Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. We apologize for the delay. We're working on mister mister Brown is gonna be joining us from a conference. We're working on his audio. So with that, we'll call the Tuesday, October 28 meeting of the finance committee to order.

We do have a full quorum this evening. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. All right. So that'll bring us to next item on our agenda is public comment. Are there any members of the public here this evening that wish to address the finance committee?

Seeing none, we'll move on to item number 4A and that's approval of the minutes for the October 16. Any changes to those minutes from the committee? All right. Those minutes are approved to unanimous consent. That'll move us into a business item prior to getting to the operating budget. That's item number 5A, which is review and possible action on the acceptance of a twenty twenty five fiscal year twenty five community policing development micro grant for a $139,600. Assistant chief Wagner. If you Tom, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself to the folks at home, and the floor is yours.

Good evening. My name is Tom Wagner, assistant chief with Waukesha Police Department, and I'm here to talk about this micro grant that we applied for and were awarded. So, basically, we have Sellbrite, which is a software company that we use for all of our forensic downloads. This is basically enhanced program where instead of processing like one phone at a time, it can actually process multiple phones and cross link the information. And where this will really help us is for opioid related investigations, deaths, where you can connect a lot of things from the phones for from victims to suspects and things along those lines. So it's got enhanced search capabilities, and it's something that'll be no cost to the PD for the two years that the grant is awarded.

Tom, what happens after the two years?

So if we were to continue after the two years, I received a quote where it'd be approximately $46,000 to continue. The grant actually provides a server, and so a lot of the costs upfront are covered by the grant, but then ongoing operating. If we were to see that this was something that was a valuable tool for us, only time will tell how valuable it's gonna be, but that's why we've got two years to be able to trial it and see what kind of results we get from it.

So if the police department wishes to continue, it'd be something that would probably be in the roughly the 2028 budget? Correct. Okay. Other questions for the older person held in Slabin?

You said this is primarily for, opioid related crimes. Is this Would this be helpful for any other types of crimes, or is it specifically related to opioid crimes?

Absolutely. Any kind of investigation that we work on, it'll just enhance, again, the forensic ability and speed up the process to be able to analyze multiple devices at once. So yes. But it was written specifically for the opioid problem that we have in the community.

Excellent. Thank you.

Any other questions for the assistant chief? Alderson Lemke.

I was just gonna move to accept the twenty twenty five fiscal year twenty five community policing development micro grant for a 139,600.

Is there a second? Alderperson Helvinslavin.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a and a second on the item. Any further discussion? Alright. Do a voice vote. All those in favor sign aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That item passes unanimously. Thank you, chief.

Thank you.

So that'll bring us back to our main event for this evening, and that's item number five b, which is a continued review and possible action or recommendation from the finance committee to the city council to adopt the 2026 operating budget. Mister Brown is joining us from a conference. So I know we're working on his audio. Mister Shurrow, is there anything that you have for us this evening as we kick off the conversation?

Thank you, Alderman Piper. The only thing I wanted to mention is, I mean obviously we had extensive discussion two weeks ago over two days. I just wanted to mention that I really appreciate the time that this committee had spent as well as the directors and their teams behind me to have that conversation as well as put the budget together. Obviously, a large team effort and I just really appreciate everyone's effort in putting it together. The one thing I did want to mention is just kind of remind everybody that we're looking to obviously for approval or recommendation for approval of our operating budget for 2026 And the amounts that we specifically cite in that recommendation is generally what isn't running through the general fund.

And so I don't know if Patricia you can bring up my PowerPoint. So as you can see on the screen here, we had a total general fund budget of $84,127,448 This is the revenues pie chart, which kind of breaks down our funding. You can see the vast majority as we discussed before comes for our real estate taxes and intergovernmental revenues. And then on the expense side, you can see we have about half our budget is related to public safety. So a lot of police and fire running through that as well as building inspection.

And then the other large portions are general governments, public works and culture and recreation, which is made up of parks and recreation and library. So just kind of wanted to set the stage for what our totals are. And we have the teams of departments behind me. If there are any questions, we're here to answer those. That's all I have.

Very good, Joe. What we'll do is we'll see if the committee has any final questions for any department directors or Mr. Shuro tonight. And then I'll certainly open it up if there's any amendments from the committee that we'd like to consider and those would be proposed as we know in a motion form and then voted on. I guess before we get to amendments, a couple of questions that I have probably for Joe and Tony is, I know in the in over the course of the last year, we've talked a little bit about just the amount of paper communications that go out to constituents.

And when I first took in when I first got into this job, we didn't do a very good job of communicating with residents. And I think that has gone we've done a marvelous job, in my humble opinion, of turning that around. I guess my question is, Joe and Tony, is have has have you and your team looked at or evaluated or plan to evaluate just the number of communications that go out, whether that's in the water utility bill, whether that's the workspace piece that goes out? And is there any opportunity to potentially consolidate some of those and save money?

I mean, I'll definitely say that those were some things that were looked at when we initially put together the financial management plan last year. As far as how that's being grouped together and consolidated, we can try to see we can give this a whirl and see how it comes through from Tony. Tony, are you there? Okay. He's there. Let's see if it works.

And so the thing that I could add to that is the Parks, Rec and Forestry Department has been working with Public Works and the communications team to figure out are there ways to consolidate the communications that we're sending to residents. And I'm happy to say that between those groups, they have figured out a manner in which to send less paper to the public, but still get out the same information. So what you'll see moving forward is that there is the activity guide, but the information that used to be in the public works publication, that is being consolidated into one publication. So we should be able to save through that initiative tens of thousands of dollars.

And Tony, if I remember right, when you and I've had a conversation about that, I thought the workspace was roughly about 40,000 to $45,000 a year. Is that in ballpark? That's correct. Okay. And that's going to be incorporated in going forward into 2026?

Yes.

Okay. And then the other question I had was just a little bit of a conversation around just the number of open roles or open positions in the city and how that's impacting what we're seeing as it relates to the 2026 budget. How many positions there are, what type of savings that we anticipate that's been baked into the '26 budget with positions that are open currently?

That's a that's a great question. Joe can speak to the model, but what I would talk about is the turnover rate for the past number of years going back to 2022. What we've seen is that over 2022, 2023, 2024, there's been an increase in the turnover rate to the point where in 2024, we saw about a 14% turnover rate, which is about 75 positions. And what I would say is that's above average compared to the state and local government average, which is about 3%. So we have seen a fair amount of turnover.

And I think part of that is related to what we've seen in regards to engagement survey. So we recently have completed that. And one of the things that employees give us feedback about is that they they think that pay should be adjusted to reflect what I think in their perspective is market competitive pay. But as you'll recall, last year, we did a compensation study and we found that we are competitive. But the other thing too to take into consideration is that demographically, Wisconsin has a shortage of employees, and that's going to exasperate itself in the coming years.

So I think we're headed in the right direction. So this year, the percentage is a little bit lower. It's about 7.6%. But that's all to say that we continue to work on cultural pieces and trying to determine what we can do to make the workplace better for employees. The other thing I would probably add is the fact that we've been looking through and we adjusted our health insurance this year, which I think it'll benefit both the employees and us as an employer.

But there is differences that I think employees will realize. And so that's all to say that we're trying to continuously look at how we can be an employer of choice.

Okay. So from a standpoint of just dollars and maybe Joe, this is probably back to you. Do we have an idea on what open roles are for lack of a better term saving us going into 2026?

I don't have that quantified. The one thing that I'll say is we had when we put together the budget on the payroll side, we had about only 40% of vacancies that we had from the previous year. The one thing that I did notice was kind of it was kind of a citywide deal was that there was definitely turnover that was shown we could tell from very senior employees that have been here for a number of years. And so that were filled with some folks that didn't have as much experience. So when we're putting together our budget, we're looking at what those salaries are and what they're going to be the next year.

So our base lowered a little bit as we went into 2026. So there was a savings when it came to that turnover. We are just as a reminder, we do budget 100% of our positions that are approved in the B-sixteen for the permanent positions. The one thing that we that's a little different on the projection side is that we do when we're looking at kind of like full cash flow in the projection, we do anticipate that we'll have about 1.5% unspent personnel. So that's why there's slight differences when we talk about projection versus budget, but our budget is 100% budgeted for full personnel.

But we do, we do we don't budget like at the top of the range. We usually budget it somewhere between the min and the mid unless that position is filled then we know what those base salaries are.

I guess and this isn't a motion but more of a comment. It's just my sense is that as we have positions that are open for an extended period of time and I'm confident that the directors and staff do this. But it's one of those things where I in in my work is that if you have a role that's been open for three, six months, you start to evaluate whether or not you need the role or whether or not that work has probably been divided up amongst other team members and do we need do we need that human being. So I guess that would be my that would be my ask to to the team and to the directors is just to continue to take hard looks at that because it, you know, in in my world, there's a there's a kind of a corny expression that shavings make a pile. And what I mean by that is that if you can save incremental dollars along the way, it helps us, you know, continue to fill in gaps as we go into, you know, as we go into future years.

So if there's roles out there that that we're getting by on and we're meeting expectations to the public and our bosses, I would just encourage all of encourage the directors to take a strong look at whether or not those roles really need to be filled going forward.

The one thing the one the only one thing I'll say related to that is when we put together the FMP before the '25 budget, that was one of the things that we did. We looked at the positions that have been open for a while and there were some positions that were eliminated because of that. But as you may recall from the future or the most recent projection, in the future we still have a gap to deal with and so we will be looking at that again.

Very good. Are there any other questions for Tony or Joe before I open it up for any amendments from the committee? Alderman Van Trieste, thank you for joining us this evening. So if you have any questions, please let us know. Alright. So seeing no questions, we'll keep things moving along. Are there any amendments from the finance committee this evening? Alderman Lemke.

I understand that we are having a little bit of difficulty finding great employees and the employees we have are doing a great job. So this comment is not reflective on on your performance. This reflect that this motion I'm going to make is re is reflective on my personal views of how the rest non governmental employees are working. And I appreciate the the increased health care that you're gonna be asked to contribute. I personally in the small business world, most small business people don't provide any health care because it's too expensive.

My personal is on $8,500 per my deductible is $9,000 and my payment for my wife is $850 a month for a $9,000 deductible on Obamacare. There is no health care paid by my business or a lot of people in my industry. And thank god I just got on Medicare last year so that I didn't have to pay that 8,500 I mean, 80 $850 a month for myself. So in my business and most small businesses that that I know, it's hard to give a raise. Everybody deserves one.

We had in the budget a three and a half percent increase in wages, and I talked with Tony at great length. And I'm gonna make a motion to 3%, that extra half a percent. It's tied out there for everybody in government and not in government, and that would be my motion. And and that's why.

Is mode motion would be to to just cap the top I guess cap the top tier to 3% increase? That's correct. Okay. I'm going to second that because I think it's worthy of discussion and I do have some comments. But before I turn it over to the finance committee, want to give Joe because I know that Joe and Tony will have some have some comments around that as well. So I'll defer to Tony and Joe to respond to the motion then certainly bring it back to the committee if anybody has any questions or comments on it.

So the other thing I want to mention is the impact. It does hit a number of funds in our operating budget. It's a total impact of $65,526 The general fund impact is $57,264 Tony, I don't know if you have any discussion you'd like to add.

Yes, I I would. So the thing that I would say is that there are different employment groups. And when we're thinking about this, there is the fire union, which is we've settled the contract, executed it. That's three and a half percent. And then also, we have a TA, tentative agreement with police union, and that has not gotten to the council yet.

However, that is very similar in terms of the dollars that would be allocated for that employment group. And then what we're also talking about is a third group, which is people that are within nonrepresented employees that were in the steps. And the step is anywhere between 3.6% to 4% from step to step. So what we're talking about is a group of employees who are in open range and they are longer 10 tenured employees or employees who have degree of specialty or experience that they're in the open range. So those individuals provide a lot of expertise, a lot of technical skills, and a lot of abilities that are important to us conducting the day to day operations of the city.

So I hope the committee just takes that into consideration as they're thinking about the motion that's on the floor.

Thank you gentlemen. And I just so I have the number right, Joe, the general fund impact on what we're voting on tonight would be the 57,264.

That's correct.

That if this item passes, it would lower the amount that we're asking for counsel by that amount,

correct?

That's correct.

I'll bring it. So I'll make a comment on this. I talked to Tony about this very item in the last couple of days and I know it's not a lot of money. It's $57,000 and I agree with Alderman Lemke. It's not a reflection on the work that the staff does.

However, given how transparent we've been with our bosses around the financial challenges that we're facing and the fact that we went went as far as implementing the garbage fee. I just think that it's it's appropriate. I think it's an appropriate indication, appropriate message to send our bosses that we are looking at shavings because shavings do make a pile. And I still think that, you know, a 3% raise is in line with I mean, you you can never say it's in line with what you're gonna get at your job because everyone's job is different. Right?

You know, you some some of us sitting up here are retired, some us are self employed, some of us work for big companies, small companies, and our raises are gonna be all over the board. So it's it's really not a fair comparison to say what what we're gonna get in our particular job. But we're at the end of the day, we're responsible for the workforce that ultimately reports to us. And I just think it's an appropriate indication to send to the people that we work for that we're looking at this and that 3% on the top end is still, you know, given you know, given everything that given the challenges that we're facing is still a fair a fair raise in my opinion. So with that, I'll certainly open it up to any members of the committee that have any comments or questions. Alderperson Wignersen.

I already have some prepared remarks, but I just wanna say, no. I'm not in favor of it. These are the people that show up every day, work hard, and keep the city running smoothly just like our representative employees. The representative position the representative positions already receive a three and a half percent annual increase based on the contracts we've negotiated. And to provide anything less to our nonrepresented employees sends the wrong message.

It suggests that their work is somehow less valuable, and that simply isn't true. Despite what we're saying here today, at the end of the day, when you're taking away a raise that is fair to everyone else except for them as being nonrepresented, you're telling them their work isn't valuable. Many of these employees are in leadership, their administrative, and supportive roles that directly impact the service delivery and city performance. They deserve to be recognized fairly for their contributions. In a time when recruitment and retention are already challenging, as was already indicated in the last several years by our city administrator stating so, lowering their merit increase could lead to higher turnover and reduced morale, both of which ultimately cost the city more in the long run.

Fairness matters. And of course, my little here, I'm trying to make a point. Okay. Fairness matters. Consistency matters. If we want to maintain a strong motivated workforce, we need to treat all of our employees equitably, and I will not support that amendment. And if it goes to counsel, I'm gonna speak against it there too.

Alright. Very good. Alderperson Molson.

I also am gonna vote no. I think it's an arbitrary second guessing of staff. And if you wanted to talk about personnel salaries, I think we should have done it earlier in the process when we're at the planning stage or at the workshop stage. Thank you.

Very good. Aldeperson Heldensleben.

Yes I will also echo the previous two comments and say that I will be unsupportive of this amendment tonight. Tony just mentioned the turnover rate has increased significantly recently. While it is getting a little bit better, I don't think that responding to this by limiting the cost of living increases is the way to resolve this issue. We're not a small business. We are a large city with a large workforce with many full time employees that do have employer sponsored health care.

So while I appreciate the way that Alderman Lemke has run his small business, and I'm sure that it's been very successful, it's important to remember that we are not competing for employees exclusively with small businesses or part time employees, but also large private sector businesses and or other municipalities that do provide health care. It is vital that we remain an employer that offers competitive compensation and fair compensation. And when we think back at the presentations that we've gotten from both Joe and Tony over this process regarding the rising consumer price index and increased health care costs, I don't see why a 3.5% potential increase by the way. I think that's really something we should clarify here. It's not a guaranteed increase, it's a potential increase based on merit.

So I don't think that that's unreasonable especially when we consider that we do have employees that will still be eligible for that 3.5. I don't think that we should be considering that some should be eligible and some shouldn't. So I do agree with Alderson Wigerson on that issue as well. So again, I'll be voting no on this amendment tonight.

Okay. Very good. Alderman Lemke.

I I just wanted to say, and again, it's nothing to do with employees and pay. Our city, Waukesha County, has a median two family income. Median means half are below, half are above $88,000 per year. So we're asking half of our population to pay the taxes with a median two family income of $88,000 or lower. The other half are making more.

Maybe they can afford a little more taxes. But the reason I'm making the amendment at 3% is to the entire city, especially those at lower income, feel that they're getting a fair shake from their city employees. Thank you. So I'm in favor of the 3%. I understand both sides. That's where I'm at.

Alright. Any so we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion on the on the amendment? Alright. So we'll do a voice vote. All those in favor of the amendment sign aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay. Nay.

Alright. That amendment does fail by three to two. Other amendments from the committee this evening? No. Alright. So what I'll do, I will make a motion that we recommend to the full city council to adopt the 2026 operating budget as presented with a general fund with a total general fund budget of 84,127,448. That's my motion. Is there a second? Second by

I'll second.

Second by alderperson Helbenslaben. This is this is a very good budget and I know we had a a very brief discussion around a proposed amendment tonight, but overall, this is a a very good budget. And I appreciate the work not only of this committee and the aldermen that have joined us throughout the process, but certainly Joe, Tony, and all the directors and the teams that put this budget together and spent a couple of evenings with us and the finance committee answering big questions and a lot of small ones to get us to this point this evening. So as we do every year, it doesn't and it's never as we do every year, we really truly thank all the time that goes into this because we know that granted we have five, six meetings on this, but this process starts in June, May for all of you and it culminates here around Halloween. So I really do appreciate it.

So we have a motion and a second to recommend the council the budget that's been presented this evening without any amendments at the eighty four million one hundred and twenty seven thousand four hundred and forty eight dollar level. Is there any other comments or questions from the committee this evening? Alright. Let's vote. All those in favor of the budget or recommending the budget to council say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Great. That budget or the recommendation passes unanimously. So that'll be taken up at our first meeting of the common council in November. Any communications, mister Shiro?

Outside of our budget public budget hearing or our budget public hearing on the November 4, The next finance committee meeting is scheduled for November 11.

Great. Any referrals from the committee? Any objection to adjourning? Alright. Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you very much, folks. Have a great evening.

Thank you.