Why review a now-settled contract dispute?
In July 2024, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) experienced its first workers’ strike in its 140-year history. It was the culmination of stalled negotiations that had begun in December 2023, for a new contract between the MPRB and its parkkeepers and arborists, represented by the Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 363 (LiUNA Local 363). After many months of continued disagreement, Local 363 announced a 7-day strike, beginning on July 4. On July 10, the Local 363 Business Director announced that the strike would continue indefinitely. The parties reached agreement at the end of July 2024. The new contract first was ratified by a worker vote, and then by the Park Board Commissioners in early August 2024.
Although there is a ratified contract, and in 2024, the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation approved an increase in MPRB property tax levies to pay for the increased costs, the political story is still with us in 2025. Two of the 2024 Park Board Commissioners are running for City Council, and Commissioners not seeking different offices are, as of now, seeking re-election. LiUNA Local 363 has made clear that it will oppose everyone who, in their view, was involved in “anti-worker union-busting” in 2024. Others have followed their cue.
To help readers navigate the details of this story, we review the players, the timeline of significant events, major points of disagreement in substance and narrative, and how the substantive issues eventually were resolved but the narrative disputes persist. This review is based on public statements made by LiUNA Local 363 and by Park Board Management, as well as press reports from the Star Tribune, MPR, KSTP, WCCO, Minnesota Reformer, Bring Me The News, Southwest Voices and others. Everything is in the public domain.
About the MPRB
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is an independently governed park system featuring 185 park properties totaling 7,059 acres of land and water. The Minnesota State Legislature, followed by a vote of Minneapolis residents, created the MPRB in 1883. In 2024, the Trust for Public Land ranked Minneapolis second (and St. Paul third) in the US for park access, and nearly 100% of city residents are within a 10-minute walk to a park.
Park Board Commissioners
The MPRB is governed by nine publicly elected Commissioners, one from each of the six park districts, and three that serve at large. Elections are every four years. The most recent election was in 2021, there will be another this year, in 2025. Unlike Minneapolis wards, Park District boundaries are not impacted by redistricting, so there were no elections for Park Board Commissioner in 2023.
The publicly elected Commissioners have three basic roles:
- Develop park policies
- Enact ordinances governing the use of park facilities
- Appoint the Superintendent, and work with the Superintendent and other leadership staff on strategic and financial planning
Commissioners are paid $17,000 per year (the Board President is paid $18,700).
Superintendent
The full-time superintendent, currently Al Bangoura, provides strategic vision, and manages the MPRB. Bangoura runs the system’s day-to-day operations, in alignment with the Board’s policy objectives. He maintains fiscal stewardship over the MPRB’s $156m budget. He oversees the MPRB’s 14 departments that cover everything from communications, to planning, to violence prevention, information technology, and visitor services. He is the primary ambassador between the MPRB and the public, as well as other government agencies.
MPRB staff and LiUNA Local 363
The 2024 MPRB budget included funds for 632 full-time employees, and 1224 seasonal or temporary employees. There are more than 100 position titles in 14 departments, in this organizational framework. Ten unions represent a majority of MPRB workers.
The 2024 contract dispute involved approximately 300 employees (200 regular, full-time, and 100 seasonal) who were represented by the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) Local 363. Their job titles are parkkeepers and arborists. They are about 18% of all MPRB employees.
The impacted MPRB employees were approximately 30% of all active and retired employees represented by LiUNA Local 363. Local 363 has jurisdiction over 1000 public employees who maintain water, sewer, streets, bridges, traffic signs, parking ramps, parks and urban forests in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
MPRB finances
The MPRB budget is financed mostly (75% in 2019) by property taxes. The two other major revenue sources are the state, in the form of Local Government Aid (11%) and fees (14%). The City Finance Officer acts as the Treasurer of the Park & Recreation Board. The Minneapolis Mayor, City Council and Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) must approve the MPRB property tax rate.
In 2025, the Park Board budget was $155m. On September 18, 2024, the BET approved a Park Board property tax increase of 8.27% to cover increases to its 2025 budget.
Summary
The nine Park Board Commissioners, who are elected by Minneapolis voters every four years, set policy and enact ordinances governing the use of park facilities. They serve part-time. They appoint the Superintendent who is responsible for day-to-day leadership, interaction with the public, management of budget and staff.
Every year, the Superintendent – in consultation with Commissioners and other senior staff – develops a budget, which the Board must approve. As most MPRB revenues come from property taxes, the Minneapolis Mayor, City Council and Board of Estimate and Taxation must approve Park Board levy proposals.
In 2024, the Park Board had 632 full-time employees, and 1224 seasonal or temporary employees. Of these, approximately 18% were covered by LiUNA Local 363, with most of the others covered by nine other unions. In the 2024 contract dispute, negotiations occurred between Local 363 and management, and for several months, the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services mediated these negotiations confidentially.
Timeline of the 2024 dispute
Before the strike
Contract negotiations began in December 2023. Press reports say that LiUNA filed for mediation in February 2024, although the MRPB says that the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services began confidential mediation in May 2024.
Initially, the disagreements were about the size of wage increases and hazard protection. According to AJ Lange, LiUNA Local 363 Business Manager and frequently quoted spokesman, “Employees have for years called for improvements to wages, health care and safety precautions.” On April 8, 2024, the Star Tribune described conversations with several workers who shared that the work had changed. It no longer was just grounds and trees, it now included coping with homeless encampments, substance abuse, and civil unrest. And as wages were not keeping up with inflation, many were having trouble starting families.
Management’s two main concerns were how to pay for the wage increases, and to align the contract with other MPRB and city employees. Property tax revenues had plummeted with the declining value of the city’s commercial properties. When the sides were trying to reach agreement on wage increases, the Park Board’s finance director said that the differences had budget implications of $4.6m vs $6.7m, or residential property tax increases of 1.25% vs 2.5%. And according to the MPRB, its employees represented by Local 363 were outliers when comparing their contracts to those negotiated by Local 363 with the City of Minneapolis, and to those negotiated by other unions on behalf of other MPRB employees.
The strike
On June 20, workers voted to authorize a strike. On July 1, the Board made what it said was its last and best offer. On July 2, the union announced its intent to strike, starting on July 4, for seven days. They claimed that management’s proposal was inadequate. The strike commenced on July 4. On July 10, the union said that the strike would continue indefinitely.
Negotiations resumed on Monday July 15, when Local 363 presented a counteroffer to the MPRB offer of July 1. On Tuesday July 16, the MPRB submitted three counteroffers to the Local 363 offer from the previous day. The MPRB urged Lange to present its counter offers to workers for a vote. Lange refused.
Escalation, competing narratives, and Mayor Frey
On Tuesday evening July 16, in a press conference, Lange stated that the MPRB had walked out of negotiations, and that the union was calling on Mayor Frey to intervene.
The Mayor responded with a statement that urged both sides to reach agreement through good-faith bargaining at the negotiating table: “I know MPRB and employees are united around a goal of keeping our park system world-class, and I will support them in achieving a resolution that keeps that goal front and center.”
Lange also stated that the union had agreed to the MPRB wage offer. He said that the union wanted the MPRB to drop “… their demands for concessions, severe limits on union representation, taking away 80% of our stewards, removing opportunities for advancement and professional credentials in our contract. They want to double the length of probation [and] make our regular wage increases discretionary.”
The MPRB said that it had made significant concessions and again asked the union to put the proposals to its members for a vote. Again Lange refused.
The next day, Wednesday July 17, the MPRB President Meg Forney issued a statement: “Minnesota state law very clearly sets up a process on how contracts with public employers and employees are reached. That process does not have a role, in this case, for the Mayor to act as a convener.”
Forney continued by stating that a $1.4m wage gap remained between the MPRB and union proposals. “Contrary to Local 363 leadership’s claim, there is no agreement on the wage package, specifically the timing of the market adjustment. The best path forward is to let established bargaining practices continue. The MPRB will return to the bargaining table when directed by the [Bureau of Mediation Services].”
Lange repeated the claims he made during the July 16 press conference in a July 20 press release. The MPRB responded to his claims point-by-point the same day, as reported by KSTP. On July 22, the MPRB posted (bottom of page) the Local 363 press release, and the MPRB responses to most points. We summarize the Lange claims and MPRB counter claims in Figure 1.
On July 26, the Minnesota Reformer reported that a tentative agreement on wage increases had been reached, but that disputes remained over what the union called “anti-worker “poison pills,” or “anti-union proposals.”
These were the same objections that Lange had raised on July 16: 1) Step increases being based on satisfactory performance reviews, 2) Extending the new-hire probationary period from six months to one year, 3) Decreasing the number of “union stewards” from five to two.
The MPRB had said that Local 363 had agreed to these provisions in its contract with the City of Minneapolis, and that other unions representing other MPRB employees also had agreed to them.
Agreement
On August 2, MPR reported that the approximately 300 impacted workers voted overwhelmingly to approve the new contract. The strike had lasted three weeks. LiUNA Local 363 said that workers had secured a 10.25% wage increase over three years, amounting to more than $11k. The union also said the contract expanded workers’ rights around sick leave and comp time benefits. It nearly doubled guaranteed permanent positions and retained union rights for all seasonal workers.
We were unable to find press coverage about provisions relating to hazards, or about step increases dependent on performance, and limitations on what the MPRB would pay for workers to perform union work.
Park Board Commissioners approved the contract on August 7. At that meeting, Superintendent Bangoura stated: “After many months of negotiating, I believe the contracts include fair wages and consistent contract language that benefits employees, the organization, and the community. We look forward to continue providing great parks and park services.” (All MPRB news releases related to the dispute are here).
Charges of unfair labor practices
During the dispute, both parties filed charges of unfair labor practices against the other.
Local 363 charges against the MPRB
On July 8, Local 363 filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the MPRG and Superintendent Bangoura, for what they called illegal and anti-worker behavior. Local 363 Business Manager Lange stated that MPRW was “…Threatening that they would lose their jobs, potentially threatening demotions, threatening to take away their seniority and telling them that they would not be allowed to come back to work until the strike was resolved and a contract was then ratified.”
The MPRB initially had told striking employees that they could not return to their jobs until the strike was resolved, maintaining that this was legal under state law. However, on the same day, the MPRB reversed itself, stating, “No employee who went on strike will be turned away. In order to keep those striking employees from returning to work, the MPRB would have to keep all Local 363 members from working. Keeping those employees who have continued to work throughout this period from working, and keeping those employees who wish to return to work from working, is not in MPRB’s value set.”
MPRB charges against Local 363
Ten days after Local 363 charged the MPRB with unfair labor practices, the MPRG filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Local 363. The MPRG alleged that on July 17, picketers had prevented trucks from delivering to Sea Salt Restaurant, which is housed in Minnehaha Park. The complaint said that picketers convinced one driver to leave without delivering and forced Sea Salt staffers to unload another truck a block away with the help of Minneapolis Park Police. The complaint said that on the same day, picketers “…similarly harassed and blocked essential truck deliveries at Bread and Pickle on W. Lake Harriet Parkway.” It said that on July 18, picketers blocked employees from arriving and departing the Park Board’s Southside Operations Center on Bryant Avenue.
An unrelated charge
In Lange’s recent statement, in Spring 2025, in which he urged Minneapolis voters not to re-elect union busters, he said, “The Board’s actions revealed a systematic union-busting campaign [including] … They issued an illegal gag order to silence workers attempting to raise public awareness about practices harming low-income Black and brown communities.”
Lange is referencing a December 2023 MPRB requirement that forestry employees sign new work rules prohibiting them from speaking publicly about the MPRB approach to removing borer-infested ash trees. These trees were disproportionately located in North Minneapolis, where many low income residents could not afford removal costs. Local 363 had filed a complaint about this rule, which the MPRB had never enforced. It formally rescinded the directive, and notified employees that it was not in effect. Neither the rule nor the Local 363 objection to it was germane to the 2024 contract dispute.
Role of Park Board Commissioners
Park Board Commissioners were not directly involved in the contract negotiations, or any disputes arising from them. Commissioners set policy, enact ordinances, and develop the budget. They are involved in contracts only to approve (or not) a contract that the Superintendent has negotiated.
There were, however, several political attempts to involve the Park Board Commissioners.
Three Commissioners called a special meeting on July 8, ostensibly to “learn more about negotiations”, but actually to urge their colleagues to cut other parts of the budget to pay workers more. One of the Commissioners who called the meeting, Bill Menz, acknowledged that normally Commissioners would not be involved, and would not know about the substance of negotiations until parties had agreed. But he urged an exception to standard practice. At the same meeting, the Park Board Finance Director reminded Commissioners about the agency’s reliance on property taxes, which they were scheduled to discuss on July 24.
Then, on July 16, the Minneapolis City Council adopted a resolution that urged Commissioners to reach a fair agreement and end the strike. The resolution did not say that the Council would approve any Park Board request for increased property taxes.
At the regularly scheduled July 24 meeting, Commissioners Becky Alper and Tom Olsen tried to introduce a resolution that would direct park staff to agree to the union’s demands. Before considering the resolution, it had to be placed on the agenda, and the vote to do so failed by 5-3. This prompted shouts of “shame” and “do your jobs” from workers in the audience. Workers also had circled the boardroom, shouting and chanting for three hours. After adopting the agenda, Commissioners adjourned. The disruptions made it impossible to proceed.
Meanwhile, high-ranking DFLers in state government had been pressuring Commissioners to push management to concede to workers’ demands. These included Attorney General Keith Ellison, State Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, and Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan. On July 28, KSTP reported that several Commissioners had confirmed pressure from Flanagan. Commissioner Abene issued a statement saying that she was elected to represent constituents and responsibly govern the MPRB, and that she respects the mediated labor-management process underway. She affirmed that she takes seriously her role in balancing the interests of the striking workers, other workers in the organization, and Minneapolis residents.
Summary: Reality, Politics, and an Author’s Plea
Reality
While the contract dispute was underway, even during the strike, Minneapolis residents experienced little disruption to services.
The dispute involved about 18% of MPRB employees, and of those, only about 40% participated in the strike, while the others continued to work. Tasks normally performed by the 7% of MPRB employees who struck were covered by other Park Board employees, and city staff, as well as Excel Energy, particularly when clearing trees that had fallen during mid-July storms.
Politics
Although the dispute had a limited impact on services, it roiled the city politically. Members of the Minneapolis City Council, and DFLers elected to State offices, and Ilhan Omar all found it necessary to loudly proclaim their solidarity with workers, to denounce union busting, and to get themselves photographed on picket lines. Several insisted, publicly or privately, that the Commissioners concede to Local 363 demands.
As Summer 2024 has become Spring 2025, AJ Lange, LiUNA Local 363 Business Manager, continues to accuse the Park Board Commissioners of union busting and to insist that none of them be elected to any public office. The Commissioners were not involved in the dispute. The so-called “union busting” provisions were included in the contract that Lange had signed with the City of Minneapolis and were in the contracts that MPRB had signed with employees represented by other unions. They included things like annual stepped wage increases to be contingent upon a satisfactory performance review, which is standard in private sector employment.
Author’s plea
I sympathized with both sides in the contract dispute. Workers’ wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and the work had changed. Tree lovers sometimes had to spend time dismantling homeless encampments or disposing of used needles. They needed and deserved more money, and they needed protection from new hazards on the job. Workers who care for our parks should be paid enough to start families in the city.
But the Park Board also faced financial pressures. Inflation also impacted park costs, and revenues had shrunk, because of plummeting property tax revenues, as commercial property valuations declined.
Both sides were squeezed by circumstances that neither had caused. There were limited solutions available. The MPRB could pay workers more, without raising taxes, but that inevitably would mean cutting jobs and/or other programs. Residents would experience service declines. Or the MPRB could – assuming the BET approved – raise property taxes to pay workers more, but then residents would be paying more for the same services.
There were no other options. Given this reality, local politicians could have used their platforms to help residents to understand the dilemma, and to encourage both sides to continue negotiating in good faith. Some politicians did this. But many others chose to exploit the unfortunate situation, by framing it as a good (WORKERS!) vs. evil (BOSSES!) morality play, calling attention to themselves for their righteous solidarity with GOOD!
LiUNA Local 363 Business Manager AJ Lange’s incendiary rhetoric fomented this Good vs. Evil narrative. Our local politicians could have ignored him. If they were responsible, they should have ignored him. But instead, many copied and amplified his unhelpful rhetoric, which continues to this day, as he continues to accuse MPRB Commissioners of bad faith.
The only bad faith that I see is his, and the opportunistic click-seeking politicians who continue to copy him.
