Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Of the Finance and Personnel Committee on Monday, December 15. We are joined by everybody virtually because the nature of having to pull together this special meeting pretty quickly here. We have Alderman Scott Spiker, Alderman Miele Le Coghs, Alderman Charlyn Moore, and Vice Chairman Alderman Peter Bergelis that provides us a quorum to begin our business today. And that is with two items. Item one, two hundred fifty one thousand four and eighty two.

Communication from the Department of Employee Relations relating to an amendment to the salary ordinance to permit a 3% wage adjustment for eligible non represented city employees. Okay. So who from Department of Employee Relations would like to speak on this?

Sure. Sarah Cinski, compensation supervisor with DER.

All right.

I want to first thank the honorable committee members for being available to hear this item so that we can implement pay period two. So this will effectively enact the 3% across the board that was approved in the 2026 budget. And if there are any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. Or if there are any fiscal questions, Brian Reinders is available as well. See he's on.

Great. Thank you, Sarah. And thanks for acknowledging that. You know, I had a number of people reach out to me wondering what was going on and were we changing something after a very lengthy couple months of budget deliberations. As Sarah mentioned, there was a oversight department employee relations administration to get it on the last agenda so then there was a request for a special meeting and essentially this is to implement what was adopted in the 2026 budget.

So Sarah or Brian before I go to members, there's been some confusion about the difference between three percent wage adjustment kind of across the board or is this as this item suggests a 3% increase to the range? What is the difference? Will the impact be the same? And then could you point to the fiscal note in the file please?

Sure. So this is going to be a 3% that is going to impact employees as well as the pay range. And the reason we need to adjust the recruitment rate and the maximum of the pay range as well as like the footnoted recruitment rates throughout the salary ordinance is so that individuals who have not gone like a matrix place or making the minimum of the pay range do see an increase. Those at the max, there is a rule in the salary ordinance that no one can like their base salary can't be more than the maximum pay range. So by moving the maximum of the pay range that individual will receive the full 3%.

And this has been what has been done in the past years that we have had across the boards. This is different than what would be like pay progression where it's the employee moving through the pay range versus just moving everything by a set percentage. And as regards to the fiscal note, I believe Brian Reinders said that he would be able to provide it by close of business today.

I was hoping we could have that for this meeting. I guess before I go to members, who on behalf of the administration can speak to what the administration's plans were on their 2%? Because obviously, the council did the one and the one. But what was the administration thinking on theirs? Were they doing across the board or were they doing the range?

Good morning, madam chair. Brian Reiner's budget management division. It's the name for director Kobach this morning. First off, let me just acknowledge that we do not have a fiscal note in the file yet. I was off on Friday, so I did not have the opportunity to put that together prior to my taking off on Thursday. I am happy to speak about the cost impacts verbally here. 3% across the board, it's roughly 6,900,000.0. You'll have that probably in hand no later than like thirty minutes after our meeting concludes today. So let me just apologize for not having that for you prior to this meeting. The 2% across the board wasn't intended to exactly as miss Sinsky said, 2% for all eligible employees.

And I do believe the intent was to move the range as well.

Okay. Let me open it up to members now. I see Alderman Spiker. Go ahead.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So it was said, I think, by Ms. Cinsky that in years past when there was the 2% general city increase, I imagine it shook out the same way it did this time. First in the budget, you put the money and wages and supplement to make sure you have the money there to do this. And then two, it's chased by a change in the salary ordinance that effectuates the intent of, I guess, in this case, it would have been the mayor. Is that how things were conducted in the past, I guess, is my first question?

Yes. Essentially, like, this memo would be sent, which would give DER the ability to make the intended changes that were approved by the budget. And then the fiscal was in past I looked at prior fiscal notes. It was a short line that said included in that year's budget.

Yes. And I guess the reason I ask is this year the difference has And that's very Kobach of his proposed budget or in any of the amendments or anything else because I see what you're saying. If you're bumping up against the ceiling, if you're gonna get the 3%, we gotta move the ceiling. Right? Mhmm.

That's Yeah. Basically it. But when you move the ceiling, you don't just move the ceiling for that employee or all current employees. You also move it for all future employees who are gonna be in that range. And that's a policy decision that has a financial impact, not just now, but years going ahead.

So that's a choice that is he has to be made with that in view. And the fact that we never kind of offered it to the council before when doing those two percents, I don't know if that just means we'll go along now, fellas, because it does I mean, to me, it matters a lot what the fiscal impact would be not just this year, but going forward with this. And I know we don't know precisely because we don't know how many people will be in that newly increased range over time. So that's, I guess, my concern is without that number and even with the number, it's just going to be a number. Brian, are you just pulling up a number for next basically, not ongoing?

Yes. That $6,900,000 is the fiscal impact for 2026. Obviously, I would assume that fiscal impact would carry forward through every subsequent year.

Yes. And I guess I'd like to know who is bumping up against there and then what pay ranges. I mean, yeah, there's just a lot more information, and it might have been that we we never made a fuss over it. But I'm telling you why I never made a fuss over it is because I didn't understand till just recently that this is changing all the ranges, not just for this person, but in perpetuity as it has to. Mhmm.

So, yeah, so I have I have some need for some more information here, and there's a policy decision on the table that wasn't offered during any of this discussion, either this year or previous years. So thanks.

Okay. Would any any other members like to be heard on this item?

I'm sure.

Okay. Alderman Bergelis.

Thank you. And can, missus Kiskey or or mister Rogers, could you tell us how many people are at the ceiling? How many people would be impacted and not get a full 3% if we didn't raise the ceilings?

I would not know offhand. I believe Is

it a thousand people?

It I would say it would probably be a large number of individuals. These would impact individuals who were probably either hired at a higher recruit.

Oh, you're breaking up. I'm sorry. Did Cinsky froze?

Yeah. She froze for me too.

Froze in.

Maybe I can't provide that answer, so I I'm not gonna jump in.

Okay. Let's

just And we'll try and send her a a message quick.

Yeah. Let her kinda reboot. Looks like she's talking but frozen.

Does anyone else from DER want to step in?

Yeah. Ms. Neckerbacher is on the board.

Hi. Going a

at at

the the the results

to

potential for all employees to achieve that higher pay range over time. Now we don't have pay progression right now, so it's not likely that that's going to happen. And she's back, and I will let her continue where she was.

You cut off pretty early in your answer. So my question was how many people are affected by the ceiling? How many people would not get a full 3% increase

Sure.

If they didn't change the ceilings?

Okay. So it would be probably the individuals who negotiated for a higher rate of pay through a special rate letter or it would adversely impact employees that have been with the city for a long time, like longstanding employees. And that's mainly because those employees experienced or went through the time that the city of Milwaukee had pay progression where they were able to move through the range. So it would be negatively impacting those employees. As to the number, I don't know off the top of my head.

I I would say probably a couple 100, close to a thousand, but I'm not I don't have a definitive number on that.

Okay. I will ask for that detail, and it might be helpful to have that by department and then, pay rage as well. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Alderman. Thank you, Department of Employee Relations. Any other Alders have questions on item one? Any other questions on item one? Alderman Moore?

I just had a question in regards to so not having this information, is it possible for us to make a decision by the end of this meeting without I mean, that's some really interesting data points that I think would it would be good for us to know. What are your thoughts on that?

Just checking, is Jackie Carter available, the head of the employee relations?

She is currently in a CSC, meeting. Let me see if I can talk to her, see if she can hop on.

And the reason

I scheduled this hold on. The reason I scheduled a special meeting was, you know, we we had the the oversight, and we have our council meeting tomorrow. We're trying to, you know, be good partners and get this done because a lot of people are waiting on that first paycheck of the year. So we're doing what we can. And I'm a little disappointed that we don't have all the information.

I mean, I guess Brian is saying, you know, we knew the number all along. But what you're hearing from committee members is especially with the range. So I want to make sure we're getting this answered so we can take this this action today. I guess I want to reiterate, mister Reiner's, that it was the administration's intention just so I have it clear. That's why I was looking for director Carter.

Of the 2% of the kind of two eleven, it was always your intention as the administration to have it bump everybody. Because I think the point about the range is that if you don't move the range, the folks that are at the top of their range would anything at all. They would not receive the 3% and this changing the range allows them to be included in the three percent. Am I saying that correctly Brian?

So the mayor's proposed budget of 2% assumed a $4,600,000 cost for all employees to receive the 2% wage. The 6,900,000.0 that we're estimating today assumes all employees get the 3%. So I think inherently that assumes that the ranges move as well because everyone was intended to get the raise. And the mayor proposed 2% and the way we drafted the the amendment requested by and approved by council for 3% to move it to 6,900,000.0 assume all employees were received.

Okay. And I think what Alderman Spiker is asking, if I'm if I'm understanding this, it kind of reminds me of the police contract in a way, the MPA contract is are there additional fiscal considerations considerations that that we we need to be aware of for moving the ranges of a bunch of employees to accommodate that wage increase? It seems different than what we've done in the past.

I believe we have given you the maximum cost impact. So any changes by counsel at this point would be reducing cost, I believe.

Okay. Well, I

believe that's consistent with past practice is to, at least in my tenure, which is nearly fourteen years, fifteen years now, is to move the ranges along with one across the board of the curve.

Okay. That's helpful. I appreciate you saying that, mister Reiner's. So each time there has been budget action to increase wages, there's been a subsequent change in ranges to accommodate those that might be at the maximum?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Okay. Any other questions? I know Alderman Moore had an outstanding question from committee members. Just, Oliver Moore, you still have the floor. Did you want to check back in here?

Yeah. I mean, I think that was just my primary I know so I reached out to Ms. Carter probably on Friday in anticipation for this meeting today. And that was because I was just like, well, how many people did this impact? You know, I I just needed sort of like a a breakdown of the of the numbers just so I had an understanding of, who all, was impacted.

And now, you know, the conversation about, you know, the the the pay per not pay it's not pay per action, but what you all just mentioned about, you know, if certain people get this 3%, it might push them over the limit. So now we have to increase. I mean, I I guess these were things that I wish, would have been, you know, shared by the administration. Like, okay. This is what this means. Right? So it's just right now, I'm just it's just a lack of information. And it doesn't mean that I don't want to, you know, move forward. I I I you know, our city workers are critically important. And, again, like you said, madam chair, like, you know, these folks are waiting on their on their increase.

And so I just wanted to just get a sense being a part of this body, just the full implication of that. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a hand up by Alderman Bergelis. Go ahead, Alderman.

Thank you, madam chair. I also don't think it's unreasonable. We made an ink a decision to make an increase for everyone. If people are at the top of the range, the ranges have to also adjust. I think this is perhaps something that could have been discussed discussed or or mentioned mentioned in in our our thorough discussions ahead of time or during the budget process, but I really just see this as a matter of fact or a a process requirement in order to enact what we already decided to do. Thank you, madam chair. I would I still would like to know how many people are at the top of the range and would be impacted by this. I think that's a very important data point, but unrelated to my support for this vote.

Thank you. You. Yeah. I put myself in the same category and just let members know this time tomorrow, we'll be voting on this package as well. So we would need that information to cast this vote at council as well.

Okay. Other questions or comments by members? Alderman Spiker, did you have your hand up?

Yep. So it would be good to know when we're pulling these data points. And, again, I I wanted to stress that this is a policy decision that we never discussed when we did the 2%, and it may be that they were written in a way to accommodate the increase in pay ranges, but I've never seen that flagged. I've never heard it as a point of discussion. And I've been on finance since since the current mayor put me there.

So 2020. So, yes, and we might be cool with this policy decision, but we also might be less cool if we're talking about if there's folks in the executive pay plan who are very well compensated, who got a major adjustment, and now they're looking for 3% more, that might be just like we used to have a cap on the mayor's the mayor's salary as capping everything else and it kind of tamped down some of the increases, increases, we might at some point say, hey, for these at least a section of these, like the executive pay plan positions, which are already very well compensated, is this really a ceiling we wanna keep raising just as a matter of course? Because that that's that's a big policy decision. And I now that I the scales have fallen from my eyes, I'll make sure to make this distinction anytime we do this. But I would like I guess, if coming to the data request, I would like to know for those positions that are up against the ceiling and need the range to change if they're to get the full raise, how many of those were positions that were covered in the executive pay plan?

Maybe it was none. Maybe it was more than none. But I like that answer. Thanks.

Okay. So I think part of the question was, again, I'm not exactly sure who's speaking for employee relations. Sounds like Sarah and possibly Brian, but, I I also wonder what Alderman Spiker was asking. Did we move all the ranges, when the mayor proposed the mayor's executive pay plan?

I guess so historically all positions were eligible other than elected officials, which is new after the 2024 leadership executive reports. In regards regards to the executive hitting the max of the pay range, thinking back to when we implemented, I would say that that is less likely comparison with the average employee throughout the city. I think that's due to the change that was made with the report in regards to the recruitment rates being removed. But I think the vast majority, if not all, would be the average steady employee as opposed to those in the leadership roles. But I will be able to get those numbers to you by end of business today.

Madam Chair? Alderman Spiker?

Yeah. And thanks, sir, for that reminder Had on the floor asked or moved that the recruitment rate footnotes be stripped out. And so that would put folks closer, well, to the floor of the new range, which was maybe was higher than where they were sitting in the previous range before reclass. But I guess, Ms. Zinsky, is this true?

I know it says excluding MPSO, MPA, and Local two fifteen. But would these rate increases also affect the nonrepresented members of police and fire, including sworn members in the executive branch?

So the classifications that it would impact would be the battalion chief of fire, the deputy chief of fire, assistant chief or assistant fire chief, assistant chief of police, chief of police, and fire chief. So I believe those would probably be the only two that would have been in the executive or four, actually, with the assistants that would be of the exception in regards to my previous statement.

Oh, well, that's a pretty big exception that Because he Yeah. Just got bumped up to, like, a quarter million dollars, and he'd be getting another 3% on top of that with this? Oh, headline. Okay. I move to refer without recommendation, madam chair, at the appropriate time.

Okay. Referred without recommendation has been moved by Alderman Spiker. A move in order to move this advance this to the council meeting tomorrow. Looks like we're still awaiting pretty pertinent information. Have we heard from director Carter if oh, there she is.

I see she's I logged wanted to see if she knew the answer answer to that last question by Alderman Spiker that I'm a bit concerned about, too. Director Carter, are you able to help with any of these, wage questions? Okay. I want to just say for the record, I'm a little disappointed. We as soon as I got the email during the finance meeting on Thursday excuse me, Wednesday, I hurried as fast as I could to schedule this meeting and get a quorum, and we're missing important pieces of information.

I think what you're hearing from members is we want to go forward because part of this was our proposal. And I'm going take a minute to talk about that proposal too because there's been some discussion over the weekend. Just in case anyone's listening additionally from the media, this council did approve 15 to zero investing in our employees. We stand by that. We stand by investing an extra bonus are the of California.

Lot possible. We believe have at the a council that We when our employees have more wages in their pockets they'll likely spend it in the city of Milwaukee and with small businesses closing left and right and basically out there begging for support during able do to And we're this and may be concerned or may think that that. Their modest raise, you know, in line with inflation might be jeopardized over the holiday season. That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to get it done.

So I wanted to make sure I put that on record because I do feel strongly about that. And was this council that nearly doubled that increase that we think will be an investment in the city of Milwaukee and our local economy. It's not just a wish. It's actually a true investment that will pay off. You know, it's often been said that our human infrastructure is our most valuable infrastructure in the city and you show that by making a true genuine investment and we know that our employees appreciate that. So I want to make sure I at least use this special meeting for opportunity to reiterate that. I see a hand up here. Okay. Oh, Ms. Carter, go ahead. Director Carter, please go ahead.

Apologies. I hit the wrong button trying to unmute. I was not clear what the question was that was being asked.

Okay. That's okay. You're muting yourself allowed me to go through my speech, so that was fine. Let me have Alderman I think the question originally was from Alderman Spiker, Director Carter. Alderman Spiker, could you reiterate that?

Which one? I've asked like five questions.

I think it was the kind of onus for moving refer without recommendation. But your last one was pretty pertinent to both the executive pay plan, more poignantly, I think it was about the footnotes and the various chiefs.

Oh, that one. Yeah. So Ms. Carter, I had asked an earlier question about how many of these positions that would if we didn't take action in the salary ordinance like you're recommending, how many would bump up against the ceiling and therefore not be able to get the 3% increase? So alder Brigalis had asked that general question, how many folks would be affected.

But then I tried to drill down for folks who had experienced the executive pay plan increases a few years back. And Missinski had reminded me that alder Cogs had on the floor moved and the council supported the stripping out of of the pay rate footnotes, all of them. And so for that reason, folks were less likely in the executive pay range to be hitting that ceiling. But then that made me think, wait a second now. Weren't some of those folks also among the sworn in police and fire, and in particular, the the chief of police who the fire and police commission under some authority, I'm still trying to suss out because it doesn't make sense to me, recruit raise that pay range to somewhere in the quarter million range.

Maybe it was just $2.25. But, anyway so what I was trying to sort out is that 3% increase applied to, you know, the chief of police himself, chief of fire, and basically the command staff for both because they're not covered under MPSO or a local two fifteen depending on whether they're police or fire. So is that analysis correct, I guess?

So okay. So there's a couple things. The when we talk about about general city raises and increases, that means that that that excludes anyone who has the bargaining rights. So those folks who are listed, the NPA, MPSO, local two fifteen, if they are on those within those contracts, they are excluded. Right?

And then there's some specific titles that are named which really name either part time limited term employees who would not be eligible or I believe there's maybe a commission or a member of a commission. So those are all excluded. Anybody else would be included, but he what I wanna be clear about is this is not us asking for something new. This is a technical file that gives us the ability to implement what was already approved at budget. So a lot of this discussion has happened.

The other thing, though, I wanna point out just because we're kinda bringing this up and and talking about this executive pay plan. When we talk about employee retention and being able to recruit and retain and all those things, you gotta remember the top of the the folks who are paid at the top are not exempt from those conversations because these are also people who can compete, who who where we we need to be able to compete with those salaries and be able to retain them because they could also go, you know, somewhere else and work. And so I just want us to keep that in mind when we're talking about, you know, the ranges because most of the ranges that we have and the the salaries that we have are still not comparable to what we're seeing outside, which we don't expect. Right? We're public sector.

We know that there there's typically gonna be some some space between what we pay and what the public sector, you know, pays. And I think employees come in knowing that because there's some other things we offer with work life balance and things like that. But I just wanna make sure that as we're talking about these, that we don't start to parse out people who are, you know, in those executive positions because we do have to also make a point to ensure that we can retain those employees as well. So I just wanna put that on the record. But, again, this is a technical file to enact what already happened at budget. It's not specifying anything special or specific for anybody in particular.

And Madam Chair, just to sharpen my question. So one, in about a minute, I will contest that characterization, which I had earlier before Ms. Carter arrived at the meeting. But second, and I guess the thing I'll start with is, so are we saying that the police chief will not get a 3% bump in this and

his manager I'm not saying that.

Okay. So he will?

So miss Cinsky, I believe, was asked to provide a list of employees who would who would bump up against the range. That's what you're asking. So we can provide that information and submit that. I believe she promised that by the end of the of the business day. So we can do that. And then if there's any additional questions, if you wanna have another conversation, Alderman Spiker, so that you're prepared for tomorrow, I'm I'm willing to do that.

Well, I'm I'm less worried about me being prepared because I always find a way. But I wanna make sure members of this committee who have to take a vote today, like now, are prepared and put in a position to do so. And that's why, I guess, I asked for a referral without recommendation because I I don't think we are in that position. But so for the third time, it does sound like the leadership positions in the police and fire department would be covered under this 3% bump, and in particular, the police chief himself would be covered?

As far as I understand, that is the case. Yes.

Okay. Because there was a the reason that's kind of a big deal is the Fire and Police Commission, again, under whose authority I don't know from looking at the salary ordinance, decided to increase the chief's salary to $2.25 or something, like, some very, very large number. And the 3% then would be on top of that. So for those of us who were like, well, how did that happen? How was that decision made to raise him to $2.25? The 3% would be on top of that. Yeah. Okay. And then just briefly to the characterization. This is not a technical thing.

It may be what we've always done, but that doesn't mean it's a technical thing either. There's a policy decision which has been buried until recent times like today for some people, which is that we're moving those pay ranges every time we do an across the board with rates. And that has a consequence not just for next year. It has consequence for future years because there may be a day where somebody is in that range and bumps up against it, and now there's a higher ceiling. And I can't remember if it was you, director Carter or who said, you know, we don't have pay progression, so it's not, like, as pressing an issue as it would have been back in the day.

But there is a policy decision being raised to sailings here. And the fact that it wasn't raised in previous cases does not mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that this and that is completely incompatible with the characterization of this being merely a technical adjustment. Would not believe that. I would urge members not to believe that either.

Alderman Spiker, I don't disagree with that part, which which you talked about. If this isn't across the board and moving the ranges, I have had that conversation with my team. However, the point at which we had that conversation budget was already done, and so we could not make that adjustment. But I will I will say the what I mean when I say this is a technical file is that without it, we cannot implement the raises that you all approved. That's what I'm saying.

Again, and just very briefly, we we can't we can't what you're saying is your the council's clear intent was to raise everybody even if they raise the pay ranges. Even though that discussion was never had by the mayor during his presentation, not by budget during their discussions, not by a single member on the floor. That issue just wasn't raised to salience before. And if you think about it, you're like, well, maybe I'd be in favor of that. Then again, maybe I wouldn't.

Maybe this is a gift that will keep on giving in future years once that pay range is bumped up. And then at that point, you might think, well, what are we really trying to do here, folks? Are we trying to bump the police chief salary up, or are we trying to bump sanitation workers' salary up? And there might be some divide there that we could have had about the executives versus the rest. We didn't have that clear discussion because, again, this business about the pay range bumping up wasn't raised to salience and discussed. So I'm not blaming the EER for it, but it never was it's a policy policy decision decision that that was was never never discussed discussed by by anybody. Anybody.

Okay. Any other questions or comments by committee members? We have a motion for a refer without recommendation. Any other questions? Alderman Moore, did you have anything now that we have Director Carter here?

No. I I I think that, Alderman Spiker, you know, raised some really just really great points. I think the decision has been made. And, you know, moving forward, I I think we have a lot more information that will do things differently, moving forward. But I do want to get an explanation, though, when you say refer without recommendation, meaning that just the way things are, we're just gonna we're moving forward. Is that correct?

The refer without recommendation forwards it to counsel tomorrow for the counsel to consider, and then a member on the floor would have to make a motion to adopt or hold or anything like that.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

As the maker of the motion, the intent would be also to give us time to get the information Alderman Bergalis has asked for and I've asked for and Chair has asked for so that we have that in our hands when we're making our decision. Thank you.

Got it. Thank you so much.

Any other questions on the motion to refer without recommendation? Okay. I just want to let it be known that I'm fine with that. I would prefer adoption, which I will gladly support on the floor tomorrow. But I understand that there's some missing information.

And I hope that anybody listening especially any employee knows that this is our effort given the administrative oversight to move this forward to our meeting tomorrow so we're doing the very best that we can. Any objections to referral without recommendation on item one hearing none so ordered we're on item two two hundred fifty one thousand two hundred eighty three a substitute ordinance to further amend the twenty twenty six rates of pay of offices and positions in the city service Madam chair? Yeah. Mister wait. One second, please. Mister Lee, I think this is to kind of amend what we had done the other day to reflect this action. Is that right?

Correct. There's proposed sub in the file regarding the 3% wage adjustments. So that should not be adopted today. That should be postponed till tomorrow in front of the full council. So the appropriate motion would be just to pass the file as is.

Okay. So adoption you would want on item two and then for the members to know tomorrow, then a member will need to bring the substitute in accordance with item one on the floor tomorrow. Is that right? Correct. Okay. Does everybody have that clear? Okay. I'll let

you back here. Chair? Mhmm. Yeah. So just to clarify, if we pass the non subversion, that will be essentially what passed committee. And the subversion would contain the changes to the pay ranges, which would effect uate the administration's understanding of the 3% increase, an increase that would move everybody, including those who were bumping up against pay ranges by moving those pay ranges. Is that accurate? Correct. Okay.

Okay. So adoption of two, again, disregard the substitute in the file. That substitute will likely be brought up tomorrow on the floor when we hopefully move adoption of item one during the finance committee at the council. So Alder Woman Moore moves adoption of two, not substitute, but again we'll see the substitute tomorrow. Any discussion of adoption of item two? Any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. And that concludes the business of our special finance and personnel committee meeting. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.