Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Or that was for, what's it called? 1st Floor hearing. Okay.

Okay. Now I gotta do this.

Recording in progress. Okay. I'm ready.

Yeah. Did Granicus just decide to go down? Mayor, do you have an issue with Granicus now all of sudden too? You have issues with Granicus?

We did. I

just am now.

I am now too.

Yeah. Supposed to be back.

Mine's working.

I'm ready. Alright.

Well, luckily, have the documents. So okay. Alright. It is 05:30. I'll call the personnel committee meeting to order. First up is let me get the actual paper agenda here. Is roll call. The entire committee is present. Then we will move on to public comment. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to address the personnel committee this evening? Second call for public comment. Third alright. There's nobody here for public comment. Anybody online for public comment? I assume we had no previously received public comments.

No.

All right. Then we will close public comment. It's the consent agenda. Is there any item that committee member wishes to have removed from the consent agenda? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

So moved.

There is a motion. Is there a second? There's a second. There's no discussion on consent. So all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. And opposed? Consent passes. Thank you. Now we'll move on to our discussion and action items. First up is 25Dash0419, recommendation to alleviate pay compression in protective services. Jessie?

So this is an item that we had brought forward in 2023

to talk about addressing the

pay compression that sometimes exists in protective services that comes when union union employees are getting a larger raise than the supervisory employees. And we right now, we address it by doing pay equity adjustments. So those are one off adjustments as we look at specific supervisors determine if they need an increase so that they're being paid at a higher level than the people that they are supervising. We were looking at a way to standardize this a little bit more to make it less of administrative tasks where we're not looking at each specific employee and just stating that it's it's a policy that each of these positions, these are nonunion represent or nonunion employees that are supervisory in both police and fire, that they would just automatically be at the percentages listed on the memo that I provided above the highest paid union supervisory employee. So this will go into effect 2026.

I wanted to bring it forward today to start discussing it before the budget so that we can plan accordingly if we do get permission to move forward with it. So I'm happy to answer any questions. And both the chief the fire chief and the police chief are here if you have any specific questions for either of them.

Okay. Thank you, Jesse. Chiefs, do have anything you wanna address at this time? Otherwise, we could open it up for questions from the committee.

Talk about differences between 2023 and this one? I did. Okay. That would be the only thing that especially for you, all the sick, which is that those percentages were lower. Mhmm. And so you're aware of that.

Yep. I actually went back and I I went and watched our discussion from 2023 at the personnel meeting and then finance and ultimately where we ended up. So I I just wanna make sure I was refreshed on our our conversation. So

Yep. And some of those some of those percentages look different just because some of those are forty hour employees and some of are thirty seven. Yep. Oh, that's all I wanted to say for now.

Chief Blazer, did you have anything you wanted to?

Not at this time, sir. I'll be happy to listen to discussion. I just appreciate you hearing this topic tonight.

Okay.

Open it up for discussion from the committee. Alder Cummings?

Yep. Thank you, mister chairman. I've seen this firsthand in my previous place of employment where there wasn't the degrees of separation, which made it very difficult for us to have people go in for promotions and everything else. And so I am fully of support of making this a thing and supporting this recommendation.

Okay. Thank you, Alder Cummings. Any other discussion?

Then I'll make the motion to approve the recommendation.

I would second.

There's a motion to approve and a second. Discussion on the motion. Okay. I'll just open it up for discussion. So back two years ago, we had this conversation about this and and I I understand where it's coming from and the the rationale for it.

We had a couple different things in place at the time that I think helped alleviate some of the compression. The equity program that the mayor has where he has some unilateral authority to make some one off changes with employees. He notifies personnel chair and the council president in order to take at risk employees or inequitable employees in the pay scale and move them into positions where maybe right some wrongs in in the plan from how the union contract wages affect the rest of the protective services non non union wages. One of the things that came out of this conversation two years ago was about fiscal responsibility or fiscal notice on items coming forward for costing. So here, we're looking at to approve or recommend approval, but we haven't even heard what the anticipated cost was.

I I talked to Jesse earlier today and got that number from her. But these are the things that caused me some frustration when we get to the budget process. And I know even if the mayor is a 100% supportive of this, it's gonna cause him some issues when we pass items through council that don't have the dollars associated with it so that we know when we're asking the mayor to incorporate into the budget. So I think this, Jesse, was around well, last let me give you an example. Four year or three years two years ago, the initial number came to council was 40,000.

And by the time everything was flushed out, it actually was, like, $7,075,000. So that causes a couple people to backpedal and say, well, that if I would've known it was that much, we weren't gonna do it. So that got tied into a whole large budget conversation, and it really lost the intent of what we were looking to do, caught it into the dollars. So if we can get ahead of that and say, you know, jeez, this is gonna cost $60,000, is that something that we think benefits the organization that we would recommend to the mayor to that? So before we vote on it, Jesse, can you run through what the dollars are?

Yeah. And right now, I just figured out base salary because I didn't want to take it to to finance and go through all the work of figuring out what the fringes would be until I found out if there was an appetite to move forward with it. So for base salary in police department, it would be about $50 for that first year. The first year is going to be the biggest year because we're adjusting everyone to get up to those percentages. For fire department, it would be about $9 for 2026. That's base salary. So, typically, they say between 2025%, you're gonna wanna add on for the fringe benefits. That's an estimate right now. I would wanna get some more solid numbers for you before the budget and certainly provide those with any resolutions that that would go forward.

Alden Ruehl?

Yeah. And I appreciate the numbers. My because my issue would be if we don't you know, if we wait too long, that's just going to multiply and multiply and multiply. And if we don't get ahead of it somehow now, now we're going to be dealing with a 6 figure issue later or even bigger, depending on our higher six figure if we don't kind of try to smooth some of this out earlier than later.

And that's just where I want people to be conscious of it as it moves along the process. Because what I witnessed, especially two years ago with counsel, was we had some members who were voting for everything under the sun. And then when it came time for the budget presentation, then we get these long winded stories about how tax is this and taxes that. Yet they forgot that they voted to spend all of it all along. And now the mayor is just incorporating what they did.

So I just think it's best to have those discussions upfront and make sure that we're aware as we move forward with that, that if the recommendation is to ask or to recommend to the mayor to include into his 2026 budget, that we have some type of number that we're subconsciously or consciously putting forward so that when it comes in the merits of this presentation and there's a tax increase or there's a levy decrease that we know that geez, we had something to do with that along the way and not just start throwing stones. That's all. Alder Cummings? Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. As far as there again, my I still support regardless of what the number would have been. I still support this. Part and part of the reason is is I know the budget numbers that you just mentioned, you know, were obviously what they were. But in my opinion, when you're a taxpayer, when you're, you know, up here, there's two departments that can really make or break a city, plain and simple. That's police department, fire department. And, you know, if if we can have the compensation to a point where we have you know, granted, doesn't guarantee you're gonna have your best leaders. Right?

But at least gives you the right foot to be able to do that in competition for those spots and everything else. That leadership organization can literally make or break an entire organization, in our case, a city, if something happens because they set that direction. And I know we have the budgetary number that the mayor is gonna have to deal with, but what's that number like if, let's say, we have a major event that's negative for the city and costs us maybe, god knows, a lot more. Right? And and I I think having the best people in those positions is is mission critical, you know, for for everything, even even though, obviously, I'm not in the police department or fire department. Right? But but that's almost for any organization of that level. So that's just my 2¢.

Okay. Mayor?

Say, I'd, thanks for the conversation. I personally support this wholeheartedly, so I'll do everything I can to make sure it gets to the budget. Did support last time too. It scaled back. I appreciate that. We had some good conversations. But if you recall back then too, it was brought up right right during the budget process, and we also were doing the five year bonuses, the ten year bumps. We had those large increases in that one year, which we don't see now that large of an increase every year. So we had a bunch of other things going against us that then years. A

of

it's really gonna start compressing because in it probably won't be that high for nonrepresented employees over those years. So I think now is a very good time to do it for the, as you said, all the best time for cost. Because if we do it three years and they have those four, four, five, that'll really, really cause problems. So I wholeheartedly support it, and I wanna make sure it gets to the budget.

Okay. Alder Dunbar?

Yeah. I just have a quick question. I just wanna lead with saying that this is something I'll definitely support, and I definitely think that, addressing this, as everyone has said, is definitely a good thing to look forward to. And mine's more about the the way this is worded. So on here, we'll just look at, patrol captain.

Right? It says 8% above detective sergeant maximum for the effective 01/01/2026. Pay for the roles below shall be as follows, and it gives, like, a set percentage per base. But then on the second page at the top, it says employees who receive an unsuccessful performance evaluation will not be eligible for any salary increase in the following year. So my question is on this front where it says patrol captain 8% above detective sergeant maximum, is that up to 8%, or is that a hard 8%?

Because it just seems like it's saying a hard number here, but then the second page is kinda saying, well, there may not be based on about all that. So is that just something that should be included in there? It just says up to on that front part, or is that always gonna be a set, and then every year, we're gonna look at the next?

It'll be a set to begin with. So everybody that's in those roles right now will be placed to then, think, able what be an unsuccessful year, they would not get that that 5% increase or whatever they need to increase.

Right. I I I got that. I guess maybe I'm more than this, Ron. I'm sorry. So let's say and I I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. So let's just say that detective sergeant maximum is 50,000 a year. Just throwing easy numbers. Yep. So then they get that 5%, and then the patrol captain is gonna be 8% above that always. So even based off of okay.

I understand what you're saying. So maybe add language in there that kind of explains the unsuccessful performance here. They may go below that if they

Exactly. Yep. That's what I'm saying. So if we just put that up to, then in two years, if that scenario happens, we don't have someone come to us saying, you said I was going to have it's always going to be 8% above this number. We just had the up to. So we make sure we put a ceiling on there, but leave the floor based off the evaluations.

When I add this to the policy manual, I'll make sure that I include that language. And that will come to this committee for final approval, so you'll have a chance to review that.

Awesome. Thank you. Okay.

So back to the motion is to approve the request. And so it actually would go Jesse, are you planning on just putting it in the employee policy manual as a update coming forward?

Yeah. I'm gonna do that in the next month or two with a couple of other items.

So do we need official action on this, or do we just need a go ahead on it?

I don't think we need official action today. Looking at you.

Okay. Okay. It's supported.

So there's a motion to approve in a second. So any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. And opposed? Okay. That passes. The next item up is 25 dash zero four one eight. Discussion possible action on aldermanic compensation. This is something that comes forward every year because the compensation is set by resolution for the election. The last adjustment was made two years ago, I think, two or three years ago. It had been quite some time prior to that. But this just is a standard thing that comes forward every year so that could get incorporated into a resolution for the election.

So open up for discussion. If there's none, I'd look for somebody to make a motion to place on file.

Make the motion to place on file.

Second. Motion and a second to place on file. Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Okay. Then we have 25 dash $0.04 $2.00, ten year lump sum payments, part time employees. Just as our previous conversation, we had done this in 2024, January 2024. We discussed in '23 as a way to reward long term employees. This is now for some part time employees. So, Jesse, if you wanna take us through that.

Yes. So we first implemented this, it was intended for benefit eligible employees, which for for general city employees, that's anybody working thirty or more hours. The library interpreted a little bit differently, and, so they started giving it to their twenty four week employees. They took it to their board and got approval to give the $2,500 bonus to anybody who had ten years of service and worked at least twenty hours a week because library looks at benefits a little bit different than when we look at benefits. So when I started looking at this, that led me to come up with a solution that would be equitable to the city, which would be to give any employee who's working twenty or more hours per week the $2,500 if they've put in ten years of service at the city.

Anybody working nineteen hours or less would get half that twelve fifty. So the majority of the people working in those roles are employees at the library, pages and library associates who are working anywhere between ten and twenty five hours, and then a couple of Rarwest employees. We do have two DPI admins as well. So that's what we're asking is to update the language to include the part time employees at a prorated level. And for the first year, we again, the biggest year because we're catching up anybody that didn't get it the first time for part time and had 10 of service.

It would be about $27,500 to get up to it in 2026. And then after that, it would be minimal cost because there's only a few people that actually have ten years of service. It's much more easy to budget those because we know who's going to have ten years of service.

Any questions?

I'll make the motion to approve.

Oh, sorry. Before we get to that, Alder Dunbar.

So this is that back that's from 2023 when the program first started.

Okay. Still make the motion to approve the resolution.

There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Discussion?

Wrong. I said a resolution, didn't I? Yeah. It's not a resolution.

Just It's To approve. Yeah. Could make a Alright. Call a Discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Alright. That passes. Thank you. Then twenty five dash zero four two eight, resolution for hiring seasonal employees that are related to officials, department heads, or supervisory personnel. So something standard that we do, especially this time of the year with seasonals. Any questions on that? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Motion

to approve and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And opposed? Okay, then we have one last item tonight that does require a closed session. So notices hereby given that the above governmental body may adjourn into a closed session during the meeting as authorized by section 19 dot eight five one c of Wisconsin statute, which authorizes the governmental body to convene in a closed session for the purpose of considering employment, promotion, compensation, or performance, evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body is jurisdiction or exercises responsibility. Specific subject matter that may be considered in closed session is 25 dash zero four two one up to date department head performance reviews. The motion to convene in the closed session was made by alder person. So moved.

Cummings. Seconded by Norell. Aye. Norell. Aye. Beaman. Aye. Cummings. Aye. And Dunbar. Aye. Alright. We are in closed session.

Yes.

Yeah.

Alright. We are back from closed session. The item discussion possible action. Where did I put it? On department head performance reviews is actually taking no action. There's no update. So that does exhaust our agenda. So I would look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Alright, we are adjourned. Thank you.

Recording stopped.