to City employees.
According to the invitations:
Awards and prizes for Shape -Up Challenge participants will take place at 8:30 a.m.,
following which it will be time to roll up our sleeves with energy and enthusiasm and get on
with the business of spring cleaning our work environment; i.e. going through files — storing
or shredding — polishing, sprucing, scrubbing, vacuuming, throwing, and doing whatever else
it takes for this annual clean up.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for Spring Clean -Up Breakfasts:
127 The invitations were sent out with employee paychecks.
128 Op. Att'y Gen. 59a-22 (November 23, 1966).
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 40
City
Date Expenditures
1999 $ 318.97
2000 $ 355.48
2001 458.43
TOTAL: $1,132.88
City expenditures for these breakfasts do not appear to have a public purpose. The OSA
recommends that the City discontinue expending public funds for employee social events.
E. . Shape -Up Challenge
Cityrecords indicate that the City expended public funds for events associated with its annual Shape -
Up Challenge. According to the City, the Shape -Up Challenge is an eight-week event to promote
health and wellness. Participating City employees are divided into teams, and prizes are awarded
to the teams at the annual Spring Clean -Up Breakfast. For example, in 2000, two $10.00 Target gift
certificates were purchased by the City for the captains of the two winning teams. In addition, six
5.00 Caribou gift certificates and ten $1.00 Dairy Queen certificates were purchased by the City for
the event.
According to City records provided to the OSA, the City expended public funds of at least the
following amounts for the annual Shape -Up Challenge events:
The City informed the OSA that employees contributed $1.00 each for the cost of the annual Shape -
Up Challenge events. However, the City did not provide the OSA with any receipts for employee
contributions for the events in 1999 and 2001, and receipts for only $53.00 for the 2000 event were
provided to the OSA. As such, it appears that the City expended at least $541.93 of public funds for
annual Shape -Up Challenge events from 1999 through 2001.
City Employee
Date Expenditures Contributions Difference
1999 262.93 0.00 262.93
2000 190.78 53.00 137.78
2001 141.22 0.00 141.22
TOTALS: 594.93 53.00 541.93
The City informed the OSA that employees contributed $1.00 each for the cost of the annual Shape -
Up Challenge events. However, the City did not provide the OSA with any receipts for employee
contributions for the events in 1999 and 2001, and receipts for only $53.00 for the 2000 event were
provided to the OSA. As such, it appears that the City expended at least $541.93 of public funds for
annual Shape -Up Challenge events from 1999 through 2001.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 41
The OSA is not aware of any authority for the City to expend public funds as it did for its annual
Shape -Up Challenge events. The OSA recommends that the City not expend City funds on such
events.
F. Make -A -Difference Day Campaigns
City records provided to the OSA indicate that, during the OSA's period of review, the City
expended at least $1,540.58 of public funds for annual Make -A -Difference Day events.
According to the City, the City's annual Make -A -Difference Day campaign encourages "a spirit of
camaraderie, cooperation and a sense of community by encouraging employees to voluntarily give
back to the broader community.s129 However, the OSA's review disclosed that the City expended
public funds to purchase food, cakes, beverages and prizes for events held for City employees. The
City acknowledged that expenses for the campaigns and employee events may have exceeded the
employee contributions and donations.
For example, in 2000, the City invited employees to attend a "Tribal Feast Luncheon" from 11:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on City property. Employees were charged $2.00 each. In addition to lunch, the
City's invitation for the event indicated the following:
Spectators are needed to cheer and encourage SURVIVOR competitors as they compete in
a variety of entertaining events and process of elimination. The result will be only two
employee tribemates will continue to the next plateau of Challenge No. 3 toward becoming
the ultimate, single SURVIVOR!
The event included team activities consisting of cooperative and competitive games, and individual
challenges consisting of races.13' The City provided "one day of vacation" and a gift certificate for
one night at the Northland Inn (costing the City $163.16) as prizes for the event. While the City told
129 According to the Request for Council Action prepared for the 2000 event, the
recipients of the City's annual campaign included the United Way, Community
Health Charities, and employee activities for the annual Make -A -Difference Day
campaign.
130
For example, the employee who was the fastest in putting on a frozen T-shirt was
a "survivor." Another individual activity had employees race to clothing (hula
shirts, sun glasses, hats, visors, and "other fun things"), dress in the clothing, and
race back to the starting point. Team activities included such activities as water
balloon tosses and nailing Jello to a piece of wood.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 42
the OSA that the Year 2000 campaign consisted of a drive to collect items needed by teens, nothing
on the invitation for the employee event reflected the teen collection drive.131
From the information provided to the OSA, it appears that City expenditures, as well as employee
contributions and donations, for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Make -A -Difference Day campaigns
included the following amounts:
As such, it appears that the City expended at least $1,540.58 of public funds for City employees to
celebrate the annual Make -A -Difference Day campaigns for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Again,
regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose of an event may be, public funds cannot
be expended on an event that is primarily social in nature. The OSA recommends that the City not
expend City funds on such employee events.
VII. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES
Cities are authorized to appropriate funds to provide city membership in county, regional, state, and
national associations of a civic, educational, or governmental nature which have as their purpose the
131 In connection with a teen Recreation and Parks Department program, it appears
that four Brooklyn Park teens were invited to participate in the event.
132 City records indicate that contributions and donations for the 2001 campaign
included $100.00 from the CHTTP organization, $100.00 from Creative Carton,
50.00 from Medical Arts, and $1,388.00 of proceeds from an auction. The City
also indicated that it has received donations from Walmart, however the City did
not provide the OSA with any documentation regarding such donations for 1999
through 2001.
Employee
City Contributions
Year Expenditures and Donations 112 Difference
1999 907.59 382.50 525.09
2000. 957.01 120.00 837.01
2001 1,816.48 1,638.00 178.48
TOTALS: 3,681.08 2,140.50 1,540.58
As such, it appears that the City expended at least $1,540.58 of public funds for City employees to
celebrate the annual Make -A -Difference Day campaigns for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Again,
regardless of how desirable or commendable the purpose of an event may be, public funds cannot
be expended on an event that is primarily social in nature. The OSA recommends that the City not
expend City funds on such employee events.
VII. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES
Cities are authorized to appropriate funds to provide city membership in county, regional, state, and
national associations of a civic, educational, or governmental nature which have as their purpose the
131 In connection with a teen Recreation and Parks Department program, it appears
that four Brooklyn Park teens were invited to participate in the event.
132 City records indicate that contributions and donations for the 2001 campaign
included $100.00 from the CHTTP organization, $100.00 from Creative Carton,
50.00 from Medical Arts, and $1,388.00 of proceeds from an auction. The City
also indicated that it has received donations from Walmart, however the City did
not provide the OSA with any documentation regarding such donations for 1999
through 2001.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 43
betterment and improvement of municipal governmental operations. 133 However, the Attorney
General has determined that a city is not authorized to be a member or pay membership dues of a
local chamber of commerce. 134
During the OSA's period of review, the City paid approximately $2,280.00 in dues to the North
Hennepin Chamber of Commerce and $975.00 in dues to the Brooklyn Community Chamber of
Commerce. Consistent with the reasoning of the Attorney General, it appears that such dues, totaling
3,255.00, are not authorized City expenditures. The OSA recommends that the City discontinue
expending public funds for local chamber of commerce dues.
VIH. COME HOME TO THE PARK, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
During the OSA's review, the OSA observed the expenditure of City funds for events connected with
Come Home to the Park (hereinafter "CHTTP"), a non-profit, publically supported corporation
formed on August 5, 1993, "to inspire and recognize the good things that enhance the image, quality
of life and pride in [the City]" and to make distributions to other tax-exempt organizations. 135
According to the City, CHTTP was intended to be a public-private partnership focused on "feel
good" events to enhance the City's image. 131 CHTTP's Articles of Incorporation list City offices as
the organization's business address. 13' The CHTTP Board of Directors consists ofthirteen members,
133 Minn. Stat. § 471.96, subd. 1 (2000).
134 Letter of June 27, 1997 from Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr.,
to Staples City Attorney regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
135 See CHTTP's Articles of Incorporation, corporate Bylaws, and Minnesota
Secretary of State records. According to the CHTTP Board of Directors meeting
minutes, CHTTP is not a tax-exempt 501c(3) organization.
136 See CHTTP's Statement of Intent, Article III, section 1 of Amendments to the
Bylaws of CHTTP. The OSA was informed that CHTTP is involved in
coordinating events including Make -A -Difference Day, Tater Daze, a campaign
for the City to receive All-American City designation, and various fund raisers
such as the Dick Koop Classic golf tournament.
137 See CHTTP's Articles of Incorporation.
I/,
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 44
with six directors selected from City staff.13'
Prior to February 2002, CHTTP maintained its own checking account and tax identification number.
According to CHTTP's Bylaws, CHTTP's Treasurer may issue checks and disburse CHTTP funds
as ordered by the CHTTP Board. `9 CHTTP's Treasurer closed CHTTP's checking account on
February 4, 2002, and transferred the account balance of $17,753.63 to a special revenue fund within
the City that he controlled as the City's Director of Finance and Administrative Services. 141
During the OSA's period of review, the City contributed $25,000 each year from its Economic
Development Authority (hereinafter "EDA") funds to pay for a City employee in the City Manager's
office to work on CHTTP projects for approximately 30 hours per week. 141 In addition to public
funds for the City employee's time, the OSA discovered that the City had a general fund account
entitled "Come Home to the Park.". From January 1, 1999 through August 31, 2001, $7,549.93 was
expended from this account. The OSA also found $632.17 in City expenditures on behalf of CHTTP
from other City accounts. Examples of City expenditures on behalf of CHTTP are reflected in
Attachment 14.
138
No more than two directors from City staff may be from any one department.
CHTTP's Articles of Incorporation. The seven non -City staff directors must be
selected from the following areas of interest in the City: church, school, business,
multi -family, real estate, social service, community organization, and residents.
Id. The OSA has been informed that the size of the Board has recently been
increased, and the CHTTP Board of Directors meeting minutes reflect discussion
regarding reorganization of the Board.
139 The City's Director of Finance and Administrative Services is the elected
treasurer of CHTTP.
loo
According to CHTTP's Treasurer, the CHTTP Board did not take action regarding
the transfer of CHTTP funds to the City's special revenue account, and no
reference to the transfer appears in the CHTTP minutes. However, the CHTTP's
Treasurer told the OSA that he informed the CHTTP Board that he would be
making the transfer. He also informed the OSA that he is currently authorized to
make expenditures on behalf of CHTTP from the City's CHTTP special revenue
fund by virtue of his position with the City.
141 According to the minutes of the June 4, 2001 City Council work session, the
City's financial support for CHTTP was "a 20 -hour per week staff person and
supplies, which comes from EDA funds ($25,000) as well as funds from fund
raising." X
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 45
The OSA reviewed the check register for the checking account maintained by CHTTP prior to
February 4, 2002. A listing of some CHTTP expenditures during the GSA's period of review are
contained in Attachment 15. While the CHTTP checkbook entries do not provide sufficient
descriptions to determine the purpose of the expenditures, some of CHTTP's expenditures would
not be authorized expenditures of public funds by a city. 142
The OSA also reviewed City records for the annual Dick Koop Classic golf tournament (hereinafter
DKC"). The DKC is a fund-raising event organized by CHTTP and held at the City -owned
Edinburgh USA Golf Course ("Edinburgh"). The City informed the OSA that the DKC is held to
show off' the City and Edinburgh.
According to records provided to the OSA, the 1999, 2000, and 2001 DKC golf events included
CHTTP expenditures, revenues, and net incomes of the following amounts:
Based on information provided to the OSA, the net income from the 1999, 2000 and 2001 DKC golf
events was distributed between the Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter
142 According to CHTTP's Treasurer, CHTTP made payments to schools and scout
troops in recognition of service projects conducted by the organizations.
However, the Minnesota Attorney General has specifically opined that cities
cannot make donations to the Boy Scouts. Ops. Att'y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21,
1948) and (September 28, 1933). The OSA also found no provision in the City's
Charter authorizing such expenditures.
143 The expenditures listed in this chart appear to have been made from the CHTTP
checking account.
CHTTP
Event Date Expenditures 43 Revenues Net Income
May 24, 1999 16,392.00 24,457.00 8,065.00
May 22, 2000 11,306.26 19,673.00 8,366.74
May 21, 2001 16,633.13 23,530.00 6,896.87
TOTALS: 44,331.39 67,660.00 23,328.61
Based on information provided to the OSA, the net income from the 1999, 2000 and 2001 DKC golf
events was distributed between the Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter
142 According to CHTTP's Treasurer, CHTTP made payments to schools and scout
troops in recognition of service projects conducted by the organizations.
However, the Minnesota Attorney General has specifically opined that cities
cannot make donations to the Boy Scouts. Ops. Att'y Gen. 59-A-3 (May 21,
1948) and (September 28, 1933). The OSA also found no provision in the City's
Charter authorizing such expenditures.
143 The expenditures listed in this chart appear to have been made from the CHTTP
checking account.
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 46
BCCC") and CHTTP as follows: 144
Event Date BCCC CHTTP
May 24, 1999 $ 4,025.00
May 22, 2000 $ 2,091.68
May 21, 2001 $ 3,448.43
4,040.00
6,275.06
3.448.44
TOTALS: $ 9,565.11 $13,763.50
In addition to City staff time spent organizing the DKC, City records indicate that the City incurred
City expenditures of at least $2,460.00 for participation fees in the DKC golf events for City
employees. 141
The OSA is not aware of any authority permitting the City to expend public funds on CHTTP
activities. 146 In general, the Attorney General has drawn a distinction between statutory authorization
to appropriate and use money for a purpose, and authorization to contribute money to a body
144 According to CHTTP's Treasurer, distributions to the BCCC were reduced from
50 percent in 1999 to 25 percent in 2000 due to the increased role in planning the
DKC golf event by the City employee(s) who worked on CHTTP events. From
the information provided to the OSA, it appears that 50 percent of the profits from
the 2001 DKC golf event were again distributed to the BCCC. CHTTP's
Treasurer informed the OSA that proceeds from the 2002 DKC golf event were
not shared with the BCCC.
145 City expenditures for golf participation fees for City employees and officials are
discussed in Section IV of this Report.
146 Minnesota law allows a home rule or statutory city to appropriate not more than
50,000 annually out of the city's general revenue fund to be paid to any
incorporated development society or organization of this state for promoting,
advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources of
the city. Minn. Stat. § 469.191 (2000); see also Minn. Stat.§§ 461.189 (city may
appropriate money to advertise city and its resources and advantages) and 465.719
2000) (city -sponsored organizations). CHTTP does not appear to be a
development organization. Nor does CHTTP appear to have been created to
promote, advertise, improve or develop the economic and agricultural resources of
the city.
1170
Investigative Report
City of Brooklyn Park
July 17, 2002
Page 47
generally committed to advancing a purpose. 117 The City has no authority to staff CHTTP events,
pay CHTTP expenses, or assist in CHTTP fund-raisers, especially when CHTTP expends funds in
ways that a city may not lawfully expend public funds.
The OSA recommends that the City treat CHTTP as a private entity, refrain from giving it the use
of public monies, staff and office space, and ensure that all transactions between the City and
CHTTP are arms -length contractual arrangements whereby the City receives services commensurate
with the consideration it pays. The OSA also recommends that the City operate appropriate City
functions through a City department organized for such purposes, rather than through a nonprofit
organization. The OSA recommends that the City expend public funds, including the funds in the
CHTTP special revenue fund, only for public purposes for which the City has authority.
CONCLUSION
The OSA's investigation revealed $199,569.36 in questionable City expenditures. While the City
appears to have taken steps in 2001 to prevent the use of City funds for private rather than public
purposes, the OSA recommends that the City implement procedures and controls that will curtail the
improper spending of City funds.
Any questions regarding this Investigative Report may be directed to Ms. Nancy J. Bode, Special
Investigations Division, at (651) 297-5853.
s/Judith H. Dutcher
Judith H. Dutcher
State Auditor
147 See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 59-A-3 (January 15, 1959); Letter of June 27, 1997 from
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., to Staples City Attorney
regarding Staples Chamber of Commerce membership.
P/ /
August 1, 2002
TO: City Managers, Administrators, and Clerks
FROM: Tom Grundhoefer, LMC General Counsel
RE: Issues arising out of July 17, 2002 State Auditor Investigative Report
to the City of Brooklyn Park
Introduction
The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) recently issued a report "questioning" various
spending practices of the City of Brooklyn Park. Since the report was issued, the League
has had a number of calls from city officials asking our reaction to some of the issues
discussed in the report. It is our sense that some of the practices addressed by the OSA
may be common in other cities. Accordingly, we thought it might be helpful for the
League to put in writing some of our thoughts regarding certain issued addressed by the
OSA.
At the outset, we want to make clear that this memo does not deal with all of the matters
raised by the OSA, nor should it be taken as an encouragement or a recommendation by
the League to disregard the observations made by the OSA. As always, decisions about
city spending policies and practices are largely a matter of local concern and ought to be
thoughtfully discussed and analyzed at the city council level. In addition, because many
of the issues fall into what might be considered the "gray area," we encourage you to
consult with your city attorney about this topic.
Background
As an initial matter, it may be useful to make a comment on the legal effect of the
auditor's opinion on Brooklyn Park and other cities. Under Minn. Stat. §§ 6.49 and 6.50,
the OSA has the responsibility to supervise the financial accounts of Minnesota cities and
to conduct an examination of city accounts and records as the "State Auditor may deem
the public interest to demand." Pursuant to these powers, the OSA investigated
complaints about Brooklyn Park's expenditure practices, and issued a report finding that a
number of the city's expenditures were "questionable." As it stands, the report is an
Ile
advisory opinion to the city. However, in the case of findings of suspected violations of
law, the Auditor is required to send a copy of the report to the city attorney and/or county
attorney for review for possible prosecution. A representative of the OSA has indicated
that a copy of the Brooklyn Park report was forwarded to the city and county attorney,
although he said that most of the issues addressed in the document did not rise to the level
of clear violations of law. With regard to the effect of the report on other communities, the
report has no binding effect, although observations made in the report should be given
careful consideration.
It should also be mentioned that the findings in the report rely heavily on advisory
opinions issued by the Attorney General's office. Opinions of the State Attorney General
are not binding on cities, but are given careful consideration by the courts. Minn. Stat. §
8.07 and Village of Blaine v. Independent School District 12, 272 Minn. 343, 353 138
N.W.2d. 32,39-40 (1965).
Many of the "questionable" expenditures made by Brooklyn Park involved an evaluation
of whether the particular expenditure served a valid "public purpose." The courts have
recognized that the determination of what is a valid public purpose is an evolving concept
and that great deference will be given to a local governing body's decision that a
particular expenditure is for a public purpose. R E Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269
N.W.2d. 331 (Minn. 1978). Accordingly, the determination of public purpose involves a
subjective determination that may vary from community to community; and as such, the
OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, and many of the Attorney General's Opinions upon
which the report relies, are instructive but not binding on Brooklyn Park or other cities.
Nevertheless, the League is well aware that any decision to depart from recommendations
made by the State Auditor or the Attorney General ought not be taken lightly, given the
potentially sensitive nature of the decision. Any such decision should be carefully
considered and based on justifiable reasons.
In reviewing the OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, we have identified the following
general areas to which this memo will address comments:
1. Spending on employee recognition events.
2. Spending on employee social events, such as summer picnics or holiday
parties.
3. Spending for employee meals and/or foods as part of employee meetings.
4. Spending on Chamber of Commerce dues.
Before getting into any of these specific expenditure types, it is useful to review the test
for evaluating the validity of any city expenditure. The test is two -fold: first, there must
be a public purpose for the expenditure; and second, there must be specific or implied
authority for the expenditure found in statute or a city's charter. A comment about each of
these two tests may be helpful.
Mrs
2
Public purpose
The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that public purpose is an evolving concept
that should be interpreted liberally to effectively deal with the wide-ranging changes
transforming society. The court has also stated "We have also recognized that public
purpose should be broadly construed to comport with the changing conditions of modem
life." R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis. 269 N.W.2d at 337 (citing City of Pipestone
v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 155, 210 N.W.2d 298 (1973)). It is significant that the court has
accorded great deference to a local governing body's determination that an expenditure is
for a public purpose. The Court has said that a strong presumption exists that public
officials are acting appropriately when making spending decisions. In fact, the Court has
made clear that "this presumption necessarily makes the scope of review of such
governmental decision-making extremely narrow and a reviewing court should overrule a
legislative determination that a particular expenditure is made for a public purpose only if
that determination is manifestly arbitrary and capricious." Accordingly, as discussed
above, the question of what constitutes a public purpose is largely a matter of city council
discretion.
City authority
With regard to the "authority test," a Minnesota municipal corporation has only such
powers as are expressly conferred upon it by statute or its charter, or necessarily implied
there from. In looking at the question of city authority, a distinction exists between
charter cities and statutory cities. Many home rule charter cities have an "all powers"
provision, which reads something like "A city shall have all powers which may now or
hereafter be possible for a municipal corporation in this state to exercise in harmony with
the constitution of this state and of the United States." This broad grant of power under
city charters has been interpreted as including "all those powers which are generally
recognized as powers which may properly be given to and be exercised by, municipal
corporations." State ex rel Zien v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 355, 159 N.W. 792 (1916).
In construing municipal charter authority, the Minnesota Supreme Court in City of St.
Paul v. Whidby, 295 Minn. 129, 136 203 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1972) (citing Park v. City of
Duluth 134 Minn. 296, 298, 159 N.W. 627, 628 (1916)), enunciated the parameters of
such authority:
Municipal corporations are created by state law ... their legislative authority is
conferred upon them by the constitution and the laws of the state and, as to matters
of municipal concern, they have all the legislative power possessed by the
Legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or implicitly withheld ..."
Accordingly, for a charter city with an "all powers" clause, the scope of municipal
authority is probably greater than that allowed for statutory cities.
With regard to statutory cities, municipal authority has to be found in the statutes or be
necessarily implied from that statutory authority. The question of what constitutes a valid
I/
3
implied power is the subject of some debate and creates much of the "gray area"
associated with the analysis of particular expenditure practices.
The remainder of this memorandum will not specifically differentiate between charter
city authority and statutory city authority. However, individual cities should pay
particular attention to the fact that on the authority question, charter cities may be able to
argue a greater level of municipal discretion.
Employee Recognition Events
The League of Minnesota Cities has often been asked whether it is valid to spend
municipal funds on employee recognition events. The League has historically taken the
position that cities can sponsor and pay for employee recognition programs if they are
structured so that they constitute part of an overall employee compensation program. For
instance, Minn. Stat. § 412.221 states that "The council may prescribe the duties and fix
the compensation of all officers, both appointive and elective, employees, and agents,
when not otherwise prescribed by law."
The Attorney General has taken a very narrow interpretation of the term "compensation,"
and has suggested that the term means only monetary compensation. However, the
common usage of the term certainly has meanings beyond just money. Webster's 3`d
International Dictionary defines the term to include "payment for services rendered."
Webster's further defines payment as "something given to discharge a debt or obligation
or to fulfill a promise." Even the State Public Employee Compensation statute seems to
imply that "compensation" includes more than just money. For instance, Minn. Stat. §
43A.17, Subd. 9, states that compensation includes "all other direct and indirect items of
compensation ..." Accordingly, if an employee recognition award is truly an expected
term of the contract of employment, we believe a good faith argument can be made to
support it being a valid form of compensation. In order to meet the "public purpose" and
authority" and to be considered part of the employee compensation package, a city
should:
1. Take formal action to adopt a program, preferably well in advance of any actual
expenditures, using language that specifies that the program is adopted as
additional compensation" for work performed by the employees;
2. Develop a well thought out and modestly priced system that applies to all
employees who meet certain conditions. For example, "all employees who reach
25 years of service will receive a plaque, thanking them for their additional
dedicated years of service to the community."
Employee Events (e.g., holiday parties and summer picnics)
The OSA's report criticized Brooklyn Park for amounts spent on an annual holiday party
and an annual employee picnic. The Auditor also questioned amounts spent on food for
employee meetings. The Auditor concluded that the expenditures did not further a public
f
A
purpose and recommended that the city discontinue expending public funds for
employees' social events. The OSA's report relied on an Attorney General's opinion
from 1966, finding that "Any public benefit that might result from the proposed social
event is too remote and speculative to justify this expenditure as being one for a public
purpose."
With regard to both the Auditor and Attorney General's view, we offer a couple of
observations. First, as discussed above, the question of whether a public purpose is
served by expenditure of this nature, is largely a matter properly left to the discretion of
individual city councils. As discussed at the beginning of this memo, the concept of
public purpose is an evolving concept that can change over time. Perhaps in 1966 the
idea of expending city resources on events designed to promote a happy and productive
work force, was not seen as a reasonable employment practice. However, in today's
work environment, most human resource professionals would agree that employee job
satisfaction, and ultimately productivity, depends on more than just the salary an
employee receives from their employer. All employee benefits are basically a form of
employee compensation that, like all other forms, are designed to attract, retain and
motivate employees. In the past, employee benefits meant group health, life and
disability insurance. In recent years, most private and public sector organizations have
expanded their compensation and benefit programs to include things such as: service and
achievement awards; "camaraderie -type" events like annual banquets, employee picnics
and holiday parties; on-site daycare or daycare referral services; flex -time and work/life
policies; payroll -deducted car and homeowner's insurance; medical and daycare expense
accounts; and assistance with carpooling, transportation or parking.
One reason for this expansion of benefit programs is that today's workforce is diverse and
offering a wide range of benefits allows employees to choose the ones that are most
important for them. For example, employees in families where both parents work
sometimes prefer time off above other benefits. A single parent, however, may require
family health insurance. Younger employees may value events where they can socialize
with other employees.
Another reason for expansion of employee benefits is the fact that studies continue to
show that nearly all employees rank "recognition" as a key factor in a good work
environment. Since "recognition" means different things for different people, employers
who want to meet diverse needs offer a variety of formal and informal recognition
programs. Researchers in intergenerational issues advise employers that each generation
of employees value different types of recognition programs and no single effort will be
valued by all of the generations present in the workforce.
Finally, in addition to the important goals of employee satisfaction and retention, many
employers recognize the value of benefits that promote positive social interaction among
employees. Employees who interact together develop a "synergy" which often allows for
better ideas, better cooperation, and higher productivity. On the opposite end of the
continuum, a dysfunctional workforce with high interpersonal conflict may experience
76
61
lower productivity, higher absenteeism and probably higher insurance claims. All of
these factors can negatively affect an employer's product and services.
We think a city council, as an employer, could logically conclude that expenditures for
employee events, including food at employee meetings, really have as their primary
purpose, the creation of a more productive work force that better serves the interests of
the citizens of the community.
Another way to look at these types of expenditures is to view them as a form of expected
employee compensation similar to the analysis used in evaluating employee recognition
events. To avoid the argument that expenditures on employee events is an unlawful gift,
there should be an understanding, in advance, that these events are an expected form of
compensation. If a city wants to implement such a program, it would probably be helpful
to have the city council review this issue as part of its annual budget discussion. Councils
may even want to go as far as passing a motion specifying and providing that amounts
spent on such events are additional forms of compensation to all employees. The key
again, is that the employees have a reasonable prior understanding and expectation that if
they are performing their job, they are earning the right to attend the employee event.
In most cases, the IRS would probably consider the employer-sponsored party to be a "de
minimus fringe" which would not be subject to withholding and would be excluded from
the employee's gross income. See, 26 USCA Sec. 132 (a) (4).
Again, each city council should decide whether it believes these types of employee
benefits promote a public purpose and serve the best interest of the citizens of their
community. With regard to the authority question, a compelling argument can be made
that such expenditures are a natural incident of the employer/employee relationship and
that authority for such expenditure is implied as part of the authority to hire, retain, and
compensate employees.
Reimbursement of Employee Meals
The OSA questioned Brooklyn Park's practice of reimbursing city officials for various
business lunches. Relying on a 1965 Attorney General Opinion, the OSA concluded that
there was no authority to support such expenditures. It is interesting to note, however,
that subsequent opinions from the Attorney General have actually found that questions of
this nature are "a question of fact and policy, one which the legislative body ... is most
qualified to make" Op. Atty. Gen. 285a, August 7, 1969.
In evaluating the validity of lunch expenses associated with a Minneapolis Library Board
function, the Attorney General, quoted language from Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171,
194 N.W. 404 (1923) wherein the court stated,
The mere fact that some private interest may derive incidental benefit from an
activity does not deprive the activity of its public nature if its primary purpose is
public."
071
The Attorney General's Opinion goes on to say that the "inquiry should focus on the
questions of whether the primary purpose of the luncheon was in fact to discuss planning
and operations of the new branch library, and whether that discussion is properly
incidental to the Library Board's chartered function." The Opinion states, "Our courts
are disposed to defer decision on these questions unless the facts show a serious abuse of
discretion."
In commenting on a 1954 Opinion addressing luncheon expenses incurred by the City of
Hopkins, the Attorney General stated,
it rests within the discretion of the city council, in the exercise of its sound and
honest judgment, to determine whether or not the above $10.00 item was incurred
for a public purpose ..."
Moreover, in another opinion from 1958, regarding the reimbursement of expenses in
attending a convention, the Attorney General stated:
Matters of this kind involve questions of fact and of policy. Our courts have
indicated it is wisest to leave such matters to the reasonable discretion of those
who represent the interest of the city, i.e., its governing body."
Accordingly, as with many of the other issues addressed by the OSA, the question of the
validity of business luncheon expenses incurred by city officials is one for the city
council to evaluate, looking at whether the expense furthers a public purpose and whether
it can logically be seen as a natural incident of a municipal function. In this regard, we
would urge cities to set policies and establish guidelines describing under what
circumstance the city will reimburse for employee lunches.
Chamber of Commerce Dues
Relying on a 1997 Attorney General letter Opinion to the City of Staples, the OSA
questioned the legality of paying dues to the local Chamber of Commerce. The Attorney
General's Opinion, upon which the OSA relies, offers a very narrow interpretation of
three statutes that arguably support authority to pay chamber dues.
In particular, Minn. Stat. § 469.187 - § 469.189 gives various categories of cities, the
authority to expend city funds to advertise the "resources and advantages" of the
community. While there is no explicit statutory authority to pay dues to a Chamber of
Commerce, it can be argued that the purpose of a Chamber of Commerce is to promote
the city's resources and advantages. In effect, the membership in the Chamber of
Commerce could be viewed as a contract between the city and the chamber to promote
the city. To buttress this argument, at the time of approving chamber membership, the
city council may want to make explicit findings about what it intends to receive from its
chamber membership and why participation in the chamber promotes an important city
purpose.
7g
X
Another statute that relates to this question, is Minn. Stat. § 469.191, which specifically
permits a home rule or statutory city to appropriate not more than $50,000 annually out
of the general revenue fund to any incorporated development society or organization of
the state for promoting, advertising, improving, or developing the economic and
agricultural resources of the city."
Again, while not an explicit grant of authority to join the local chamber, a reasonable
argument can be made that dues to the chamber of commerce could logically be seen as
payment to a development corporation for purposes of "promoting, advertising,
improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources of the city. To help
safeguard a city's decision, the city council may want to explicitly make findings noting
that it used the chamber dues as a payment consistent with the statute.
It is worth noting that a 1997 Attorney General Opinion concluded that this statute would
actually authorize a contribution to the chamber, but could not be taken as authority to
become a member.
A final statute bearing on this question is Minn. Stat. § 471.96, which allows a city to
appropriate necessary funds to belong to a "county, regional, state or national
associations of a civic, educational or governmental nature, which have as their purpose,
the betterment and improvement of municipal government operations." The Attorney
General concluded that it "does not appear that Chambers of Commerce can be
characterized as associations of a civic, educational, or governmental nature, which have
as their purpose, the betterment and improvement of municipal government operations,
even though their interests may include such objectives." While the Attorney General's
interpretation should be given weight, it is largely a city council's decision as to whether
they think the Chamber of Commerce is an organization that meets this definition.
Conclusion
As indicated, courts accord a fair amount of deference to a city council's decision on
municipal spending decisions. If a city council decides that it is appropriate to spend city
funds on the types of expenditures discussed in this memorandum, we suggest that city
councils spend time considering the issue and make their decisions only after thoughtful
deliberation, considering all the practical, legal and political implications of its decision.
79
8'
Agenda Number:
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: March 6, 2003, for City Council study session of March 11, 2003
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and, if desired,
establish future special meetings or amend the topics list.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Meeting with CSM
Discuss public safety building expansion
Other requests for study session topics:
Recycling Program — future program initiatives (requested by
EQC; after legislative session)
Interview youth applicants for boards and commissions (after April
30)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Feb 2003
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
March 2003
Apr 2003
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
1
LMC
CONFERENCE
FOR
EXPERIENCED
OFFICIALS,
Doubletree Park
Place Hotel, St.
Louis Park
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL TOWN
FORUM, Plymouth
Creek Center
5:30 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
SUBDIVISIONREGULAnor1S CITY
CENTERAREA$ SENIOR
HOUSING PTpNs
OUATIC VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN
MMICINELAKE STORM
ATER PONOS Public
Safety Training Room
7:00 PM
PLANNINGCOMMISSION,
Council Chambers
Ash Wednesday
First Day of
Lent)
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHiS COMMISSION -
Council Chambers
7:00 RE PARK &
RECREATIONADVISORYCOMMISSION g"RAQ. Medicine Lake com
this meeting only)
6:00 PM FIRE
DEPARTMENT
RECOGNITION
EVENT,
Plymouth Creek
Center
9 10 11 12 13 14 I5
00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCILMEETING:
DISCUSS STATE
UIRELLATEDPORT
uning RoomPublic Safety
rD
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Pudic Safety
Training Room
6:30 PM
PLYMOUTH
BOARD&
COMMISSION
RECEPTION,
7:00PMREGULAi c, COUNCICouncil Chambers
Plymouth Creek
Center
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:30 PM
YOUTH
ADVISORY
F700 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
I AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
COUNCIL,
Council
Chambers
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
11:45AMPLYMOUTH-MTKA
BUSINESSCOUNCIL,
BORN ConferonceRoom,
301 UUCarl—Parkway, 4th
floor
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCILMEETING, Council
Chambers
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
30 31
7:30 PM
YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Council
Chambers
modified on 3/4/2003
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
April 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday
y
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
3
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Council Chambers
4 5
6
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES-
Set clocks ahead 1
hour
7 8
6:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
aSCUSSPOND
CLEANING OPTIONS
ANDPOLICY FOR
HANDLING DRAINAGE
CONCERNS, Public
8afet Mlg Room
7:00 NC REGULARCOUNCILMEETING,
Council Chamber;
9
7:00 PM
EVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY(PRAC),Council
COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth
Creek Center
10
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
CChambers
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH FINE
ARTS C'OUNC'IL
SHOW Plymouth
Creek Center
11
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH
FINE ARTS
COUNCIL
SHOW
Plymouth Creek
Center
12
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH
FINE ARTS
COUNCIL
SHOW
Plymouth Creek
Center
13 14
7:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Council Chambers7:00
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH FINE
ARTS COUNCIL
SHOW, PlymGUth
Creek Center
15 16
Passover begins
at sunset
17
8:00 AM -1:30 PM -
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
STUDENT
WORKSHOP,
Plymouth Creek
Center
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
UTHORITY{HRA),
MadidneLekeRoom
18
Good FridayY
19
7:00 PM'OARDOF
EOUALIZATION,Counot
chambere
PM SPECIAL
COUNCILMEETING
IMBLUMEODIATELBD.OF
2001 AUIDIT RE ORTCUSS
REPORTON 3RDSHLET
OFICE,CotmaiChareeen
pRIMAVERAPLYMOUTH
FINE ARTSTO UNCILCent'
RYY
M Creek
20
Easter
21 22
6:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCILMEETING:
DISCUSS POSSIBILITY
OFESTA.U..INGA
BUSINESS COUNCIL
NDASENIOR
COUNCIL, Public Safety
Training Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCILMEETING,
Council Chambers
23
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTHADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
24 25 26
9:00 AM -2:00
PM LAWN 81
GARDEN
EXPO, Plymouth
Creek Center
27 28
7:30 PM
YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL,
Council
Chambers
29
11:45 AM
BUSINESSBUSINESS
SheratonOU
kidgedale
30 Mar 2003
S M T W T F S
May 2003
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00 PM
RECONVENE
BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION
Council Chambers
modified on 3/4/2003
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
May 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Jun 2003
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 .5 6 7
1
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
2 3Apr2003
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Council Chambers
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 29 30
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7:00 PM 7:00 PM PARK 8 10:30 AM - 4:00
PLANNING REC ADVISORY PM
COMMISSION, COMMISSION PLYMOUTH
Council Chambers PRAC), Council
Chambers
HISTORY
FEST, Parkers
Lake Park
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
7:30 PM
YOUTH
COUNCIL,
Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM
EVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth
Creek Center
6:30 PM -8:30 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
pythimFAIR,
Plymouth Cre
Center
7:00 PM HOUSING&
REDEVELOPMENT
UTHORITY(HRA),
Medidne Lake Room
9:00 AM -3:30
PM PLYMOUTH
CLEAN-UP
DAY, Public
Works
Maintenence
Facility
W PM YOUTH
SERVICE AWARDS
RECEPTION, Pymmth
Creek Center
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
11:00 AM CITY EMPLOYEE
RECOGNITION LUNCH,
Plymouth Creek Center
AChambersC
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
MEMORIAL DAY
Observed) - City
Offices Closed
11.45AMPLYMOUTH-MTKA
USIN 33 COUNCIL,
ORN oMerenceR M,
301C7CedwnParkway,4th
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
modified on 3/4/2003