Personnel & Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

05/23/2026 to order. Check by the roll, please.

Hey, chair Vildren. Here. Supervisor Erickson. Here. Supervisor Brower.

Over here.

Supervisor Kemp.

Kemp here.

Oh.

Supervisor Smith.

Smith here.

Supervisor.

You say Yang?

Yes. We called

Yang. Yes. I'm here. Thank you. Puff drops.

Supervisor Glazer. NYGP member Shukla. Neither.

Okay. I have

four room.

First is a consideration of minutes, minutes from February 9. Motion. My brower. Any questions, corrections? Let me get the channel

here.

Alrighty. Here see hearing seeing none. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. See, referrals. We have 25 referrals Separation. Do we have did you need to speak on it? Right. Okay. That's just in case there's questions. Did you wanna speak? Or you're just here too for We took

public comment on this item.

I'm talking about one.

Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Sorry. We did weeks ago.

Oh, okay. That's right. You were right. Very good. Okay. Anybody have separation? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Oh, 18, of course.

Anything

else? I have two I'd like to separate. And Which two? Number two. Oh, number two. Sorry. That wouldn't be

Two items or No. No. Just number two?

Well, I item 22 Res 289. And then Number two. Right. And then items twenty three and twenty four. Anything else?

Nope. If not,

Go ahead. Online. You good? I got nothing online. Anybody?

In the chat? No hands? So we have res one three through seventeen, nineteen through 22, and 25. A motion on that body. Motion to Motion by Brower. Any questions, comments, discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

No. Both say no. Motion carries. K. Number two. Res two eighty nine, approving agreements for an affordable housing project at 4506 And 4514 Veron Road to be known as 4504 Veron Road in the city of Madison. What staff is on that can discuss this? Casey, can you?

I can.

Okay. Motion first. Submotion. And the recommended Motion by Brower to approve. Casey Mister chair. Oh, sorry.

I think the reason that this was brought to your attention was because the motion from needs to be Oh. Sub one as amended by the Health and Human Needs Committee.

Okay.

That committee made a motion to amend the substitute that was presented to them.

Okay.

That motion passed.

Alright.

They did not move the resolution as someone has amended. So that was the email exchange Right. For party to you earlier.

Right.

And that is why this was separated.

Right. It's not complicated at all. No.

So we I just thought maybe we wanna

No. You good point. I totally forgot, and I do remember the email. I that's so we don't we do we did they correct the motion then? Or we

They can't. They they've already met. Right. So they would have to go back. So I think at this point, they if this committee completes that process, then a motion will need to be made on the floor for to take personal and finance recommendation Okay. Which was really the objective.

Right. Okay. That wasn't my objective, but thank you. I appreciate it.

The objective. I totally forgot.

The first standing committee that tried to make the motion, but Right.

Didn't quite Interesting.

Get it over the goal line.

Right. No. No. No. I do remember that. So we have to move the sub?

The sub as amended. As amended.

The HHN sub as amended.

That's sub one res two eighty nine as amended. Got that.

Yeah. Okay.

Amended for the footballer. Same one.

I just wanna make sure I've never I don't know if I've heard

Casey, I just have a couple questions.

Oh gosh.

Okay.

Was it I was the city of Madison did they not do this project? Do you know? Because I this is sort of a contentious project in my district, so I didn't notice it right away. And then when I was just reviewing it, I saw that it was on the agenda. But this it didn't seem like the city was moving on us. Do you know anything about that part of this, or does it matter? Because there was a zoning issue too, I thought.

The city of Madison did not or I don't believe that this developer applied to the city of Madison for funds, for affordable housing funds for this project. Our funding is conditional on them being able to, excuse me, close on their project and achieve all of their financing. So they've they've gotten to where they need to be to be able to receive our funding and and move forward with their project.

So they need our funding now?

Yes.

And and the city's not awarding any funding. Is that correct?

This developer did not seek

funds from the city of Madison.

Well alright. Thank you.

They still need to go through the city's zoning processes and things like that, but they did

not ask them, the city

of Madison, for affordable housing funds.

And they that's what they're getting from us, though?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. These are comments. Thanks, Casey, again. This project is in my district, and it was contentious when it was first proposed.

If you're familiar with Verona Road, it is being proposed to be put on the outside of the Home Depot parking lot. I find this sort of an offensive place to put people to have to live. I know we need housing, and I know it's important. There were remarks by the developers at the time about, oh, there's a park on the other side of Verona Road that people can play in. There's a courtyard.

I believe that was in the design, but people would be and buses would there's a bus. I think there's a bus on that side of Roanoke Road, and then they're on the other side. So to many of us folks who are in favor of development and that and understand the need for housing, that this was something that was thrown in as a very well the developer found a spot to do. And we all found a nothing but impervious surface outside with nothing with no other services around. This would be in effect creating a food desert.

And there was some comment by, I believe, one of the owners of one of these properties that the that the there's food on the other side of the belt line and said that they usually they like to go there a few time during the week. Well, they happen to own part of those businesses, so I found it quite offensive. And the city did back off of this, at least, as Casey just said, from a funding standpoint. So a lot of folks were not really excited about this because of a lot of detriment and really putting people in the middle of a block. I know it's probably gonna go forward right now, but I can't vote for this.

Go ahead. Surprise Erickson.

So this is going on that, like, kind of corner. It looks like it's filers.

Exactly. They're taking filers and not there's a university bookstore in the pot that's staying, and there's another open piece that's that's going on. Or the the deal there's a gas station, I think, or a auto thing that's

Yeah. It looks like a

That's the two pieces that they're taking. K. There was a couple of information meetings months and months and months ago about this. I don't think the alder signed off on it after further consideration. So I would not like to see the county fund this particular project.

Can I ask

Oh, yeah? Go. Oh, sorry.

Who's the elder?

Older Figueroa Figueroa Call. Oh. Do you have a comment? Well If you do, you don't I'm supervise Kemp has a comment.

So Oh, go ahead. I Go

ahead, supervise Kemp.

Yeah.

Thank you. Sorry. I just had trouble unmuting.

No. It's fine.

Okay. I I kind of I grew up in Fitchburg over in Seminole, but I I've driven past that location a couple 100,000,000 times in my lifetime. It seems I have to agree with supervisor and chair Valderon. We'd be we would be funding housing, placing people that need services on an island. Everything around there is commercial.

The there's a Subway. There's a Gino's Italian Deli, which I I still love. Correct. But any I did too. I mean, I'm trying to picture I'm trying to picture children living in that space or playing outside. And you guys know I have kids. That is

the

last I'm sorry. I know we need housing. That's the last place we should be putting something like this. So I'm not I personally am not comfortable funding that at this point. There has to be a better better location. That that's all I have to say on that.

Thank you. Do you have anything or no? Just asking.

Well Yeah.

I have I have a question for staff if I can.

Oh, sure. Go ahead.

I don't know, Casey, if this question is directed to you most appropriately, but I'm wondering when it comes to assessing property for compatibility with a development like this, have we Do we have enough of informa I'm just thinking about all the ramifications there about access to food, the noise that inevitably emanates from the beltline, and just all those kind of factors. Has that been assessed at this point, or how does that factor in to a decision like this?

So it's a good question because I think it's a a good opportunity to talk a little bit, and I'll try to be brief, but to talk a little bit about how our county funds interact with a lot of other funding that gets stacked up into these kinds of projects. So we are not the sole funder in a lot of projects. We're not even the majority funder. We're a small piece of a lot of other funding sources that will come into one of these affordable housing deals. For the affordable housing development fund, which is what this is in particular, we are often pairing our money with low income housing tax credits, and those are provided by the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority or WIDA.

So WIDA, when they are deciding to grant those tax credits, which they have for this project, they are doing that work. They're assessing for, sound and environmental impact and things like that. And then the municipality where the development is going to be is voting on whether they think that that location is suitable through their plan commission and through their local processes. And that is something that the city of Madison ultimately approved through their processes. We don't you know, our funding, if a if a municipality hasn't approved it, we don't we don't get to this step.

The first step of our process when we make recommendations for our affordable housing development fund is to send you all that affirming resolution that typically comes to you in the fall before we start sending you these, these resolutions that have, these are kind of at the finish line. This is after all of the other funding sources have been secured, after the zoning has been approved, after the site plans have been approved, when that developer is ready to close on that deal and start construction. So that's the point that we're at now. The affirming resolution that we sent in the fall would include this project and all of the others to say, you know, these are the projects that are gonna be coming to you for your vote later, assuming they make it through all of those other processes. So while we don't do those assessments with this particular fund, there are other funding sources and other processes in the development process that do assess for those things.

And happy to answer any more questions about timing and things like that, but, essentially, this is is one of those final pieces. And if this funding is not approved, this project will not move forward.

Thank you for that.

Can I just make a comment? I mean, you know, from my observations, I think it's hard to think about a successful development that will take place there for this purpose. At the same time, I know this is not my area of expertise. And from what Casey Becker has described, it sounds like this has been examined by, I'm assuming, people who are well qualified and have quite a bit of experience in assessing these types of developments. So I suppose I'm personally prone to leaning on their expertise in this area. So some comment.

Thanks. Cheers.

Yeah. I had another case can I ask Casey?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Casey, I don't know if you said this, but so did the city, excuse me, through its zoning process and everything, approve this site?

Yes. I mean, the the the building would not be the project would not be at this point Those

are the city of Madison was not. Yep. Right. You're correct. But did they or did you say this? Did they pull their funding?

The funding was not pulled. This developer did not apply to

the So city

there was not a the city of Madison did not pull funding or deny funding. This developer did not apply to the city of Madison in the first place.

Okay.

That's my understanding.

Okay. K. Thanks. K. So I had a couple more questions that just came up when you're talking to supervisor Brower.

Was this then on the resolution in the fall that we saw?

Yes. This would have been listed in that affirming resolution.

Because I was looking for it. So and I apologize. Because I was I was out looking for this because and I did not see it, so I missed it. So do you have the do you have anything handy on it? Just do you have a score? I just wanna know how how high did it score? Because those are the ones that get scored. Right?

Yeah. So what routes with that affirming resolution is all of the proposals copies of all of the proposals that are being recommended for funding and also that scoring rubric. Yeah. It would take me a minute to look up that resolution number for you, but that's It's fine. Typically the package that gets routed with it.

Totally understand. That's not that's fine. It's not gonna matter at this point. I will comment, though, on the city's change in their position their their process on zoning approvals.

They no longer have to, like, have to go to the council. They

can be approved through the zoning department without having comments, and that's part of a process that you can either think it's a good idea or a bad idea that is sort of taken out of the public's hands. You know, they had that big and I don't wanna get too deep into the weeds here. But they had a pretty issue with the one on Sauk County on Sauk Road. And so I don't know if that's that's what helped change it. And I and I'm and I think it's important that there's comments on this and people's dip in their in their neighborhoods without being a NIMBY because I think both those projects and this one are I have people that are interested in housing, but wanna put it in in makes makes sense.

So I don't wanna go belabor this. I didn't realize it was that far along, but I understand that. It's just like when we get stuff at the end of the the county board funding in the two thirds majority or bigger majority, but the share of a lot of those grants have already been actually done. So

Okay.

So so the con a concern is that it's, like, creating an island, I guess. Okay. So I also look at it like there's a lot of buildings that are going up right near not just a busy road like Verona Road or the Beltline, but other ones like Campus Drive. You know?

Yeah.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not denying it. But maybe those aren't so much as an island. When I think about this location, I think, oh, you just have to go right up around and boom. You have a bike path.

You do. So I use it.

Well right. No. No. No. Right. It's the Southwest Bike Path that's right there.

So I

don't know. I mean, I'm assuming that someone look at this look at the things like, is it creating an island? Where is a grocery store? And you know? Yeah. That we That's

fine. If

No. We need more housing.

And I said I totally understand that too. So okay. If there's no other comments, I don't see any chat. All those in favor? Two eighty nine. Now

are we do wait. Are we doing the sub or whatever?

Oh, the sub. Yeah. The sub. Yep. Yeah. We've already fixed that part. Okay.

That's the motion. And it's gonna have to

do with me except the board floor, but that's not for us. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Say no. No. Supervisor Capri I don't care which way you're gonna vote, I just wanna know which way.

I I was in aye with everybody else.

Okay. That's fine. Okay. Motion passes. Okay. Item passed. We are can I table 18 if that's agreed to for a few minutes? I just wanna do the other two first. Twenty four and twenty five are change orders at the at the jail. I just I know. I saw Todd. Todd, can you just comment on them? They're about 128 and a 100 and 100,000. Is that right?

Yeah. Supervisor Veldrin. I'm gonna have Steve Richards fill in the But, yeah, we've got we're we're ex we've exceeded 200 change orders now for sure. So I'll have Steve, give you the details on on these two.

Can you hear me? Yep. Go ahead.

Great. Thanks. Do want me just to start with both change orders? Just one order, or do you want me just kinda combine

Whatever you wanna do. Whatever is easier. But you wanna do three fifty first and then three fifty one or Sure. Together, however you wanna handle it.

So both of these change orders deal with detention walls. So we're at the point now with the project where the structure itself is complete and the exterior framing is done to the point where they can start loading the building with the cells and the detention walls. And so with that, we've been for the last six months or even longer, we've been really studying, you know, just all the architectural layout. We've done a lot of utility coordination, and we've found conflicts, you know, with just wall layouts and things, you know, where piping and ductwork and stuff like that pushed things around. These two in specifics, I'll start with change order number 25, which is the first resolution.

That one is in the amount of a $128,000, and the scope of that is related to the medical suite that we're putting on the 4th Floor of the PSB. So like I said, we've been studying all the wall types and and how they load the building and that kind of stuff. And it was actually a a late development that the designers learned that, the CMU walls, the the the block, you know, masonry block walls, were actually too heavy to be supported by this the the the structural floor infill. So this this medical suite is being built where the gymnasium is or there's a rack area inside the PSB. We're doing a structural steel floor infill, and, you know, there's limitations to how much weight that can be, supported with those beams that are spanning from, you know, concrete column to concrete column.

And so when they discovered this, they spent months trying to study, you know, what they could do to try to alleviate this. The unfortunate part is that what they came up with was to replace the CMU. We had six six inch fully grouted CMU walls, that are standard detention walls, but we, revised it to the two inch detention hollow metal wall panel system. So these are, like, prefabricated wall cells, or cell walls. And, unfortunately, there's a cost premium associated with that.

And so for the real estate in that medical suite, we had to revise these walls and and, you know, just the the the cost premium on that was a $128,000. And then the next change order is a $104,000, and this was related to walls in the day rooms on the South Tower side. So this has nothing to do with loading. But what actually ended up happening is we were planning on using studs and impact resistant drywall with a security mesh. But when DOC was doing this review with us, like I said, we were studying all these wall types, like, with a fine tooth comb.

DOC, Department of Corrections, raised their hands and said, you know, that's not gonna fly. That's not traditional construction type. So they wanted us to make it a more stout wall system. So there, we're actually going to we're upgrading from studs and drywall to a concrete masonry unit, walled you know, our our block walls. And, you know, we had to change the layout a little bit because of all the coordination with plumbing, you know, and different utilities behind the walls.

So, you know, we're enhancing the finish in the in the detention setting, but, again, that one comes at a cost premium too. The the cost premium from studs to masonry is not as extreme as masonry to the metal wall panels, but it's still an upcharge, and that happens in all the day rooms on the South Tower. So there's six of those areas total that we had to address. Six or eight, I forget, depending on the number of floors. So if you have any questions, please stop me and chime in.

Finish first. And I just

kinda, you know, we guys heard Todd say that there were you know, you've got 200 and it was 206 so far, and I think

I

wanna go over this with Chuck before the meeting. Said the same thing. There's been plenty of them. But I think just when they come up, I like to see, you know, who's, you know, who's end on this. Is this us? Is this them? Is this sort of a this sounds like a DLC, so there's nothing to do about that in the one. And then was that a design issue on the other one?

Yeah. I I would attribute that to more of a design error. You know, they didn't there's a structural engineer, and then there's an architect. And I don't think they were, you know, and this is my my take on it. So I take that with a grain of salt, but, I don't think they were in the cohesive enough communication with one another when they were coming up with their design. And, you know, they they could have caught it prior to bid, but we caught it well before any materials were purchased. And, obviously, we're not renovating the PSP yet, so it's well before anything was installed. So there's no corrective work associated with this. It's just truly the, cost upgrade, which we would have seen on bid day had we specified it the the way it should have been.

Okay. Todd, are there do you have a list of some of these that have been sort of question flagged right now in the 200 that we're gonna where you is it an ongoing process, or you do it at the end?

We keep a log. All change orders are logged and categorized by the drivers, supervisor Belgium. So, yeah, we've got an extensive list. We we everything is well documented and and easily accessible if information is needed. So have you so do you already discussed that with Myron, if it's

a Myron issue, or is it if it's a design and it's our issue maybe? Or you know? So, you know, like, when we have these issues, who's paying for it? Right? So that's where I'm sort of coming from.

Yeah. Yeah. It's part of every change order. Every time there's a change order proposal or a potential change or potential cost increase, Steve and the Gilbane team, in in Myron, some of these change orders are negotiated for weeks to months Right. Back and forth to determine exactly I mean, I Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, but some of you there's up to six, seven versions of these change orders as they go through and refine the process. So, they're they're well vetted by the time they reach, this this point in the approval process. Thanks. I know our percentage is really good. So We're doing well so far.

I just wanna make sure, you know, we know if there's stuff that we shouldn't be paying for that we're flagging that or at the end of the project or wherever that ends up going. So thanks both of you. Anybody has any comments? If not, questions, I don't see any others.

Supervisor, I'll just add one thing. Go ahead. Just just because I wanna be fully transparent.

So Sure.

Like I said, we're just starting the detention walls being installed on the in in the South Tower facility. And so I do have more change orders of this nature coming down the line that will require resolution. It's just part of the nature of the beast because of the the unit cost for detention products or detention equipment. So there will be a couple more of these, coming down the line in in the near future. So just a heads up for for those involved if you start seeing a a a little uptick in change orders that require resolutions.

I'm projecting that there should be four or five or or less than that, you know, but we're obviously taking on the issues as they as they pop up. And so we're we're trying to manage all those, trying to package them all in in in you know?

Thanks for that. Are those going to be around in that ballpark around in the 100,000 range then? Or

Yeah. They're all kinda Right?

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. There's, like, three or four more of them that are hovering right around that 80 to 90 to $100,000 range. So, there's a few more things coming down the line. So yep.

Appreciate that too. Alright. Alright. If there's nothing else, I'll I'll take a motion on '24 and '25.

I'll move.

It's I think it's '23.

Was this '23 and '24? You're right. '23 and '24, moved by Kemp. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say no. Motion passes. Okay. Back to item 18. Do we just wanna have a motion for discussion at the moment? We don't want a motion for discussion. Well, I'll make a motion for discussion so we can Oh, motion to approve? I guess. That's fine.

Yeah. I mean, that would be

Right. It would be

that you would make, and then there Right. You know, motion.

And then we'll probably amend. Correct.

So, Mel, you're in motion to approve. Sure.

Or will you it doesn't matter. So right now, the motion would be for the 1% for each year of both the clerk of courts and the sheriff, position salaries, coming up in the, fall, and that would take effect in '27. And, obviously, a lot of discussion and a lot of presentations by the clerk of courts and the sheriff for the last meeting. Just reminded that they well, they weren't weren't taking any new testimony on that. I do appreciate clerk of court's other letter on that.

That was very helpful. I was just, kinda digging into that. Any discussion? Go ahead. I was just just gonna preamble. Alright.

Yeah. So, you know, if I can just start with some Sure. Kind of framing comments and talk a little bit about where my thinking has been since we last met, because I think this is genuinely a challenging issue in no small part because the way in which we think about salaries for elected officials is, to my mind, different than for our civil service employees and really the kind of framework that we most often think about when it comes to rewarding people for pay. It's performance oriented. It's merit oriented.

It also comes along with the difficulties and challenges of tenure in a position as opposed to, you know, being an elected, which is its whole other kinda kettle of fish. And in the course of things, you know, we've talked about comps. There really aren't any good comps in the state. And when we start getting outside of the state, it's harder to find good examples because of the configuration of county government and other, you know, other places is different than what we have in Wisconsin and in Dane County. So that's a challenge.

And then we you know, as a kind of a corollary to that, when we look at the duties that, say, a sheriff or clerk of courts undertakes in different municipalities, different counties, it doesn't seem to really be compatible with, again, the system that we have set up. So looking to external comps is a challenge. When we look to kind of the history of decision making around this, it seems like there's been a variety of arguments made in favor of adjusting salaries, but nothing that I can see has been a consistent pattern. So, you know, I usually, when we're setting salaries, we look to some kind of indicator like CPI, for instance, or we look to comparable positions. And I've struggled now with, you know, given that whole wind up, figuring out how we peg these salaries.

I think, you know, from my perspective, the number isn't one in each of the years. It's gotta be more than that. But I also put that in the context of the fact that we just asked employees to take a 1% pay cut, you know, with budgets looking bad based on, you know, communications we've received from the county executive recently. And so I think that we have to, you know, make our decision in the context of those many factors. And I am still struggling to the point of of figuring out how to do it in a way that also, you know, makes good on our commitment to all employees of the county.

So end of my opening comment.

K. Not yet. I'm done. Okay. I kinda looked at some of this, and I'm sure Cheryl will jump in at some point.

Try to look at the the last numbers that the clerk of courts put out. I'm talking about how it would only be 15,000 the first year between the clerk of court and the sheriff's house. And I just wanna make a little note that, you know, we're are talking about positions. And when I was sort of out of line a little bit in the last meeting, but we are talking about the positions and and and passion for it being a little higher. And I was and I talked to a few other colleagues on here, and they go along with supervisor Brower's comments where maybe doing something later in the in the four year terms would be better.

So I was just playing with some different numbers, which I can come back to, more if that would get people started. Something more in the a zero at the first year. And I do thank supervisor Brower for putting those numbers up from the 11/12/1314 crisis that we, the three of us, were part of. And then that was done on there was a 0% the first year of those those terms that was on the spreadsheet that he that he sent out. And then there was a 3%, I think it was three three three, for every year.

So that's where I'm thinking that we can make this up, later in the term, And then that would obviously, we can't cut them just like the county executive couldn't be cut. So that would at least give something that it doesn't look like we're there's a there's a position that's I hate to say rewarded because we wanna look at this as a new position or as a new, you know, as a new place to go, and it's not you know? So it's not, like you said, with usual positions where we have the same you know, we're rewarding or we have to look at this as sort of a new time, looking at all what's going on and with the memo that Chuck sent to the account executive and sort of put in that in context. So that's my first sort of, like, comment on that is keeping it flat that first year the first year '27.

Right. And what what year was that again?

11/12. I had it open. I think I closed it. 11/1213, and '14.

Is that alright, chair Miles? I know I can pull that back up. Where did it go?

In 2011, it was 0%.

Right. It was 11. Okay.

Let's see. And then 3% after the subsequent years.

Right. Thank you.

Oh, is that it? Oh, I thought you had something else. Did we I shouldn't say like that. So I was trying to find some kind of compromise with all these numbers higher than the 1%, lower than the clerk the of courts sort of compromised numbers. And, also, I looked at those and the financial crisis numbers where there was an overall $8,000 change in the clerk of courts and 11,000 in the sheriff then.

So they I guess, like we we said, it's 3% each. So if we did that, and I thought that maybe we should expand a little. You know, it's hard. I mean, what are these positions? Do we just say 3% each and be done with it?

I know, like Are still saying zero the first year?

Yeah. I think that would would say the right message at least everyone, and then we can hopefully, it won't I don't think it'll be hopefully, I won't even say there won't be a good on the come. I'm not gonna say that because I don't know. We saw the the memo that Chuck sent to county executive. Do we do something that progresses a three, four, five, something like that?

Because they're still playing catch up, and that's other thing. Do we pit one position against the other? I think that's the other problem. Right? They're all doing extraordinary work. That's why when I think when we find we can't we can't find cops is because we we we know that we have the best employees, and I think we have the best electeds. I mean, we know what happened in the Milwaukee sheriff seven, eight years ago. It was a horror show for them for those people, having that person as a sheriff. So I could provoke propose that as a as a sort of step. For

the sake of conversation, I'm wondering.

No. That's fine.

So I think I think paired with this discussion, this is just gonna be an aside to start that we should codify some of our thinking around this so that in two years, we don't have to reinvent this wheel again that we can at least have some sort of, if even informal, written consideration of what we've thought about here. And, obviously, the board will be reorganized following the upcoming elections as is required. And so can't guarantee what will how we'll handle the next set of elected salaries that we need to adjust. But I'm thinking if a kind of in principle, maybe in theory, whatever you wanna say, we think about structuring the zero because I think it is important to have a zero in this pattern at the same time that one would be implemented for the other elected. So, like, if we look to, you know, 29

Right.

That would be the first year of the next Right. Elected

Yeah. The three that are.

To to think about this conversation around in '29. You know, there's a there's a 0% increase for every one of the constitutional offices. I don't know if that's something that is compatible with your thinking.

No. No. It's I mean, that's sort of what we did with the board. Right? And we could do that separate. Right? Chair, we could as a separate sort of resolution. Not for this not for these terms right now going forward. We could say, as supervisor Brower says, the first term will always be a zero.

Talking about the county clerk, registered deeds, treasurer.

Yeah. Just to clear can I clarify something? Sure.

Did you say 0% the first year for those? In in year '29, that would be the first year where we would be able to reset salaries Right. And then they would overlap with those considered. Because I'm thinking about, you know, in this conversation, we've, you know, certainly had a discussion about parity and the ways in which, you know, looked at and tried to adjust other constitutional officer pay. I think that also well, I know that also happened in a time when we were thinking, you know, in a different kind of perspective related to abundance rather than the kind of scarcity thinking that we're in right now based on the budget.

But did you say zero in the first year? Zero so you did say 0% in '29 and then go okay.

Would you wanna codify just that first year, or would you wanna have it sort of something that would be set? Well, I don't think we

can codify the the zero, you know, for the the next round of them because that would be a decision for

Right. That's true. Right. I mean, we did that for the other for our for the county board Mhmm. Where we actually set the percentage two terms out, three terms out?

No. It's just for the next term.

But we've already had

it for one term plus, I think, the first year or the next. Oh, okay. There'll be a consideration for the other constitutional offers officers pay this time in of year in 2028. Right. I don't know, supervisor Brower, if you're talking about doing that now, codifying that now.

I think Okay. The the thing I would caution against in that, one, we have no idea what the economic environment's going to be like in the budgetary constraints that that will be facing the county in 2028. Do know that, you know, the problem we were experiencing now with structural deficit and so forth is a multiyear problem. So I the the thing I would I guess, the caution I would give is is to avoid the rubber banding effect that I talked about at the last meeting where you're following me behind. So if you're talking about to try to create some fairness by holding back an increase in 2028 to the other constitutional officers, I would suggest that maybe rather than doing that, elevate these constitutional officers in advance.

So, and, again, I had mentioned at the last meeting, could look at this for basically two terms instead of this coming term. So over an eight year period, schedule it out. Future board could choose to rescind that in, you know, in 2029 or

'31.

'31. Mhmm. So Is that something we need

to do or do could do separately. Right? Yeah. But that's what I thought we did with the county board where we did Pardon? I thought that's what we did with the county board where we structured out a percentage certain percentage for oh, we did it for oh, you're you're saying we did it for three years in a row.

Call. Two. Sorry. Sorry. That's alright. No.

No. No. Only thing you

When we did the last resolution for the county board, how many years did we put in that? Was it more than three? I thought it was.

So the the last couple times when there's been a change in county board salary other than for 2026 where where there was an increase that was already embedded

Right.

The resolution I think it's actually an ordinance amendment, but the the legislative vehicle Right. Had included the initial the three years so that It was three years. So that the decision for an increase in a future board had already been made.

Mhmm.

Okay? So the last time that was done covered this current term and then went one more year so they weren't sitting up

up from

running for reelection and also dealing with that salary in that term. Yep. So that, I think, two times that happened. Otherwise, you know, there was a long time where it didn't move at all

for me. I know that was part of

the thinking too. Way behind.

That and off the table a little bit. Plus the well, the we're talking about the rubber banding effect. The the other three constitutional officers are getting a 3% and a 3% in the first two term. That's already locked in, like we said. So

No. No?

Yeah. Or this this year or next year.

No. You're asking about what their percentage increase was during the in the years immediately following the, Great Recession.

Right. Oh, sorry. I was I changed my brain.

There was a big jump Right. In, what was that, '26 2021. Right. And then it leveled off at one and three quarters after that.

What when what years are you talking about? '22?

'2, '23, and '24. And then there's another jump in '25, and then it went to 3%, and then yeah.

Right. And that's what I'm saying. Next year, there's already a 3% built in and a 3% for the clerk, the treasurer, and the registered deeds. So, like, even though she was at Burrows Act, there was a cut, they got a 3% bump because that was we already that had already been done, and there's nothing we can change that. So that was part of my thinking of just increasing it that way to a zero three four five.

You gotta bring the the clerk's position eve the clerk of courts even with the clerk of the clerk the county clerk. We have someone online. Go jump in. What's your I'll I'll in.

Go ahead. Sorry. I'll I'll chime in.

Oh, that's right.

Is it is it okay. I'll I'll chime in. I think I think that this is a reasonable proposal, I suppose. I had initially, I think when we first started talking about this, I had serious reservations given the financial situation that the county is in. However, I also recognize and I think, chill chair Valderon, you did you know, you made a point. It was very eloquent. We do have the best people around doing some of these jobs, and you wanna, you know, you wanna keep them, but there's also budget constraints. So I think that finding, some type of compromise, which I think this is, is perhaps the best way to go. So, I mean, I'd I'd be willing to support that in the short term. Thank you.

Thanks. Do we wanna codify that? I'm just moving to conversations. If you got something, go ahead. If you're working looking at something.

I'm just We can put numbers to what we're talking about. Sending the spreadsheet and then Oh, okay.

Yeah. I got some hand notes. Okay. Go ahead, Charmos.

I don't know what percentages we were talking about other than a 0% in the first year. So I You have different You know, I think it would have been a better approach with the other constitutional officers if we had spread out their increases maybe with an escalating percentage through the year. So that's basically what I did here. Let's start. You had mentioned 0%, so I plugged in 0% in that first year and then started gradually putting percentages increasing percentages in the three subsequent years. So by the time you get to twenty thirty, the cumulative total is about 12% increase.

So and then you sorta carried that to a second term like we were just talking about. Like, just for discussion or something. Cancel question.

Yeah. But the increases so it's zero the first year 0% the first year. Two and a half. That's two and a half.

Four and

a quarter, five and a quarter. Okay. And that's a cumulative 12.

Mhmm. So let me just explain, I guess, my rationale on having those increasing percentages is, you know, part of you know, there's there's, I guess, two oppositional forces here. We have the budgetary constraints, economic circumstances that we're in require us to just like we you know, our the twenty sixth budget does with employees asking for in this well, in this year, a 1% decrease. There's no COLA the year before that. This basically provides no COLA in in '27.

But the opposite problem that that should be addressed as best we can is not allowing their rate of increases to fall behind that of the other constitutional officers. This doesn't accomplish that, but it slows the rate of disparity. I guess it does that well to some degree recognizing our fiscal constraints, at least for a while.

I mean, obviously, just like in the memo, it it's a small amount of money, but who knows where we're looking for things and other other spots. Like, if you took the, you know, 28, you got $7,000, right, but between the two officers Between the two officers. So

Mister Veldron, I don't know what when you mentioned 0% and then and then weighting it towards the back end, I didn't know if you're talking about flat increases or what, but this is No.

No. That well, I just said three, four, five. So that I mean, that's basically the same. No. I just feel like so we're, you know, we're only adding $7,000 in salary for these two positions in '28 with the two and a half. I'm just saying it's it is a very small amount of money. And I'm an advocate. I'm just saying, you know, when you look at the in the reality of the situation. But the reality of the situation is when you take it altogether, you don't know if you're looking for any something. So does this make sense to folks?

I'll say I mean, I think, generally, the idea of 12% spread out across four years for an average of 3% makes sense. When I think about, you know, in a traditional normal economic situation, if you can get an agreement for four years with 3% per year, that's, like, a pretty solid agreement. That's not like, you know, my you know, it's not it's not, you know, queuing to, you know, too far in any one direction. So from that perspective of, like, being relatively moderate increases. Yeah. That makes sense to me.

I think this is fine. But, anyway, I I think I like this.

You know, the only hesitation you know, I'm I'm I know we're only really talking about the four years. I would I would hesitate to, you know, agree to the or, you know, to you know, even if in an advisory sense, recommend the second four years just given the extreme uncertainty we have. I feel like it I don't know how comfortable I feel setting expectations to to meet that.

That's always gonna be there, though. Right? I mean, when we set the last ones, we didn't expect this. So and that's why we're able to do some catch ups, and then then now we can't do that. We don't we're on we could, but we're not comfortable doing it. And I don't think it would be it would send the right message to anybody that works for this government, this county. So Okay. Why don't we online. Make a new motion? Then you wanna so we wanna make a new motion for Just And just to clarify. Amendment?

I put that second four years up there just for illustration purposes. I was suggesting we do a resolution for eight years out.

K. Do we wanna Zoom, do have any other comments, or we can, make an amendment to that or or make an amendment to the to the current, resolution from the one percents. Okay. If not, motion to amend salaries in the current resolution. My screen went up.

Let me have to get back to 270%, twenty eight two and a half percent, 294.25%, 2035.25% for the clerk of courts and the sheriff. Further discussion.

The resolution doesn't list percentages.

Was Does that the one? Oh, it could add the ones in there.

So you could Oh. You'd wanna use the Okay. To just round it to the nearest

dollar list.

Well, that's what I was gonna Okay. That's fine. Put the minutes we'll need to reflect. 3,000. They'll they'll be the amounts. We'll have to list the amounts in there.

So that would be those in column c and

Root d. Oh oh, the whole oh, the whole dollar. Okay. The whole dollar. Okay. Those will be in the resolution. One thirty two, one

thirty five substitute. Why don't we call it a sub one?

Okay. Okay? Okay.

Because, otherwise, the amendment is gonna have to be very detailed in the text. Right?

It's fine.

There's no reason to not make it hard Yeah. Anybody for that. Sub as proposed and moved. Any further discussion? Are you online? I can't see you right now with the spreadsheet up. Yeah. I'll be okay with that. Jump in. There's a lot of silence. Okay. Those in favor of the changes as just stated, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Abstain.

Motion passes. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, chair. K. Back to the after next or not, let me see. I gotta pull agenda back up. K. Okay. Where are we at? Yeah. I am or section d, items requiring committee action. We have six items. A request for separation. One. Oh, right. Oh, I didn't realize it was part of it. That's fine. Two through six motion.

I recommend approval.

Motion by Brower. Any questions correct discussion? If not, all those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion passes. Okay. Thanks for that. I thought item one, the legislative agenda. Line up, Lacey. Why don't you just spell out our our parts? And then if you wanna add and any questions for from the committee, we can do it that way. Welcome. I mean Wait. Is is check pulling it up, or you're working

on that?

I'm yeah.

Let's try

here again. I'm not really sure

quite what to pull up. So

what should I display? We'll just do our discussion.

Let's use the personal finance for for memo.

Yeah. I would do the memo.

Alright. So just a.

There we go. Go ahead.

Sure. So, basically, what, you should have included in this agenda item is, the sort of working draft that I used to kinda condense the previous legislative agenda. And then this memo basically just shows some of the suggestions that you could include based on, in some cases, things that were passed in previous resolutions but not, added to the agenda. In the case of, the items for this committee, there weren't any items that I removed based on legislation that had passed or anything like that. So, really, I'm just here to answer questions and take notes on any other things beyond what's in this memo that you want to take up, include, remove, add whatever you guys wanna do.

That's good. Absolutely.

Yeah. This is this is my first time in engaging this process, and so I was just curious, like, what kinds of things can we put on

this? Anything and everything.

Yep. It's not

a small list.

Wow. It is yeah. Anything you want me to lobby for in the state capital is up to you guys.

Okay. And so is there, like, is there a deadline, or what what where are we at in terms of, I guess, approving these items as a committee to send to you?

Go ahead. This is always a fun process. But, you know, one thing I'm sorry you had it questioned. But Was it? You know, it's like, okay. I lots of things I would love to tell the state to do. You know? And, you know, one comes to mind I'm hearing a lot of is and I I didn't look at this because, frankly, in the past, it's frustrated me to no end. But what like, for nuclear energy, I'm hearing more and more about that.

Mhmm.

And I have concerns about it, but I know there's new technology. Is there anything about nuclear energy in here from a sustainable green, you know Yeah. Renewable energy standpoint? Like, that's one thing that, you know you know, it can be, you know, whatever we want to lobby stayed on.

Mhmm. And I just did. If things come off in the act in the real will, you know, there'll be a memo, and there'll be an executive committee or something from the chair that, like, oh, let's jump out of, you know, some new piece of legislation that we all don't like, you know, that's not in our agenda. But there's a lot of things in there as an umbrella that would guide we've seen this as you know, some things obviously don't move at lightning speed. So Mhmm. It's not like there couldn't be discussion and to go to offices and talk to folks.

So I had a couple for you. I think we talked briefly about them. I'm trying to remember what they are. Rats. What was it?

You know, like, something would be if we okay. So a few years ago, we went through a ton of work, and we got an RTA, regional transit authority created. So I'm assuming that's in here already. Right? Yep. Yeah. I had heard that. So for example, we had done that before, probably. So and that was a success and then vetoed away by a certain governor. The thing something else that really bugs me about the state is and it came up again, like, a week or two ago.

It's we're gonna beat up on kids again, trans kids. So I'm assuming we have something you know? So it's things like that that are significant that you know? And I could go on and on, but I won't.

And just for you, supervisor Brower, things that we've already put in just stay until our there's an actual resolution.

And if I could add to, typically, like, for the committee, you all will, look at the items, kind of traditionally associated with the committee. And so items maybe, like, nuclear or, you know, some of the other items you listed might be in EINR or HHN. And in those cases, I recommend attending those committee hearings.

Yep. Just So it is by

yeah. Mhmm. What she's got here is just things that are sort of on our would be in our area.

Yeah. That's right.

Go ahead. Go ahead, chair, and then So

Rose Smith. Go ahead. So so the one of the functions of the legislative agenda is it it it gives our our lobbyists basically the permission, I guess, you could say, to register on on relative legislation. So my question for you, Lacey, would be, is there an under those things that fall under personal finances oversight, are there any issues that have come up in the last session or last couple of sessions where you haven't been able to register one way or other on behalf of the county because it wasn't something in our legislative agenda, or there's some emerging topics that we should be made aware of?

Yeah. No. I appreciate that question. So that is sort of the basis for one of the suggestions, that I had. And I kinda have an example, that kinda speaks to what you're kind of asking about, which is in some cases there are sort of emerging issues that move very quickly.

And so I don't always have an opportunity to be able to get in front of the executive committee in order to act on those quickly. And sometimes there, it can be legislation that, we wouldn't necessarily register an up or down or, you know, I would have that conversation maybe with the executive committee, but there could be pieces of it that should be addressed. And so in the example sort of on the memo, you know, there was legislation that would have required a lot of administrative work for Corp Counsel. So that's one of the things that I might want to be able to inform legislators on quickly, but doesn't necessarily, you know, need a specific spot in the agenda, if that makes sense. And so that suggestion sort of meant to kind of be that catch all, if you will, that would sort of allow for that type of situation.

By the by the first bullet point there is that isn't that something that would relate to the registrar deeds? Yep. Okay. So that item would be under the z ZLR committee then? Because it was

a fee, you put it under here?

I think some of these, I just kind of grouped based on how they were in the previous agenda, and so that's probably kinda why I had it there. But, but I can add it to ZLR memo. That's a good flag.

And then just real hold on a second. Smith, Sorosa Brower. If we pass a resolution, that sort of automatically, you know, is a is a is a is a a go or, you know, a sense where you can now Lacey can then she has a position on it. Things that either come up at what a reaction or something that, you know, isn't you know, that we were stating. Go ahead, supervisor Smith.

Thanks. I so, similarly, I've only engaged with the legislative agenda once it's, you know, just before the county board at the floor, so not necessarily in this, you know, detailed level of it before. And this might be too big of a question. So you know? And I don't know if anyone knows the answer or if if Chuck, our longest serving supervisor, would know the answer, but or supervisor Erickson.

But I I have always kind of I understand that it's the twenty six to twenty eight legislative agenda because that's the term of the board, the supervisors, but that does not match the makeup of the legislature. And the legislature made, especially this year, changed dramatically from the beginning of twenty twenty six to the 2027. And I know we're sending an agenda that's generally benefiting Dane County, but the the maybe the nimble nature of how our lobbyists would have to in engage on topics that are hopefully more likely to be passing, in the next legislative session. I have always kind of thought that it this is such a long legislative agenda that it's almost like painting us into a corner. And that's been okay when legislation that's introduced that we support wasn't likely to go anywhere with the majority party that didn't support it, but that won't hopefully be true starting in, you know, January '27.

So I I just have always that's just been, like, general questions I've always had once this has reached the board floor, but I just don't know if anyone has background on that. Sorry about my dog, if you can hear that. I I'm, you know, like, has that been discussed before? Is there a reason that we've decided this should be 12 pages long? Because to me, it just feels like that is narrowing of it and does lead to some potential weird situations when the legislature changes halfway through this legislative agenda that we've set.

Well, generally, I find it frustrating because I feel like we can talk about our priorities, and I guess it's kind of imagining what we want. Mhmm. But you know? Mhmm. So, hopefully, that will happen now where there might be maybe there will be changes. So

Like I said, supervisor Smith to supervisor Brower, when we pass resolutions, those sort of automatically get added. You know? Well, like like, supervisor said earlier about having an RTA that's in there. Obviously, that prompted the legislature the legislature back years ago to to make sure that that was not allowed anywhere in the state. But as you said, if there's a new makeup, something like that could be we're working on details instead of fighting for existence or and or other parts.

The oh, I can't remember that one. That was the funding of was it the juveniles? That was a big topic for years that like, when we were fighting with Wisconsin counties, they were they were for it. But if there was no money, they weren't really for it. So but we didn't have that. We had an opposite. We just wanted it to be to happen. We're always moving or moving keeping juveniles down.

17 year olds.

Right. Was that it? Right. So so you have something? Sure.

I I'm just oh, reaction to supervisor Smith's comment. So, by the way, I think there was a time that it was considerably longer than 12 pages.

I was gonna ask. Yeah. Actually, it was. I remember it. So That's something I remember.

I think probably about four years ago, I think we did some major cleanup.

Anymore. But

but are you suggesting that perhaps it'd be a better approach to have less specificity in the in the agenda and have things that are more a little bit more like the second bullet point that would allow flexibility.

Yeah. I mean, I guess all that to say that I I yeah. I've I've kind of always wondered if the process was as as useful as it could be or if the timing of when we do this is is as useful as it could be of, you know, rather maybe waiting until we have a legislative makeup in November of of what act what chance do we have of things happening. But I also understand this may be just a living document we add to, which, of course, then could we can change it anytime, and we do pass those resolutions. But I do definitely like the second bullet point proposed that's maybe just broader and does it give a little bit more flexibility?

I just you know, a lot of the terminology that's listed throughout the 12 page document, You know, some of it, I think and, you know, Lacey, maybe if you have thoughts or if you've been if you've encountered this yet, I just assume that there are situations where you're being potentially put in a position to try to decide, like, does this bill count as increased access to or something? Or, you know, like, some of that terminology that's a little subjective, that's not, like, a specific bill because we aren't in a legislative session or we're almost done with one. So we don't have an actual bill with specific pros and cons to that proposal, which may support one bullet point in this 12 page document, but oppose a sentence that's in another bullet point somewhere in the 12 page document. And I think leaving a little bit more room for, yeah, being maybe more nimble and a little bit more allowing that judgment to engage on legislative issues rather than being yeah. I I guess just kinda painted into a corner with some of this that's really specific that, that's just not how bills are introduced.

You know? There there are gonna be bills that have a lot of these things that are touched on in some way, but it may conflict. And then I don't know where that leaves you know? And then then what do we do? Just do nothing on the bill or you know? So I I just worry about how long this is, and I'm glad it's shorter than, I guess, it used to be. But

Yeah. Yeah.

Because, I mean, even something like, you know, the supporting like, the Medicare for all act, know, is specifically in here. But is it, like, a it defines it being, like, a universal health care system and the specifics that are required for us to support expanded health care access rather than just expanded health care access. Like, any bill that expands health care access, I, you know, presume the county generally supports many opportunities to expand health care access, not only that one type of proposal, but that's what it's defined as here. So, anyway, those are my general thoughts, I guess.

Appreciate it. Alright, chair Miles.

Question for you, Lacey. First, I guess, couple questions. Starting with the the the legislative agenda as it is and as it's being updated presently, is it a useful document to you in guiding your work or where you need to be focusing some attention or coming to us and inquiring about, which leads me to my second question, I guess, would be depending on on the environment and the capital, advising us perhaps on an approach that might have have some tangible effect in moving or preventing a piece of legislation?

Yeah. I would say, especially me being new to the role, the document has been, a really good guide on maybe issues that wouldn't be top of mind, competitive bidding and, you know, things like that that are maybe a little bit more nuanced that, when those bills came through, it was nice to have sort of a comprehensive guide to know that that is something that has been flagged as an important issue. So yes. And right? So the document has definitely been very helpful as I'm, learning all of the different issues and, our positions on them.

But to that point, it is definitely it can get a little bit weedy.

K. So the second part of that, though, using those topic areas in the agenda as guidelines Mhmm. To supervisor Smith's point, you know, presently, you know, it's not the most favorable environment for our interests. So oftentimes, you know, like, when you and I meet, we're talking about we register or not register on a particular item. Do we wanna you know, some of the thinking there's some some things might we don't wanna draw attention to. Mhmm. Whereas maybe in a different climate

Mhmm.

I I I guess my question for you is would you would you anticipate using that as a guide to basically come to either the chair or other members of the county board in exploring some strategy to move you know, try to advance our interests.

Yeah. I know, in the past, there has been maybe, like, a list of, you know, top three or top, you know, couple priorities from each committee. And so sort of, you know, the comprehensive document, but then maybe the committee also kind of agrees upon three items within that are sort of the top priorities for that committee. And so, I think that's one way that, you could accomplish, I think, kind of what you're, referring to. I don't know if that answers your question, but I think there are ways that we could have those conversations and come up with a strategy on maybe some more narrow things that could be lobbied on.

K. So presently so actually playing off of that point, the items in the in each section of the agendas, are they are they in a priority order or they're just sort of random order?

I they're kinda I guess, I don't know the history, you know, the full history of the document, but I think they are just sort of a running list.

Yep. Okay. Thanks. So so some level of prioritization might be helpful.

Mhmm. Okay. Yeah. Did your interview open again or no? Oh, I just said mine. Okay. Anything else? So you just really need a motion on these two? Or are going to take that one out? Or you've already been to Einar?

Yeah. So I guess

You still want to lose it. Yeah.

No. I appreciate that. So I think Sorry. You know, yeah, I guess sort of the up or down on these two things. And then if there are, like I said, if there are other things you want to make sure are included, I can make sure that that gets put in the document as well.

So is the emotion For these two. Yeah. For these. Or this one. Or we

Well, we want both.

Right. We were just talking chair was saying that it was been properly before CLR, the Richard Deeds part.

First bullet point could fit under CLR. Right. It's a bit of oversight.

Just because it had mentioned fees, think that's why. Lacey put it in.

Okay. So I'll move the second.

Okay?

Is that okay?

Any

other discussion? If not? So just to be sure, I don't know.

So you're moving basically as it is without change?

Yes. Well So to amend the legislative agenda to include the second These are to to it. To add the second point

The second point. Bullet point.

That begins with word engage.

Right. Got

it. The first bullet point, I think, should probably be for consideration by ZLR.

What he said.

I think we all want. Got it. Okay. There's nothing else. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Done. Let me just get there. Future meeting items and dates. Next meeting is the ninth. I just want to it's too late for this meeting. I just wanna sort of discuss that the memorandum that Chuck put out to the county executive, and then she sent us so we can sort of dig in a little bit, have an open discussion on that for the next meeting. Public comment on items on the agenda. It wasn't me. Such are the business allowed by law. Motion to adjourn.

Go to adjourn.

There's motion. All is in favor without, objection. We are adjourned.