HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-15 Worksession Packet City of Oak Park Heights Worksession
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Location: Oak Park Heights City Hall Conference Room
Time: 5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. 2016 Proposed Budget
3. Discuss Possible Communication to Residents Regarding St. Croix River Crossing
Project Testing (requested to be added by Councilmember Dougherty)
4. STANTEC Street Reconstruction Agreements —Addendum 92 and STANTEC Damages
Request
5. Body Worn Cameras
6. Adjourn
Page 1 of 22
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 2 of 22
7/24/15
MEMO:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members
At the work session on 7/28/15 l would request that the City Council discuss the concept of the City
sending a communication to those property owners whose homes were initially tested by Ames-Lunda
at the start of the SCRCP to ensure they take the time to possibly reconnect with MNDOT/Ames-Lunda
if they believe their home sustained some damages as a result of the Project.
Thank You
Chuck Dougherty
Page 3 of 22
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 4 of 22
3
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574
July 24th,2015
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator
RE: STANTEC Street Reconstruction Agreements—Addendum#2&STANTEC Damages
Request:
TWO ITEMS REQUIRING DISCUSSION:
Item#1: STANTEC Street Reconstruction Agreements—Addendum#2
The City has an agreement with STANTEC for planned items related to the 2014-2015 Street Reconstruction and
totals $1.25 million dollars. This was approved by the City Council on 1/14/14. That agreement covered all most
aspects of pre-design, design, feasibility, surveying, project management, provision of as-builts/GIS documentation
and close-out. (Agreement(defined as Addendum#1)also attached hereto)
Items that such Agreement did not cover were project additions,such as change orders that were not inclusive of the
initial design scope. To date the City has approved only a few alterations beyond the initial scope and includes the
following list below - totaling $22,097 in additional services or +/- 1.77% change in Agreement Costs due to City
requested actions. Please note the Oren Ave.water project services are funded in another project element.
CITY ENGINEERING I CONSTRUCTION MG MT COSTS-2014&2015 Street Reconstruction
Base Agreement with Stantec-Jan 2014 $ 1,250,000.00
Scope Change 1 Stagecoach Watermain
$ 11,420.00
Scope Change 2 Watermain(Alt#2 w/Hardrives) $ 4,760.00
Scope Change 3 Valley View Park-Entrance (Alt#1 with Hardrives) $ 6,280,00
Scope Change 4 Valley View Park-Parking Area(Alternate w/Al) $ 3,751.00
CREDITforArea D-Deletions 65th,Ozark,Etc. (Stantec completed design) $ (4,114.00)
Total Engineering SerWes w/City Direct Actions $ 1,272,097.00
Difference from Initial Agreement $ 22,097.00
%Difference from Initial Agreement 1,77%
CITY STAFF would recommend the approval of the Addendum#2.
Page 5 of 22
Item#2 STANTEC Damages Request:
The City has also been approached by STANTEC requesting that they be provided $72,800 in costs that were
incurred by their firm as result of the delays from Hardrives Inc., the City's primary contractor on the 2014 elements.
As this scenario is difficult to deeply analyze it is likely STANTEC did not anticipate the delays caused by Hardrives,
yet their firm must remain mobilized on the site and continue to execute the project—as the City's agent- beyond the
timelines established in the STANTEC/City bidding documents. STANTEC'S request is enclosed here—dated June
8th, 2015:
Recall the City secured $93,000 in Liquidated Damages from Hardrives for its delays on the project and were put in
place for not meeting certain milestones and other items that were within Harddves' control. I would believe
STANTEC was materially impacted by these delays. STANTEC's request is 78% of the Damages received by
Hardrives. Please recall that Hardrives must complete all tasks on the Project and while there were some delays and
inconvenience the City did not likely incur material financial—out-of-pocket loss, compared to the total contract costs,
as STANTEC did.
Considering the fact that the City and STAN ETC have an agreement(Addendum#1)that indicates that
"Should the City or Engineer discover circumstances that could be wholly unanticipated with a project of
this type and would cause expense or cost savings, both parties agree that the other may request additional
compensation or cost reduction..."
The question of course is are the delays from Hardrives to be "wholly unanticipated" and is the $72,800 a plausible
figure to request. As to the first part of the question, three weeks of delays is probably not wholly unanticipated
compared to, for example, a six month delay, but also was not in Stantec control and they likely had some costs. If
the Council was amenable to the STANTEC request and applied the received Liquidated Damages (a savings really
from the Hardrives' payments)to the City's the final Total Engineering Services costs the City would be at a deviation
of less than 0.15%+/-.
Total Engineering Servcies w/City Direct Actions $ 1,272,097.00
Increase due to Hardrives Delay- REQUEST from STANTEC $ 72,800.00
Application of All Liquidated Damges to Total Engineering Services $ (93,000.00)
TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES $ 1,251,897.00
Difference from Initial Agreement $ 1,897.00
%Difference from Initial Agreement 0.15%
As of this writing, I am awaiting more information from Stantec to support their position for the$72,800 and
is something I would like the Council to discuss on 7128 work session. I would lastly comment that their work
has been favorable, responsive and timely so as to possibly some meaningful level of such Liquidated
Damages to STANTEC.
Naturally, if there are alteration or other unknowns developing these would have to be addressed In the future, but his
is where we are at this point. •_.
Page 6 of 22
Stantec PROFESSIONAL.SERVICES AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM #2
Attached to and forming part of the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ADDENDUM #1 fSEE ATTACHED),
BETWEEN:
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(hereinafter called the "CITY")
-and-
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
(hereinafter called the "Engineer")
This project specific addendum modifies PSA Addendum #1, for the Oak Park Heights 2014 - 2016 Street
Reconstruction Project fhereinofter called the "Project")., areas B.C, D& E as identified on Figure 1 of the Feasibility
Report prepared in October,2013-
Due to circumsfonces not foreseen prior to the signing of Addendum fl, the following modifications have been
agreed upon between the CITY and the Engineer.
Modifications:
1. Engineering Extra Services-for the following tasks performed in 2014 (also see attached correspondence
dated June 17,2015):
a. Task I -Water main Improvements along Stagecoach Trail
b. Task 2-water main Improvements between Stagecoach North and Perkins Ave
c. Task 3-Valley View Park Entrance Reclaim and Overlay
d. Total Additional Fee: $22,460.
2. Additional Engineering Services-for the extension of construction services that resulted from the failure by
the Contractor to meet the specified Milestone Dates.
a. Total Additional Fee: $72,800;as a portion of the Liquidated Damages paid by the Contractor less
costs incurred by the City.
3. Alternates 1 and 2 - Valley View Parking Lot-includes the preliminary design for bidding, final design and
construction services associated with the Alternate. See attached cost estimate.
a. Total Additional Fee: $3,751.
4_ Alternates 3, 4,5 and 6 includes modifying the bidding documents (plan set and bid form) to incorporate
the named Alternates. Also includes the savings in reduction of construction observation due to omission of
parts or all of four streets. See attached cost estimate.
a. Total Additional Fee:-$4,114,
Total Additional Fee to be added to the Lump Sum of$1,250,000 is: $94,x97.00
Page 1 of 2
Page 7 of 22
Stantec PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM #2
Unless there is a further alteration as agreed to in writing between the CITY and the Engineer, this agreement shall
prevail throughout the course of the Project and such terms shall supersede the November 181". 1999 Agreement
and PSA Addendum #1.
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Dr. Eric Johnson.AICP
City Administrator Cristina M.Mlejnek, P.E.,
Phil Gravel, P.E.. Principal
Page 2 of 2
Page 8 of 22
4 2335 Highway 36 west,St.Paul MN 55113-3819
June 8, 2015 +
File: 193801994 -�-�
Attention: Eric Johnson
14168 Oak Park Boulevard
PO Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Dear Eric,
Reference: 2014 Street Project-Additional Costs Incurred by Stantec
This letter references P$A Addendum #2, Modification #2 for Additional Engineering Services.
Project budget management includes making projections based on many items including
construction schedules. The timelines and milestone dates specified in the Contact Documents is
a major aid in working with set budgets.
Due to a number of factors, Hardrives did not meet any of the milestone dates. Some factors
include the weather and private utility work. (See attached correspondence dated April 24,
2015).
Because the Contractor did not meet any of the milestone dates set forth in the Contract,Stantec
continued to manage construction and administer each project area an average of three and a
half weeks beyond the planned/budgeted timeline. The two primary individuals (Lucas and
Sandy) to work on the project have an average rate of$104/hour. Three and a half weeks at a
combined 50 hours {for both, not each) per week at this rate for each area comes to$72,800 in
work beyond the milestone dates.
Please let me know if additional information or any clarification is needed.
Regards,
Stantec
�4o l
Cristina Mlejnek, P.E.
City Engineer
Phone: (651) 967-4619
Fax: (651)636-1311
cristina.rnleinek @stantec.com
Page 9 of 22
StanteC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM #1
Attached to and forming part of the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1999,
BETWEEN:
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
(hereinafter called the "CITY")
-and-
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
(hereinafter called the "Engineer")
This project specific addendum revises Section 3 of the AGREEMENT, City's Payment to Engineer, for the Oak Park
Heights 2014-2016 Street Reconstruction Project(hereinafter tailed the "Project")., areas B, C, D & E as identified
on Figure 1 of the Feasibility Report prepared in October,2013 (Attachment "A").
The Engineer and the CITY agree on a lump sum, not to exceed fee of$1,250,000.00, to the CITY for engineering
expenses related to the Project including the following elements consistent with past practices including: Feasibility,
Preliminary Surveying/Field Investigation, Design and Bidding, Construction Observation/Management, Surveying,
Creating and Providing Record Plans/Base Map Updates; (not including third-party testing or permit fees).
General Scope of Engineering Services to be Provided:
1_ Feasibility-includes creating a report identifying the project areas, the type of improvements required, the
cost for those improvements,and how the City could fund the improvements.
2. Preliminary Surveying/Field fnvestigation-includes preliminary surveying; and field investigation for sanitary
and storm sewer; and sanitary sewer televising review and coordinate any third party testing in order to
determine needed improvements.
3. Design and Bidding -includes the design and bidding of street reconstruction, water main replacement,
storm sewer rehabilitation,sanitary sewer rehabilitation,and sanitary sewer lining.
4. Construction Observation/Management - includes the construcfion observation of street reconstruction
and utility improvements; quantity record keeping; daily observation reports; testing reports; and general
project coordination with the contractor, residents, and businesses; working with the City to address
deficiencies and/or securing data necessary should the contractor be in violation of the contract up to
and including removal and securing performance from the Project security.
5. Surveying - includes water main, storm sewer, and street staking; record plan surveying following
improvements.
& Creating and Providing Record Plans/Base Map Updates-includes providing an electronic (.pdf) copy of
the record plans,and completion of AutoCAD base map updates to all improved utilities.Shape files of the
utilities and roadway surfaces will be provided to the City and which shall also include X-Y-7 dimensions and
data labels
The listing above constitutes what is generally anticipated with a project of this magnitude and the parties agree
that this list is not exhaustive. Unique deviations shall be promptly communicated to the other party for
consideration for costs increases or reductions outside this General Scope.
Page T of 2
J>i'
`
Page 10 of 22
5 Stantec PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM #1
In addition,the following considerations shall prevail:
• Progress payments will be made by the CITY to the Engineer based on relative progress and/or completion
of each phase listed above.
• Should the CITY or the Engineer discover circumstances that could be wholly unanticipated with a project
of this type and would cause expense or cost savings, both parties agree that the other may request
additional compensation or cost reductions; any such requests must be made promptfy and with detailed
supporting documentation provided:
o In the event the CITY would request additional work that will result in a substantial change in design
or project scope,Stantec may request additional compensation from the CITY.
o In the event the CITY project is altered to reduce construction costs by more than 10% (due to one
or a combination of total design changes) the CITY may request cost reductions from the Engineer.
a In the event the City project is delayed,and work cannot be completed by the end of 2016.
Unless there is a further alteration as agreed to in writing between the CITY and the Engineer, this agreement shall
prevail throughout the course of the Project and such terms shall supersede the November 18th, 1999 Agreement or
any subsequent amendments.
i
F
CITY OF K PA GHTS STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
D .Pi is Jo nson,AICP
C.y Ad inistrator Christopher W. Long, P.E.,
Michael Kennedy, P.E.,Vice President
Page 2 of 2
Page 11 of 22
to nti. 2335 Highway 3E west,51.Paul MN 551133819
April 24, 2015
File: 193801994
Mr, Eric Johnson, City Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Boulevard North
P.O. Box 2007
Oak Pork Heights, MN 55082
Reference: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project
Contractor Liquidated Damages
Dear Eric,
The purpose of this letter is to provide information regarding Contractor liquidated damages
related to work performed during fhe street reconstruction project.
Liquidated damages are calculated based on the number of days construction work extended
beyond the required Substantial Completion Date to achieve the requirements for Substantial
Completion_ For each day beyond the requirement, $1,500 in liquidated damages accrues. The
current amount being withheld is $249,000. Some of this amount may be reduced as described
below;
One month for lower Area C -the only outstanding item was signage (fully functional)
Ten days for Alternate 1 - final surface was paved (fully functional)
Weather-wettest spring on record caused start up delays
Xcel's project- not in Hardrive's control
Century Link project - not in Hardrive's control
The Contractor (Hardrives) has proposed Liquidated Damages in the amount is$93,000.
We request that the City accept the amount of$93,000 from the Contractor due to the failure by
the Contractor to meet the specified Milestone Dates as presented in the Contract Documents
and this correspondence.
Please let me know if there are any questions or additional information is required.
Page 12 of 22
April 24,2015
193801994
Page 2of2
Reference: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project
Contractor Liquidated Damages
Sincerely,
3tantec
�44 l
Cristina Mlejnek, P.E.
Project Manager
Phone: (651) 967-4619
Fax:651-636-1311
cristina.mleinek @stantec.com
Attachment: none
c. File
mC OMvMen1 F I
Page 13 of 22
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 14 of 22
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
14168 OAK PARK BLVD. NORTH - P.O. BOX 2007
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55082
TELEPHONE:(651)439-4723
# FAX: (651)439-3639
EMERGENCY: 911
July 24, 2015
To: Council
Re: Background information----Body Worn Cameras
In an effort to continue our progressive and professional services to the community of OPH, I am
recommending implementation of Body Worn Cameras in the police department.
Cameras have been in use by law enforcement for decades with in car video systems.
Technology for BWC's has been improving and refined by manufactures for nearly a decade in
an effort to meet the demands required of our equipment. The civilian world is filled with
personal cameras and video recorders. LE can easily be considered to have been behind the
curve with this technology with as few departments that have been using it until recent years.
However some BWC's have been in use by some larger Minnesota LE agencies for several
years. With the price reduction and manufacture influx of choice and competition the
technology has become available to all agencies.
The technology I implemented in the department with the in car video systems in 2008 has been
a useful tool for evidence documentation, officer safety, complaint resolution, and court
prosecution. The implementation of BWC's is the next step using this technology. There has
been much"ado" in the news and other sources about this technology recently; however in
reality the cameras have been in use for years. Many of the same things were said when we
started with in car video systems, and little if any of the negative concerns ever became a reality
and were addressed if they did. The technology has shown to be a huge benefit to law
enforcement and the communities we serve. Recent talk of legislative action to address the data
rules should only be an improvement. Video is becoming an expectation by the public and the
courts.
I wrote policy on the use of BWC's for the department. This policy was developed and written
after researching other agencies policy, use of force incident research documentation, and best
practices from sources such as LMC, MN Chiefs Assoc., DOJ COPS, and the International
Chiefs Assoc. The policy I wrote provides protection, guidance, and direction to officers and the
department. A procedure on specifics of the "mechanical"use will be written after we receive
the equipment and have trained with the manufacture on the equipment and software_ The
policy has been presented to our police officers union and accepted by them. Our officers see the
benefit to cameras to protect them and help document incidents. City administration and legal
counsel have reviewed the policy.
Page 15 of 22
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
94168 OAK PARK BLVD. NORTH - P.O. BOX 2097
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55982
TELEPHONE:(651)439-4723
FAX:(651)439-3639
EMERGENCY:911
I also recommend an addition to the Master Fee Schedule of the city. This addition addresses the
cost associated with gathering, reviewing, redaction, and releasing the data. The fee
recommended is that data requests for In Car Video or B WC's be charged`Burden Whole
Actual Cost"to include full hourly wage and benefits of staff time and direct costs for materials.
The expected fee would be required prior to processing the request with the balance due upon
completion. We would still be obligated to provide the data to the subject of the data, and those
parties in criminal prosecution without charge as required under MGDPA and Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The fee is for all other persons or media and allows the city to recoup direct costs as
allowed under MGDPA.
A very generous donation already accepted by council was received from a private family
"Ernest and Donna Dielenthies"living here in OPH who realize the benefits to our officers and
the department in the use of these cameras. The remainder of the cost for purchase could come
from the Drug and DWI Forfeiture fund or capital outlay funding.
I recommend purchasing the Watchguard brand BWC system to include 3 cameras, independent
server storage, server software, and training. This system has been reviewed along with other
brands currently in the market place. I feel this system will best fit our needs today and into the
future. I polled other agencies on equipment they have or have tried along with the review of our
needs and numerous manufacture options and recommend this system. This system will sister
with our current Watchguard In Car Video and is expected by the manufacture to "integrate"
together with the next generation of Watchguard In Car Video. The manufacture has provided a
quote for equipment and training.
Page 16 of 22
- CAMERA QUOTE
[? 6 G I T A L I ry C. A I' V I r, - U
415 Century Parkway,Alien,TX 75013
(972)423-9777 Fax: (972)423-9778
National Toll-Free 1-800-605-MPEG(6734)
www.watchguardvideo.com Quote #: QUO-19576-W4 Rev #: 1
Oak Park Heights(MCF) Quote Valid From: 2/13/2015 To: 5/1/2015
Attn: Brian DeRosier Quote Presented By: Steve Doble
5329 Osgood Ave N, Stillwater, MN,55082 presenter Contact: SDoble @WatchGuardvideo.com
651-439-4723 651-779-1385
bwderos @cityofoakparkheights.com 130 days 1UPS Ground Net 30
# Part Number Description Unit Price Qty Ext Price
1 HDW-4RE-SRV-002 Server,4RE,Tower,1-5 Concurrent Cars,8TB,Win7,Keyboard,Monitor,Mouse $3,840.00 1 $3,840.00
2 KEY-ELB-SRV-300 Evidence Library 3 Server Software License Key $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
3 VIS-CAM°EXT-UO2 VISTA HD,Extended Version,Wearable Camera $895.00 3 $2,685.00
4 SVC-4RE-RMT-410 4RE Remote System Setup,Configuration,Testing and Admin Training $750.00 1 $750.00
5 SFW-MNT-ELB-1ST Software Protection,Evidence Library,Incl.1st Yr(Months 1-12) Included 3 Included
6 KEY-ELB-CLI-300 Evidence Library 3 Client Software License Key,Included Included 5 Included
7 WGS00150 Eiecard Codec License Included 5 Included
8 SFW-SQL-SRV-101 Software,SQL Server 2008 R2,w11 CAL Included 1 Included
9 VIS-EXT-KIT-001 Vista Extended Kit,incl.Charging Doc,USB,Chest Mount kit Included 3 Included
iR WAR-VIS-0AM-1ST I Warranty,Vista Standard 1st Year Included 3 Included
Comments:
• I� $8,275.00
Product available on or after 5/1/2013 $250.00
$8,525.00
1of1
Page 17 of 22
Oak Park Heights Police Department Policy Manual
Re:Body worn Cameras
Effective Date:
Revision Dates:
Policy#4900
The Oak Park Heights Police Department strives to provide professional law enforcement services to the
citizens of Oak Park Heights. The use of technology in today's society has become the norm and is often
times an expectation. Body Worn Cameras are a readily available technology and provide a platform for
recording and documentation of evidence and details of an incident that officers respond to. This
information can allow officers to complete more accurate reports, better court testimony, and
protection of officers against conduct complaints. The BWC is an extension of technology already in
place and used by the department with In Car Video systems.
This policy is intended to provide officers with the instructions on when and how to use body-worn
cameras (BWC)so that officers may reliably record their contacts with the public.
This policy is written with the understanding BWC's are another tool for officers and the department to
capture the conduct of persons and other evidentiary elements during an incident. The devices are not
without limitations and some of these limitations deserve special notation as part of this policy. These
limitations have been documented in the industry from past recorded incidents and testing. When
video captured is analyzed after the fact and without the immediacy,stress of the event, and many
other factors that may impact an officer's perception of the situation it may not evoke similar responses
in the viewer.
1. A camera mounted to a person does not follow the eyes of the officer, or see as the officer sees.
Cameras may see in better or worse detail than the officer,the camera may be limited in peripheral
view, and other anomalies associated with video and photography.
2. Some tactile clues cannot be recorded visually. Officers may feel a suspect tense up and or start to
pull away while being arrested. A suspect bringing his hands up may appear to be surrendering on
camera but that may not be perceived by an officer on scene who is taking into consideration all
elements at hand and may actually feel and appear as if the subject is preparing to fight to the
officer.
3. Camera speed is different than real life observation. Cameras may miss some details or other
details may be seen by the camera that could not or were not seen by the officer. Lighting,camera
recording speed, and other circumstances may affect what is recorded or not recorded.
4. Cameras record in 2D. Depth perception is perceived by human eye. Multiple cameras at different
angles may capture an incident in what appears to be vastly different differences. A single camera
may present images that appear to be farther away or closer than they really are.
5. Time stamping may or may not be accurate or coincide with other data.
Page 18 of 22
6. Camera footage can encourage second guessing of officer perceptions and impressions of an event
by uninformed persons while in calm and comfortable conditions and not being subjected to the
event at real life speeds that the officer involved in the incident was subjected to.
7. Not all audio may be captured. The microphone may be covered,the sound may be too loud, soft,
or of a pitch that is not captured.
POLICY
It is the policy of this department that officers should activate the BWC when such use is appropriate to
the performance of his or her official duties and where recordings are consistent with policy and law.
This policy does not govern the use of surreptitious recording used in authorized undercover operations.
OBJECTIVES
1. BWC's record details of an event and serve to aid the officer in recalling details of an event and
provide evidence in court.
2. The recordings enhance the agency's ability to review incidents, officer and subject interactions,
and document evidence for court or resolution of complaints.
3. BWC's may also be useful in documenting crime and accident scenes or other events such as
confiscation of property, documentation of evidence or contraband at a scene.
HOW and WHEN CAMERAS SHOULD BE USED
1. Officers should activate BWC's to record all contacts with citizens in the performance of their
duties that the officer would expect an arrest, citation, need for documentation of physical
evidence, documentation of suspect actions and statements, witness statements or victim
statements especially those that show emotion or state of mind at time of incident.
2. If reasonable and not a safety or tactical consideration the officer will inform subjects that
request to know if they are being recorded if the officer is in a location the subject would
otherwise have an expectation of privacy if the officer where not there. This would include
inside a private residence.
3. Officers should record the entire event until the officer has cleared the scene, subject has been
turned over to jail staff,or the officer is otherwise not engaging persons. Lapses in recordings
will be documented in the officer's report. Suspects secured in a squad with the in car video
system running are considered to be recorded for the purpose of this policy. Dual recording
with BWC and In Car Video is not required "i.e during transport,while waiting and performing
vehicle tow operations, etc.
4. Audio should only be turned off temporarily if the officer is in need of confidentially conferring
with another officer, anon complainant,or other documented situation. Officers will document
in their report as to why there were any lapses in recording.
S. Officers are not obligated nor should they turn off recording device simply at the request of a
subject. Officers will take the totality of circumstances into consideration.
6. Officers may elect to stop recording for other victim statements and interviews if the officer
feels it is hampering the interview. This should be documented by the officer in the report.
Page 19 of 22
7. Officers will follow operating procedures separately outlined in procedure manual about
marking video clips,storage, equipment handling,and other operational issues respective of the
equipment.
USE and OPERATION
1. BWC's are issued primarily to uniformed officers, however plain clothes officers or investigators
may also use BWC's.
2. Only BWC's issued and approved by this department will be worn by Officers. Officers assigned
to a SWAT team will be considered to have been issued an approved device if issued or assigned
by SWAT command during SWAT operations.
3. BWC's are property of the department and all data captured by the device is property of the
department.
4. Personnel will complete training prior to the use of BWC's. Personnel will be retrained or
provided documentation if operation of the BWC's is changed by update or change of
equipment.
5. BWC's will be the responsibility of the officer wearing a BWC to care for and ensure proper
operation of the unit. Equipment malfunctions shall be brought to the attention of
administrative personnel or other assigned person. Officers will use equipment malfunction
reports describing the malfunction and circumstances surrounding the cause if known.
6. Officers will test BWC's prior to each shift.
7. Officers will not edit, alter, erase, duplicate,share,or otherwise distribute in any manner BWC
recordings without prior approval of the Chief of Police or their designee.
8. Officers should inform supervisors of recordings that may be of training value,community
outreach,or other value to the department other than those specifically saved for evidentiary
value.
9. Officers will be allowed to review recordings prior to providing a statement,completing reports,
and in a serious use of force event. This allows the officer to refresh their memory and provide
a more detailed and accurate statement or report.
10. The department does reserve the right to limit or restrict viewing of recordings as allowed for
investigation and in conformance with data practice law.
11. Requests for deletion of recordings (e.g., in the event of mistakenly recording a personal event)
shall be submitted to the Chief of Police or their designee. The CLEO will review the request and
determine if the event will be deleted or retained. All requests approved or denied will be kept
on file.
12. Officers shall note in their report, all incidents in which a BWC was activated during arrest, use
of force incidents, or other evidentiary incidents.
13. As allowable by type of equipment being used, all files will be "tagged"with the ICR number,
Officer#, Date,and Time associated with the event. Any event not having an ICR number
associated will be identified by Officer#, Date,Time.
Page 20 of 22
RESTRICTIONS and PROHIBITED USE
Z. BWC's should only be used to document law enforcement related events as previously
described, or events in the public view that may be of public outreach value or other
noncriminal purposes. Our intent is not documenting daily activity of citizens or employees not
related to law enforcement purposes,or that which is of other value as a specific incident.
2. BWC shall not generally be used to record other police personnel involved in daily activity
without approval of the CLEO.
3. BWC will not be used in the police department outside of the interview rooms, unless there is a
specific incident inside the department requiring police response,or for training purposes.
4. BWC shall not generally be used to record interaction with undercover officers or confidential
informants.
5. BWC's should not be used during breaks or other personal activity of the officer.
6. BWC's should not be used in an area or location open to the public or private location having
persons not involved or unaware of the call for service who would normally have a reasonable
expectation of privacy"Le locker room of fitness club" unless the officer is specifically there for
a reported law enforcement activity and the officer feels the need to record the situation
outweighs the consideration for privacy.
7. If a recording captured nudity the officer shall notify the Chief of Police of the recording so it
may be flagged and only specific articulated viewing for evidence allowed.
8. Medical response/assistance calls will not normally be recorded.
9. Officers will not record interactions with Magistrates or other routine Court proceedings unless
responding to an incident.
STORAGE
1. All files shall be securely downloaded periodically if needed to create additional space and no
later than the end of the officer's daily shift.
2. All images and data are exclusive property of this department. Accessing, copying, or releasing
of files shall be by designated personnel only. Release will be approved by the Chief of Police or
their designee only.
3. Files will be securely stored in accordance with state records retention rule and no longer than
useful for purposes of evidentlary value,training,or community outreach use.
4. Files kept as evidence will be kept secure until criminal prosecution and appeal processes have
been completed, or as required for evidentiary retention.
5. Investigative files will be kept as needed until the investigation is complete without prosecution
or there is no longer reasonable expectation of solving the case and the statute of limitations
has expired,then the file may be flagged for 90 day destruction. In the circumstances of events
involving death or great bodily harm these events will be kept perpetually.
6. Files not being retained for evidence or investigation may be destroyed after 60 days. This
provides time for complaints or other concerns to be brought forward before the data is
destroyed that may provide details of the event in question. Prior to destruction,the Chief of
Police will be provided a listing of the number of recordings being destroyed,date of
Page 21 of 22
destruction, and the date range of the recordings (i.e. 25 recordings between the dates of Jan 1,
2015 to Jan 30, 2015 erased on 05-01-2015. This record will be maintained.
Release of Video/Data
7. All recordings will be released as required by MN Data practice law.
8. Files as part of an incident resulting in criminal prosecution will be considered to be under
investigation until the disposition of the case and the period of appeal having lapsed.
9. Other than as required by law for subjects of the data or in conformance with criminal
prosecution disclosure rules; all requests for video/data will be charged actual costs of
employee time for retrieval, redaction review and redaction, processing, and data storage
media.
10. The Chief of Police or their designee will be responsible for data release.
11. Requestors will provide the expected cost for the data processing and copying request at the
time the request is made,and final payment prior to receiving the data.
Page 22 of 22