My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019-09-16 EDA Minutes (signed)
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Minutes
>
2019
>
2019-09-16 EDA Minutes (signed)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2019 1:53:31 PM
Creation date
10/8/2019 1:53:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/16/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REDA Meeting <br /> Minutes—Monday,September 16,2019 <br /> Page 12 <br /> Member Willmus asked, with respect to the additional language added and will <br /> have going forward in the contracts, for explanation on how that came to be <br /> and who staff met with and raised some of the concerns. <br /> Community Development Director Gundlach indicated Ms. Kim Nelson, <br /> representing the union, came to staff with concerns. She met with Ms. Nelson <br /> on September 4, 2019 and brought a lot of these issues to her attention. She <br /> asked Ms. Nelson to share some of her evidence to support some of the things <br /> she was saying about the developer in this case. Staff received that <br /> information this morning but before the information was received, staff <br /> immediately connected with Ms. Kelsey and Ms. Ingram to explore <br /> development contract language that could prevent that from happening on <br /> Roseville sites. Ms. Ingram was very helpful in drafting a language <br /> highlighted in the packet. <br /> Ms. Gundlach reviewed the language with the EDA that helps protect the city <br /> now and in the future. <br /> Member Laliberte appreciated the work done by staff and no one wanted <br /> anything like what was brought up to happen in Roseville. She wondered if <br /> there was any other manner where someone could report something that is <br /> being suspected on a project. <br /> Ms. Gundlach explained this type of issue is fairly new and she has not worked <br /> with something like this at her past employment. When she did meet with Ms. <br /> Nelson, one item that was discussed, in the interest of trying to protect workers <br /> and recognize problems and report them in a timely fashion, was to offer to <br /> meet with the city Building Official and Building Inspection staff to give them <br /> tools and tips on how to recognize things that are happening on job sites and <br /> when those things are recognized, who staff should report those problems to. <br /> That offer remains open and Ms. Nelson has not asked to meet with those staff <br /> members since that meeting. <br /> Member Etten noted one of the questions that was brought forward was asking <br /> about law the city has in protecting labor situations. He asked EDA Attorney <br /> Ingram if the city held the statutory ability to do that or is that held by the <br /> State. <br /> EDA Attorney Ingram indicated when federal labor law is involved, there are <br /> actually steps that a city or an EDA has to take to comply with those. In state <br /> labor law situations such as what is before them, there are not similar <br /> procedures. There are certainly procedures that are more voluntary, in the state <br /> labor law context. She noted this is not her area of law and is speaking a little <br /> beyond her depth. The trade off of having the city or the EDA do enforcement <br /> of its own, is that it is staff and time and money intensive on the part of the city <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.