[0:00] chambers for the human resources committee meeting. We are calling the

[0:03] meeting to order. Item two is to review the monthly activities of the human

[0:07] resources department and we have an attached monthly summary.

[0:12] » Mr. Hartman. >> Yeah, I guess uh with the summary

[0:16] provided um if anybody had questions on the summary, I'll entertain those

[0:21] questions at this time. Otherwise, if it was self-explanatory, I'm I'm fine

[0:26] moving along as well. question.

[0:32] All right. I just have one comment. Um, we have an open position for the

[0:38] director of community development uh through September 18th. So, if there's

[0:44] anybody who qualifies, the city has that posted on our website. Also, just wanted

[0:48] to say thanks to Kyle for being with the city for seven years. and I am sad that

[0:55] he has the opportunity to move forward and continue his career with a different

[1:01] organization. So, thank you, Kyle, and I hope you do well in your next position.

[1:08] Item three is to discuss and consider approval for the cost of wage living

[1:12] adjustment for non-represented employees of the city effective January 1st, 2027.

[1:18] That's referral two.

[1:23] This is kind of my referral. Um, this is two of two. I have another referral just

[1:29] after this. Um, Ryan kind of put this in order as the number one, which I don't

[1:34] oppose. Um, this is just to bring up and discuss cost of living adjustment for

[1:39] 2027. Um, we all know the history um, and kind

[1:44] of where we're at with this year. Um this is just to um or the referral

[1:51] reflects the three and a half uh% cost of living adjustment that all the

[1:56] represented um units are getting this year. So mirroring our internal

[2:00] comparables and then it looks at remaining competitive for uh recruitment

[2:06] and retention needs for not just the fire department or police department but

[2:11] um our city as a whole. Um I think I sometimes reflect on um what the cost of

[2:18] recruiting and retaining our current employees and when you look at some of

[2:24] the competitive nature um of different external comparables including Wood

[2:29] County um Stevens Point, Marshfield, Portage County, a lot of them over the

[2:37] last few years have received four and 6% um in different capacities. Uh in 2026

[2:44] um it was a 0% for cost of living adjustment and um over the span of three

[2:51] years um if this is not acted upon it would be 2 and a half% in total for

[2:57] those three years and our internal comparable of our bargaining groups

[3:01] received 11%.

[3:07] I think it just kind of remains competitive within our market and our

[3:11] comparables and gets to a lot of the retention issues. um talking to a lot of

[3:16] different employees around um the city uh through this past year. I think that

[3:22] was one of the resounding um messages that I heard without using any names was

[3:27] um we considered our cost of living um increases for our non-represented groups

[3:35] at the end of budget discussions. And it's my hope that we can bring and shed

[3:40] light to this at the beginning of those discussions. Uh, so we put our people um

[3:46] forward because they're the ones that are out there serving our community um

[3:49] asking us or asking them to do that job every day.

[3:55] » Thank you. >> Go ahead, Ryan.

[3:58] » Uh and just um for surrounding nearby communities, um

[4:05] last year they a couple of them were at a two and a 365. This year they're

[4:11] looking at a two and a 313 in two nearby municipalities. So that's

[4:18] their projections at this point just for information along with what

[4:24] Ben said. Thanks

[4:28] » questions. Go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you, madam chairperson. Uh

[4:36] Ryan, uh how did you come up with the three and a half%

[4:42] Uh, great question, Dennis. I did not. This is uh, Chief Goodose.

[4:47] » That's your recommendation. >> So, I took the three and a half% because

[4:51] it was uh, it closely mirrored um, our external comparables, but also internal

[4:56] comparables for represented units. Um, bargained a 3 and a.5% wage increase for

[5:02] next year for the cost of living. >> You must been looking a lot with your

[5:07] union contract then. >> Stay in line with the Yep. And and it's

[5:10] as we know the represented [clears throat] group um represents what

[5:14] would it be Ryan? It's not half of our employee.

[5:19] » Okay. >> Two.

[5:23] » Okay. >> So almost almost half of the employees

[5:27] represent they are represented employees and then non-represent.

[5:30] » Well, if if if it would drop down to 3%, what would that do? Would it throw you

[5:35] way off guilt or? So that kind of gets to the next um referral that I have is

[5:40] the compression. So if we continue to be outpaced by our internal comparables,

[5:44] we'll continue to need to come back with other referrals trying to catch back up

[5:48] and stay ahead of our internal comparables.

[5:52] » Okay.

[5:56] So, if I'm reading this right, um the

[6:04] hourly employees, I guess, uh they had an 11% over three years.

[6:10] » So, yeah, they bargained over the last three years, which includes next year as

[6:14] well. Okay. Um their bargained total percentage of cost of living adjustment

[6:20] is 11%. >> Okay. And the nonrepresentative

[6:24] employees, what did they get the last say in 2025?

[6:29] This year they did get a a bonus, right? >> A bonus. But then, you know, January 1,

[6:34] then that that cost of living bonus uh is essentially gone. It's evaporated.

[6:39] So, it's just a one-time payment for that calendar year. Uh last year, 2025,

[6:44] was 2 and a half% for that group. And then that's why the referral is kind of

[6:49] coming forward to discuss for what we anticipate seeing for colo for 2027.

[6:55] » Okay. So again um the representative employees got three or three and a half

[7:05] and three and a half >> I think it's four three and a half three

[7:07] and a half I believe unless somebody Okay.

[7:10] » Okay. So end of 26 it would be a total of seven and a half% from 2020

[7:17] » at the end of this year so far. But they've already negotiated their 2027

[7:22] contracts. We already know that they anticipate well not anticipate that's

[7:26] probably the wrong word. They will receive three and a half%.

[7:30] » Okay. Okay. And the two and a half% bonus that they got

[7:36] this year that goes away. I mean, so they're back

[7:40] to what they ended with in 2025. >> Yeah. So, we're essential that that

[7:45] group would be essentially working on the same wage that they received January

[7:49] 1 of 2025 still, >> right? Other than any class or any

[7:55] time period. >> Yep. Step or grades steps.

[7:59] » Yep. And and again, I think that's an important uh concept to understand or

[8:03] remember too is COLA is not about the individual. It's about keeping pace with

[8:07] the market. And that's what we're kind of doing here. Step recognizes the

[8:11] individual moving through their career um kind of gaining experience and

[8:15] growing in that job. >> Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[8:22] » I'm happy that Tim Dorsy came today because this is very budget

[8:29] contingent on if we can even consider putting in a cola. And I know the budget

[8:38] process has started. So, have the departments worked in already a COLA of

[8:44] some sort? >> No. Typically what we do is if if like

[8:48] if there's not a like a settled contract or a COLA has not been determined for

[8:53] the non-representative, we uh compile our budgets based on, you know, the

[8:58] current rate. And then what I do is I go through and I'll put in contingency and

[9:03] amount for for those for those COLA adjustments.

[9:08] Okay. And do we have

[9:12] if we [clears throat] we have to take from somewhere to

[9:16] provide a cost of living adjustment for our employees.

[9:20] And normally when we take from the places that we we can legally take from

[9:24] for budgeting purposes, that means we need to then bond more when it comes to

[9:30] our street construction projects because we can't take out money for operations.

[9:35] » Correct. Yeah. Typically, I wouldn't recommend you that you borrow money for

[9:38] ongoing operations because once you do it, you're going to continue to do that

[9:41] and then what happens with the next year's COLA and stuff like that. So

[9:44] usually, you know, your operating expenses, you try to live within what

[9:50] your estimated revenues are going to be or you look for additional revenue

[9:54] sources to cover those those incremental increases in expenditures. You know, and

[9:58] that's really what the issue with our budget is year-over-year is that the

[10:03] incremental expenditures far exceed what our incremental revenues because, you

[10:09] know, when you look at, you know, just with the property tax, we're limited in

[10:13] what we can raise on that. We're limited by what types of fees we can establish,

[10:18] you know, because there's certain fees that fall under the levy limit. So, if

[10:22] you establish like I know we [clears throat] discussed it last year

[10:25] was a garbage collection fee. If you were to establish that, you have to look

[10:29] at what you budgeted levied for for garbage collection in 2014 and you have

[10:34] to subtract that off your levy. So, you're limited going forward. Any

[10:38] increases you're allowed to do, but you know, you have to make adjustments for

[10:42] that. I mean, we were fortunate with our storm water utility fee that we

[10:45] established that before they um changed the levy limits and included that fee

[10:50] under the levy limits. >> Okay. Um I I should also say that you

[10:55] know a cola is not factored in but any step increases that the non-reps are

[11:00] entitled to are factored into the wages and benefits. So um I think about what

[11:06] 75% of the non-reps usually have a step a one and a half% step increase whether

[11:11] it's January one or July one depending on when they're you know anniversaries

[11:16] or what you know what step they're in.

[11:21] » Okay. And we have we have another referral that we haven't

[11:26] made all the way through yet, which is the polar opposite of this referral to

[11:30] either hold step increases or hold cola or both to make sure that we have a nice

[11:39] level budget. And when we had talked about that, we determined that we would

[11:44] talk about it with property and finance. But now we have this one. So,

[11:51] I'm not opposed to a cost of living adjustment. I think

[11:56] it's important for our employees. It's just very difficult to do when our

[12:04] revenue isn't increasing at the same pace that

[12:08] our cost of living is.

[12:13] So, what what would the budget look like if we did a 3.5 cost of living

[12:18] adjustment for non-representative positions?

[12:21] » Um, a three and a half% for non-reps. It would be about $378,000.

[12:28] Now, that all doesn't come out, you know, because that's spread amongst

[12:32] like, you know, the wastewater utility, you know, our construction projects. Um

[12:37] the I would say the tax levy impact of that would be right around

[12:45] change right around 300,000.

[13:01] Let me go to my different one here. the um supplemental aid

[13:09] portion that the city receives that varies and

[13:15] projected to go up annually. Is that correct or

[13:20] » Right. Yeah. Um the the shared revenue which includes our shared revenue and

[13:26] our supplemental aid is tied to the sales tax. So they carve out a basically

[13:31] a penny of the sales tax and whatever that increases year-over-year they

[13:36] increase that shared revenue which was a really good thing because for many of

[13:40] years that shared revenue was frozen. So I have not gotten any estimates as to

[13:46] what that's going to be this year. I think last year was like about two and a

[13:49] half% approximately. So, you know, right now I'm pretty much done with my revenue

[13:54] projections and I just got to kind of plug them into my my spreadsheets, kind

[13:59] of determine where we're at right now. I got the expenditure side done and you

[14:03] know, and I'll probably factor in some type of shared revenue, but those

[14:07] estimates will be coming out probably midmon here. And then we have our

[14:11] general transportation aids which come out uh towards the end of September. And

[14:19] that's based on a on an expenditure formula six-year average of expenditures

[14:24] in qualifying uh uh public works types um activities.

[14:37] Thank you. Uh Tim, if uh three and a half uh%

[14:44] would equal 278,000, what would 3%

[14:48] But what did you have those figures? >> I'll be here somewhere.

[15:39] It' be about 323,000.

[16:02] Have we ever asked for our departments to account for their cost of living

[16:05] increases in their department budgets? Like if we implement a 3.5%,

[16:11] let's just make it a goal here. If we go 4%, we implement a 4% cost of living

[16:15] adjustment. Have we ever asked departments to then

[16:21] account for that in their other expenses?

[16:25] » Oh, so you're saying like, okay, assuming a a 4% but keep your budget

[16:30] flat. Is that what you're kind of >> Yeah.

[16:32] » alluding to? Uh, [snorts] not that I can recall.

[16:36] » Do you think it's possible? Um,

[16:40] I mean, anything's possible. The problem is is that, you know, all departmental

[16:45] budgets are different. You know, you know, you could take a lot of the some

[16:50] of the departmental budgets and they're locked into certain things, you know,

[16:54] like, you know, like like software maintenance fees. I mean, you don't

[16:58] really have any control. I mean a lot of times the discretionary you know between

[17:03] you take out wages and benefits and you take out let's say utilities and

[17:07] [clears throat] you know software maintenance fees any professional type

[17:10] fees that you're kind of obligated to you know a lot of times and especially

[17:15] in the smaller departments uh you're kind of left with

[17:20] pretty small stuff like office supplies and like I I I'll just use my uh budget

[17:26] for an example is you know he wages benefits. If you take off that, you take

[17:32] off, you know, our our financial software maintenance fees, take off the

[17:38] financial audit and things like that, I'm I'm really left with training,

[17:41] education, you know, we're still going to have telephones, you know, office

[17:45] supplies. So, you know, all budgets are different, right?

[17:49] » And so, it's it's, you know, when you say across the board, sometimes it's not

[17:55] always equitable, >> okay,

[17:56] » based on the nature of the budget. Yeah, I feel like we we also run into the

[18:00] problem where we have some departments that carry the weight of our budget cuts

[18:03] and I appreciate that, but I feel like if

[18:10] this is the point where that we're in is that we either don't do a cola or we

[18:16] really need everybody to be as diligent as they can be trying to make their

[18:22] budget flat when it's possible or being creative on ways to increase the

[18:27] revenue. Um, I don't know why this one just plunked into my head, but I'm pick

[18:31] on Chief Host here for a second. If if we were to look at ways to ensure that

[18:38] we are capturing all we can for fines, if somebody calls in a loose animal and

[18:43] we find the location of that animal, do we check to see if they're registered

[18:47] with the city? And if they're not, they need to be registered with the city.

[18:50] guarantee there are people out there that don't have their dogs or cats

[18:54] registered, which then we can collect on if that comes up, which is additional

[18:59] revenue that we didn't have in our budget previously that we could try to

[19:03] capture, right? >> Yes, we're already doing that. Um,

[19:08] [laughter] but you know, the the hard part is is

[19:13] getting people to pay their fines. So, >> um,

[19:19] and you know, overall, as as when when you,

[19:24] uh, are talking about the police department, um, you know, obviously we

[19:29] don't have quotas. So, we're not going to go out and write tickets just to just

[19:33] for t just for revenue. uh you know we uh

[19:39] you know we use discretion in uh all aspects whether it's traffic or

[19:45] uh code enforcement or things like that where you know if it's the first time

[19:49] we've uh you know we've dealt with an individual and you know their dog isn't

[19:55] registered uh we want to provide them with that education and this is how you

[19:59] register the dog and then you know the next time that we deal with them then

[20:04] you know, maybe they're going to get a a citation for that. Um, we don't go out

[20:08] there with the intent that we're, you know, every case that we deal with,

[20:12] we're going to cite somebody. >> Yeah. Nor do I want you patrolling the

[20:15] neighborhoods checking addresses and dogs and cats that are registered and

[20:18] not registered. So, I I appreciate that.

[20:25] Any other comments?

[20:30] Would it be a giant hassle to consider a 3.5 cost of

[20:37] living wage adjustment in the overall budget and then without it to see them

[20:42] both so that we know what we're looking at. I don't want to blindly make a

[20:47] motion that locks us into 3.5% and then increases our debt. But I also I think

[20:55] it will make our departments a little more diligent maybe on accounting for

[21:02] that if they if we know that it may or may not be there.

[21:08] » Does that Yeah, sure. I mean like I said the the departments the way they're

[21:12] compiled right now is are based on would be you know current rate would be the

[21:17] 2025 rates and then like I said I I calculate so I'll know what that

[21:23] additional cost is and what revenue source it's it's proposed to be funded

[21:28] by. So that'll be fairly easy to isolate because like I said, I always try to

[21:34] estimate amount and I'll estimate in a three and a half and put that into

[21:36] contingency and that'll be part of the the initial budget document. I think

[21:41] once uh um once I have a better picture of the overall budget, which will be in

[21:47] the next couple days, like I said, I got pretty much everything calculated out.

[21:50] It's just a matter of putting it into the spreadsheet. Um I'll I'll know

[21:55] exactly where we stand. Um, also that I have to factor in is a uh increase in

[22:02] the health insurance premiums that will be coming.

[22:06] » Okay. And then the budget comes back to property and finance.

[22:12] » Yes. I was just going to say that I feel like that should be where this belongs,

[22:15] but I think at some point, you know, when we do the budget

[22:18] discussions as a council, that needs to be added in there. And I think what

[22:23] Tim's going to do here by bringing that three and a half% in there so we can

[22:25] look at it will be helpful for everybody to see. But I think it's it's a broader

[22:29] discussion. I don't think we can make a decision tonight on that myself.

[22:33] Yeah, our normal is three or two and a half% what we typically

[22:40] » uh and maybe Tim can speak to more of the history, but in the 20 years that

[22:44] I've been here, usually the bargaining group uh and the non-bargaining group

[22:49] have an a similar if not equal cost of living adjustment.

[22:54] » Okay. So 3 >> mirrors the other kind of

[22:58] » 3.5% would mirror I think a couple of not last year when we didn't do a cola

[23:05] but the year before we did two and a half% due to budget restrictions. Okay.

[23:11] Okay. And that's where we started our problems. So

[23:16] I >> I am supportive. Go ahead.

[23:20] » I just want to make one statement and I'm fine with what what Mr. Tim said

[23:26] um by not how do I say this in looking at the next

[23:32] two agenda items both chiefs wrote in there

[23:37] this is a recommendation based on a I think they worded it as a meaningful

[23:43] cola for 2027 or something along those lines right so I do think that somewhat

[23:50] plays into it because playing devil's advocate it

[23:55] if there is a cola across the board for non-refs

[23:59] it does somewhat help to alleviate

[24:05] the severe compression that we are about to embark upon January 1st. So while

[24:15] I guess I'm not saying one way or the other what we have what I suggest you

[24:18] do. I'm just saying I think we should keep it in mind that I think while the

[24:23] cola is its own thing, it does affect the next couple agenda items or the

[24:28] remaining agenda items how that plays going forward. So if we don't touch any

[24:35] thing with cola tonight, but then we make a decision not based on the cola

[24:40] but on say option I don't there's four different ones out there, right? Or six.

[24:45] take that definitive decision tonight for that. But then all of a sudden the

[24:50] cola comes back into play. Then we're we could be looking more out of whack one

[24:56] way or the other. So for the I mean for the good for some but not what was. So

[25:02] it just that's my two cents if that makes any sense. What?

[25:06] » Yes, it does. >> Okay. Thank you.

[25:08] » I I think this will all come out when we get to the next referrals and you'll

[25:13] have a better understanding later. Thank you. So, I do think that human resources

[25:19] plays a part in determining if we do a cola, but it plays well into property

[25:25] and finance because it is it is a budget decision. From a human resources

[25:29] perspective, I am supportive of recommending that we attempt to budget

[25:36] for a 3.5% cost of living increase, but know that

[25:42] it is not a demand that that will be included with the budget. Just our

[25:47] option should be included to have a 3.5% cost of living adjustment and our

[25:52] department should do their best to try to be as flat as they can when when

[25:56] able. Yeah, I'm okay with that.

[26:02] » Do we need an official motion for Tim to move forward with 3.5%.

[26:09] » I don't I don't know if you can if you want. I mean, obviously I will factor in

[26:13] a three and a half% and present that as part of the budget

[26:18] document. >> Perfect. Thank you.

[26:23] » All right. No official action on that one, but more conversation to come via

[26:28] property and finance. Item four, discuss referral from fire

[26:33] chief GDRO to address the salary compression with the fire department and

[26:37] that is referral one. >> Thanks. Yeah. Uh referral one of two. Um

[26:45] let me start by saying that this is the first time we've used section 9 uh

[26:49] subsection C. Um that was that pathway that we created uh in this committee

[26:54] earlier and then got approved last month at council. Um I appreciate the work a

[26:59] lot of you did including Ryan um and committee chair Palmquist um building it

[27:05] because obviously it gets to exactly um what we've been asking and in relief

[27:10] mechanisms for that. So here's the issue kind of in plain terms in front of you.

[27:14] Um there's wage separation in our command structure. It's kind of eroded

[27:19] the point where a battalian chief in one instance is sitting within about 1% of

[27:23] the lieutenant he supervises. Um in a couple of spots there's supervisors that

[27:28] are actually projected to fall below the person that is reporting to them. Um so

[27:33] that's an inversion obviously a real problem that we're looking to address.

[27:38] um anyone deciding to step into those positions or looking to retain that

[27:43] position um is jeopardized because of that um compression that's occurring

[27:48] over at the fire department. So this referral corrects that by moving three

[27:53] identified classifications um of individuals um within that compression

[27:58] or inversion projection um up two steps uh kind of restoring that meaningful

[28:03] separation um which is around 5% between these ranks that is um with the

[28:10] consideration of a cola um within that. So, uh, police chief host has a very

[28:16] similar approach and we're re recommending one step now and then the

[28:20] second step to naturally occur in January, January 1, um, which it would

[28:25] be by the, um, policy as it is. So, if we get some relief in this immediately,

[28:32] there's capacity within that current salary account to cover this first step.

[28:36] Um we have been short at the fire department um this year just trying to

[28:40] fill positions and recruitment has been a challenge. Um so there's a lot of cost

[28:45] savings in not having a full staff. Taken together with the cola that we

[28:50] just discussed, these two referrals kind of solve that problem for both ends. One

[28:54] keeping our people competitive with the market, the other one repairs that

[28:57] internal structure that the 2027 gap kind of eroded. So, I'm asking the

[29:03] committee to act on the recommendation. >> Thank you.

[29:10] » Did you have a chance to review and assess the positions in question? Let's

[29:16] just stick with the or with the fire department for now, Ryan. To make sure

[29:22] that the employees we would adjust aren't on pips or is

[29:26] » Yeah, they're they're good. >> Okay. Um,

[29:31] one thing I want to add,

[29:36] uh, in l with the inversion, um, as I'm starting to do the spot

[29:43] checks for other departments, if we go that route, um, again, I think we've

[29:50] talked about this before, it's more of a philosophical decision of the committee

[29:54] and the council how to address these. Um there there's at least one other

[29:59] individual that's a lead position uh that recently became into the lead

[30:03] position and they're making $5,100 less than somebody that works underneath

[30:11] them that has been a long time in that current position. So, [clears throat]

[30:17] um I guess my my um thought to consider is are we looking at it just within

[30:25] these two or do we encourage all other departments that encounter these to come

[30:30] forward because it it like I've said before, this isn't going to be just a

[30:34] one-time occurrence. This will happen in other departments based on how the

[30:39] policy was originally written three years ago. um they go from their current

[30:45] rate up to their new grade closest to their current rate without going

[30:51] backwards plus one step. Okay, so that's anywhere from three and a half to four

[30:57] and a half% depending on where in the scale they fall below or above control

[31:03] point. Um obviously with those in the represented groups, they're continuing

[31:09] to get those increases. Um while the others non-reps aren't, they're moving

[31:15] faster. So then our individual in the other department,

[31:21] which is non-represented, well, let's be clear on that, took the position for I

[31:27] want to be the lead person. Did it according to the policy, said, "Yep,

[31:32] that's what I signed up for." and they are $2.33

[31:36] less per hour than the person that's working for them in practicality. So,

[31:43] um, again, that goes to the building. That individual's been here at the city

[31:49] 20 plus years and they've moved through the scale in that position.

[31:55] The new lead person has been at the city just a couple of years, has really shown

[32:01] some growth and initiative and knowledge and has elevated themselves to that

[32:06] position of lead, but understands he's never been in that position before of

[32:11] leading a group of employees and understood the reasoning and phil

[32:15] philosophical choice of what the current policy read as to why they landed where

[32:22] they did. and now they will continue to move forward through the program. If we

[32:27] were looking to move them ahead or keep it to scale according to these items, we

[32:34] would take somebody at I'm going to say step five or six close to control point

[32:39] for the lead position and slide them all the way down to two steps

[32:47] before the maximum for that position for the rest of their career.

[32:53] the way things are if we were to say that's what we're going to do going

[32:57] forward for non-represented situations. So, I think we just want to be cognizant

[33:02] of that of as these continue to come forward, how are we going to to treat

[33:07] these? >> Yeah, I think it depends on the category

[33:11] that they're in. So, you really can't compare somebody who's been in their

[33:16] position for 20 plus years and then somebody who's a new leader because

[33:20] they're two different job roles unless they're in the same pay scale like pay

[33:25] grouping. You have two different groupings, right?

[33:28] You've got your laborer and then you've got your laborer lead

[33:31] » and [clears throat] they're two different tracks.

[33:33] » So, obviously the person who's been on this bottom track for 20 years is going

[33:37] to be over here and the person who leads them is going to come in here. Yeah,

[33:41] » that's not the intent of what we put in place.

[33:43] » Correct. >> Because this is a different track. If if

[33:47] somebody brand new came in >> in the labor track and was here

[33:53] in front of the person who had 20 years experience, that's when we would want

[33:57] them to come forward and then bump them up one or two.

[34:00] » Okay, I agreed. I I understand that. So, in this case, our PD and firefighter

[34:07] individuals are well tenured. They've been here 20 plus years, but they're new

[34:13] in their leadership positions. Same point of what we're encountering

[34:18] here. So, they're they're essentially going,

[34:23] for lack of a better term, back they're going up in the grade, but back in the

[34:27] scale based on the way the policies written. They're still getting an

[34:30] increase, but it's not at the rate of what the PD and fire representatives are

[34:37] getting, which is creating that compression. So, I guess they're Yeah,

[34:42] they're just like the PD and fire, they're in different scales or different

[34:45] grades, but they're long tenured employees. If

[34:50] they had stayed in, and I think that's the chief's point, is had they stayed at

[34:54] lieutenant and sergeant, they'd be making just as much money as they were,

[35:00] well, minus $1,800 by taking the division chief or the lieutenants

[35:06] positions. >> So, I'm going to play devil's advocate

[35:10] on this one a little bit. We have a

[35:17] getting my you guys use the same terms for different ranks. So we've got a

[35:22] lieutenant and then a battalion chief in the fire department.

[35:24] » Yep. >> Okay. So we currently have a battalion

[35:29] chief who is N6 above a lieutenant.

[35:36] » Yep. >> Okay. app a peer uh in relative terms um

[35:41] okay >> equal time on the department one

[35:44] obviously promoted to the position one staying at lieutenant y

[35:47] » and we have an open position for a fire fighter in the fire department so you

[35:52] could have a battalion chief who says fine I'm going back to be a firefighter

[35:56] they can apply now we have an open battalion chief position so they can

[36:00] apply to that then too so they become a firefighter they get put back in their

[36:04] rank scale and then they apply to be a battalion chief chief again and now they

[36:07] get bumped up two steps. So we can either do this the easy way or we can do

[36:12] it by interviewing them for three positions, two different positions at

[36:16] different times. Right? That's the way to manipulate this

[36:20] situation to to bring them back up is for that you could have your battalion

[36:25] chief apply to be a firefighter. They go back into the wage scale. Then by our

[36:29] policy they come in one step above where they were and now they're two steps

[36:33] ahead with their correction. I I think the easier route is just to

[36:38] pragmatically follow the policy. >> Correct.

[36:41] » Go through the referral process. I I don't know that I would want to hire him

[36:44] as a firefighter anymore. >> I think he's he's better served as where

[36:48] he is right now. [clears throat] >> But we c we could go that route or we

[36:52] could just do what we put in place and consider

[36:58] that this is a reason why we put that policy in place

[37:02] » and talk about all the other ones. Bring them up. We have a meeting every month.

[37:05] » That that was my point and that's what I said is going forward we need to going

[37:08] to be have to be watching these because these won't be the only ones. I think

[37:12] that was early in my statement is we just need to be cognizant because these

[37:17] won't be the only ones. There's going to be more coming forward and I've and

[37:22] again the decision will be you know the committee and the council. Um, I'm all

[37:27] for doing it the easy way, but >> yeah, and I think that it it's all

[37:33] dependent on our situation. The same with the budgets and leaving a

[37:36] department budget flat. We can't ask all departments to do that because each

[37:40] department is a little bit different. Ideally, I would like these to go to you

[37:45] first in human resources to do an assessment to be able to come forward

[37:48] and give us a nice layout of what happened, why it happened, give us a

[37:52] good background, and then bring it forward. you obviously knew these two

[37:55] were coming because we created a policy for them. So I I see the difference

[37:59] there. >> Now to what you were saying about the

[38:02] current situation with the B the BC that's currently in there, the potential

[38:07] BC coming in a year or two due to potential retirements.

[38:12] I do agree on that realm that the current BC

[38:17] should not the new BC should not slide in ahead of the current BC. that

[38:22] philosophically is incorrect in my brain. Um,

[38:28] so to that point, I think when you were saying, well, just go be a firefighter

[38:32] and then come back, you know, ahead. No, I'm that would be a wrong and I've said

[38:36] that before philosophically. Yeah, you can't because this guy's getting his

[38:41] food now, he gets to jump in ahead. No, we need to figure something out there.

[38:46] Um, so I'm in I'm in agreement with that off instance.

[38:57] Anyone else have comments on this item?

[39:03] Okay. So, when I'm looking at page eight of 14, we've got two tables here. The

[39:10] compression and how the correction resolves it. Does this include the 3.5%?

[39:17] I'm sure it says it in the document. I just

[39:20] » No. So, this would just this would just effectively solve things through the

[39:24] normal pathway. Um I believe the we talked about that before. The

[39:28] represented for reference the represented group is getting three and a

[39:31] half% um the referral before was three and a half% as well for non-represented.

[39:38] So hopefully that kind of answers >> and we have a a separation of four and

[39:45] 5%. >> Yeah,

[39:47] » we don't have a standard anywhere for >> we don't and I kind of I tried to look

[39:51] on the national level and then other agencies public safety agencies um you

[39:58] know is between four and 7% of that meaningful separation. I guess you know

[40:04] you could probably do a little research as well. I mean Google and everything

[40:07] else, but um what is the meaningful inhuman resource? Maybe Ryan could shed

[40:12] more light on it being this is kind of his arena anyways, but

[40:17] it it varies between public sector, private sector, and public. I it's

[40:21] common to see four to seven. Um, prior to this PACE provisions policy, there

[40:29] was a clause in the policy for promotions that you would take the

[40:33] nearest position or a 5% increase, whichever of the two was greater. So,

[40:40] you would not take a promotion or grade step grade in step

[40:47] less than 5%. You would take whichever of the two was greater. Okay?

[41:00] And we've assessed the rest of the positions in this structure [snorts]

[41:07] to make sure that if this gets approved, we then don't

[41:12] have three more coming next month. >> Yeah. Not from the fair department. We

[41:15] only have six nonrepresented um employees in the fair department. So,

[41:20] um, I kind of did an analysis and then got a little Ryan's, uh, help as well

[41:24] as, um, from finance. Every everybody's salary that's in there. I purposely kind

[41:28] of left out names. So, you know, if you do know that individual, it's not like

[41:32] you're, um, treating them differently in this case. But, yeah, there was

[41:37] meaningful separation, I guess, to answer your question, with other

[41:40] positions within the fire department except for the three that I'm

[41:43] recommending um, we take action on. >> Okay.

[41:47] » And I'm in the same boat. We we we crunched all the numbers and it's just

[41:52] the two that that we're looking to adjust, I guess.

[41:58] » Okay. So, we have

[42:03] approximately $5,949 in 2026 from the fire department if we

[42:10] do this. And then our 2027

[42:18] We don't have a cost on that, but that's >> and that would naturally occur anyways

[42:23] per policy unless you chose a different route as a council, but

[42:35] » and you had mentioned that the with the current

[42:39] fire department budget the if we moved to

[42:46] approve the onestep increase immediately and then the next step increase would

[42:51] fall in line with January. We're not taking from contingency or any

[42:56] other portion of the budget to pay the $6,000.

[43:00] » Yeah, I would I would say correct only because we haven't had full staff at the

[43:05] fair department and we've had cost savings for overtime based on the

[43:08] staffing model that we do currently have. Um, but I don't want to step on

[43:11] Tim's toes when it comes to I kind of always revert to him whenever it has to

[43:16] do with money anyways, but I feel confident in that only because we

[43:20] haven't been full staff since January 1. >> Okay.

[43:29] » Any >> and then Tim, you would put that into

[43:31] the budget for next year if it's approved tonight. So, we have that going

[43:35] forward. >> Yeah. If it's approved at council,

[43:37] obviously I would adjust the >> fire department EMS budget.

[43:41] » Okay.

[43:55] » Any comments? Other comments?

[44:03] I would say obviously it helps to have this but then if we get back to no cola

[44:09] starting in next year then we're going we're back into compression. Okay.

[44:17] » [laughter]

[44:29] » And obviously if we do put in a cola, we're going to have even more of a

[44:33] separation

[44:37] than I mean that's not really a bad thing.

[44:41] » Yeah. I think the one projection I ran it would be

[44:46] » like a over $5,000 >> projection would be the separation. I

[44:51] came up with 5.233% if the immediate move were to happen

[44:58] plus a 3 and a half% cola considering

[45:04] the union 3 and a half increase. It would leave a

[45:09] 5.233 233 gap between or five and a half five and a quarter. It matched one of

[45:14] the chief's numbers they have on their document. So there would be about a five

[45:18] and a half% separation >> and that would be with

[45:24] making the decision to move the three now and let's say all goes splendidly

[45:30] and we find a bunch of revenue. We implement a 3.5% cola and then they get

[45:35] another step increase in January. So they get Okay. Then it's $5,000 a year

[45:41] separationish. A little bit more. Okay.

[45:54] So would we be acting on all four or four of the five uh recommendations

[46:01] here? Then >> if that's what we wish to do. So, we can

[46:06] we can

[46:10] choose to move them one step now, which would be a

[46:16] little over $6,000 out of our current budget.

[46:20] We and then they would naturally bump up for 2027. Or we could bump them two

[46:28] steps in 2027.

[46:33] Or we could do nothing.

[46:54] I'm comfortable making the motion to recognize the internal inequity

[47:00] assessment and recommend that the battalion chief,

[47:06] the division chief of EMS, and the deputy chief advance

[47:12] to the next step for the remainder of 2026

[47:18] and then we'll move forward from there.

[47:25] » I'll second that. >> Thank you.

[47:29] We have a motion by Palmquist, second by Perky. All those in favor? I

[47:37] » I >> I

[47:39] » have that one. 300. Okay. The next item is to discuss a

[47:44] referral from police chief hastens to address the salary compression in the

[47:48] police department. And we have a similar referral.

[47:52] » Yeah, it's uh it's quite similar. Um uh I can I'll skip over some of this

[48:00] because it's very similar to what uh Chief Goodro was talking about.

[48:05] Um

[48:08] right now we have two uh of our lieutenants that are on the lower end um

[48:17] of the of grade 16. Um they are currently

[48:24] at step seven I believe. Yeah they're currently

[48:29] at step seven. um which

[48:34] uh only puts puts him at about a 4% uh gap which is a compression over all of

[48:41] the sergeants. All the sergeants make the same wage. Uh there's no uh

[48:46] difference in longevity or anything like that. The

[48:50] only difference is uh shift differential, but the lieutenants get

[48:53] that as well. Um [snorts] so if

[48:59] we only bump those two uh lieutenants up to the next step which would be step

[49:05] eight in uh grade uh 16. Uh that would move that percentage gap to 5 and a

[49:13] half% uh for the remainder of 2026.

[49:18] Um but again similar to uh Chief Goodro um if there is no uh cost of living

[49:27] increase next year then we're we are going to be back here uh discussing this

[49:33] again. Um,

[49:39] I mean, I guess my my recommendation to make long story short here would be to

[49:46] uh move at a minimum to move these two lieutenants to step eight for the

[49:50] remainder of 2026. And um the costs of that is very minimal

[49:57] and uh can will come right out of our budget uh similar to the the fire

[50:03] department. So um there's not a lot of difference there.

[50:10] So and especially for the rest of the year here. So

[50:15] I have a similar question just to make sure that I'm still sane and able to do

[50:20] a little bit of math. If we move them to a step eight now

[50:25] » and all go splendidly, they get a three and a half percent cola

[50:30] » and then in 2027 they would move to step nine.

[50:33] » Correct. >> They are still at a 5% difference. We're

[50:38] not >> shooting them up into 10% difference by

[50:42] making this change. >> Correct. Okay.

[50:52] I'll make a motion to uh move the two lieutenants to step eight currently or

[50:58] immediately.

[51:03] » Great. Motion by FKY, second by Pollock. All those in favor?

[51:09] » I >> I

[51:10] » I just have that one. 30. Okay. Item six. Thank you for your

[51:17] patience, Paul. To discuss and cons to discuss and consider for approval a

[51:22] request to increase the shift pay rate differential for non-representative

[51:27] non-public safety employees attached referral,

[51:33] please. Well, this was actually turned in a year

[51:37] and a half ago, but then we rescended it when we went um

[51:42] through the budget and we got cut um through the budget process or whatever.

[51:47] So, um but so some of these numbers may not be correct. Um but we have uh four

[51:54] works or three staff members that work 12 months out of the year. The second

[51:59] shift, they work 2 to 10. Um and I've been here for 18 years. This was part of

[52:05] the union contract and then in 2010 it got pulled out of the union contract

[52:10] when our union was dissolved and then was adopted by um

[52:17] as a city policy. Um so this 30 cents and 40 cents has been in place for at

[52:22] least 18 years. Um could be longer cuz I'm not aware of that prior to that. Um,

[52:29] so what it entails is is again we have three people that work 2 to 10 Monday

[52:35] through Thursday and then 9 to5 on Friday. And then we also have um

[52:43] one staff member or three additional staff member that will work those uh the

[52:47] third shift hours through the summer months, whether it be sweeping in the

[52:50] downtown area and coming in and painting um the highways and things like that.

[52:56] Um, as you can see in the comparables, uh, Wasau, Stevens Point, Marshfield,

[53:03] and Wood County Highway are all substantially higher for the second and

[53:08] third shift. Um, with, uh, Wasau being or sorry, Marshfield being the close at

[53:14] a dollar and a$1.50 and Wood County Highway being the

[53:19] highest at $256 an hour.

[53:23] Um again, [snorts] um I understand we're under budget

[53:28] constraints and things like that, but I feel that there's a need. Uh we

[53:32] currently, uh have the second shift mechanic that has been vacant since May,

[53:38] and we've had one qualified candidate apply since May, and the person chose

[53:45] not to accept the position. Um, so, uh, goes to the recruiting piece of it. You

[53:51] know, again, uh, I believe when the wage study

[53:56] originally came out, um, our starting wage used to be $27 an hour and now it's

[54:03] I think 2530 an hour. Um, so our our work group was cut back then and um,

[54:10] that's kind of reflected in these pay rates as well.

[54:17] questions.

[54:23] » The starting rate in the street department now is 2306.

[54:29] Um, and I did verify those numbers uh listed from Stevens Point and Marshfield

[54:36] are accurate as of this year.

[54:42] So Ryan, how would uh our starting wage rate for mechanics um working all three

[54:52] shifts? Well, actually just first shift compared with the other municipalities.

[55:02] » I'm trying to find it, Mr. Flie. Hold on one second.

[55:10] If I recall with the city of Marshfield, that's the one that pops in my head and

[55:14] I work with most frequently. And then Stephen's point, we're it we're within

[55:19] range. Um, for the most part, that being said, we

[55:26] typically start lower with the the new scale that was implemented three years

[55:32] ago. um to what Paul alluded to, if we were

[55:36] at 25 or $27 an hour, you know, back then and we did this to elongate the

[55:43] scale, you came in at 2306 and then in 6 months as it is today, you got an

[55:49] increase of 3%. And then after another 6 months, so your one year is now up, you

[55:54] got another 3%. So, you're going to go from

[56:00] for a mechanic, you're going from at the very beginning if you have no experience

[56:04] and I just got my uh diesel degree from Midstate, but I've never been a mechanic

[56:12] before. So, you're starting at step one. Coming in at 2746,

[56:16] 6 months, 28.42. At one year, I'm going to 2939.

[56:22] So, you've gone up approximately uh three 2 thou $4,000 in a year. That's

[56:31] growing faster to get you to the control point. From there, you go a year and a

[56:35] half. Where we're within range is typically from two steps before control

[56:40] point through uh on here it would be listed as like

[56:46] step 11. um the 9 and a half years in the

[56:51] position mark that's where we're basically within range. So when I talk

[56:56] about we're within range we have so many step or a lot more steps to be able to

[57:01] do this whereas Marshfield has less steps um but they have a higher far end

[57:08] and a higher back end but the control point is typically right in in range.

[57:14] Steven's point is the same. So, okay. But I would I mean for recruiting

[57:20] purposes, yeah, if they're looking at Now, the policy also says Paul can um

[57:26] find somebody. He finds a mechanic and says, "Yeah, I can get them for he can

[57:30] go to step three under his authority. He can go to step three. This guy is coming

[57:36] from a dealership. He knows his stuff." And Paul thinks I can get him, but he he

[57:41] he's taking a pay cut to come here. Can I get him to here?

[57:46] Paul and I then have the ability to get him to control point to be like, "Yeah,

[57:49] he's been a mechanic wherever at 10 years. His references check out great.

[57:54] We want him. He can come in at control point." We typically don't do that. Um

[57:59] because we want to make sure we have who we think we're getting. We do our best

[58:04] to do that. There have been instances where we bring them in at control point.

[58:08] Um otherwise they might come in at at step four or five and then they migrate

[58:13] through the process to get the control. >> Okay. And so when we post for a position

[58:20] for a mechanic, you're posting specifically for a second

[58:26] shift or is it just the bottom of the totem pole gets second shift?

[58:33] » It's posted for second shift >> because that's where our vacancy is

[58:36] right now. Okay. Um, so working

[58:42] in a prior occupation, uh, there were individuals that wanted to work second

[58:50] shift or wanted to work a third shift. And, um,

[58:56] I guess I'm wondering, is this something that, uh,

[59:01] your mechanics, do they do they trade? Say you're on vacation this week. You

[59:07] want to come in late the following Monday. Would they trade for a second

[59:11] shift position for the one day or is it Do you do stuff like that?

[59:16] » We'd allow them to do that, but there's never an ask for it because nobody wants

[59:20] to be on second shift. >> Well, I'm thinking

[59:24] » because they've been mechanics for 25, 30 years and they put in their time on

[59:28] second shift and they work they want to work days.

[59:31] I'm thinking of individuals that maybe want to hunt or fish or whatever. And

[59:39] when you get into the fall, if you get out of work at 3:30, you only got an

[59:43] hour of daylight. So, I guess that was maybe not pertinent pertinent to this,

[59:50] but um I'm wondering if it's uh a choice rather than a a forced position to to

[1:00:00] work the second shift. And when you talk about going to a third shift, is that a

[1:00:05] forced movement from a day day person to the

[1:00:10] third shift? >> No. th those going to

[1:00:16] going to th the people that are working the third shift, that's a part of the

[1:00:20] position that they apply for. So, like I say, our sign shop, they work third

[1:00:25] shift for a month period. in their job description, in their interview process,

[1:00:31] they're told for a duration that we're [snorts] going to agree a agree upon,

[1:00:37] you're going to have to work the third shift in order to get your work

[1:00:41] completed. For the mechanics, we have four mechanics. We have two that work 7

[1:00:48] to 3. We have the the mechanic group lead that work 6:30 to 3. And then we

[1:00:55] have two mechanics that work from 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock.

[1:01:00] And then we also have a night maintenance position for that person is

[1:01:04] responsible for doing building maintenance, minor maintenance on

[1:01:07] vehicles and everything like that. That also works 2 to 10.

[1:01:11] We have we have to have that second shift. We we had this long discussion

[1:01:16] because I just had my mechanic group leader who was a mechanic with the city

[1:01:20] for over 30 years. And before he left, we took the whole six guys because in

[1:01:27] the whole time that I've been here, this hiring a mechanic for the second shift

[1:01:31] has been an issue. Um the county doesn't even operate a second shift anymore um

[1:01:36] because they can't find people for it. There's um Ascendance, I believe, only

[1:01:43] uh runs two of their garages a second shift um which is the old Midstate truck

[1:01:48] Ascendances. Um, I state still, which is the old V&H truck in Marshfield, they

[1:01:54] still run a second shift. In my opinion, we have to end the six guys that work

[1:01:59] for me. We need to run a second shift in order to

[1:02:04] uh maintain the fleet that we have. If we don't want to maintain our fleet, we

[1:02:12] will have to buy more vehicles because sorry, our fleet size, not maintaining

[1:02:19] it, maintain our fleet size. We have to run if we don't run a second shift, a

[1:02:26] garbage truck breaks down at 2:00 in the afternoon. We only have one spare

[1:02:30] garbage truck, but we can most of the time, nine out of ten times, we can get

[1:02:35] that truck up and running, whether it be fixed and or um

[1:02:42] cobbled isn't the right word, but pieced back together operational for the day.

[1:02:47] If we didn't, we'd probably have to have two spares because we have three trucks

[1:02:51] that go out all the time. And unfortunately, our garbage collection is

[1:02:56] um stuff that breaks down because it's picking up 900 stops a day, you know.

[1:03:01] So, it does wear out relatively quickly, you know. But that's the that's the best

[1:03:06] part about the second shift is is nine times out of 10, we can get that thing

[1:03:11] back on the road by six o'clock the next day.

[1:03:16] So, this long-term employee that you just lost

[1:03:20] is $40 a week, that would have made a difference to him

[1:03:26] for the shift differential. Was he a second shift individual?

[1:03:29] » No, he wasn't. He was our group lead. >> Okay. He he he was hired on the second

[1:03:33] shift and then as soon as he got a chance to go to days which was about 15

[1:03:39] years into his career he went to days because he was miss he missed half of

[1:03:44] his kids' life you know because he was working 2 to 10 um

[1:03:50] and and and so it was very important for him to get back on to days as quick as

[1:03:54] possible. You know, we've interviewed very, very good mechanics that have been

[1:03:58] mechanics for 15 years, and they've said, you know, we've made offers to

[1:04:02] them, not this year, but this was previous years, and they said, "I put in

[1:04:08] my time on second shift. I want to go. I I if I came to you, I'd have to stay

[1:04:12] days." We have a guy right now that we um

[1:04:17] because of how long it was taking. So what happened is is we had a vacancy

[1:04:21] because um the person that was on uh second shift is now our group leader. Um

[1:04:30] and so we found a person to replace him after uh three or four months of looking

[1:04:38] for it. But we had to concede the second shift to get and have this person

[1:04:44] currently is working until 7 o'clock. So what is that? that he's working 11 to 7.

[1:04:49] We had to concede on that shift just in in order to get somebody in the building

[1:04:54] because I knew this other person was retiring.

[1:04:57] The person that retired was another mechanic that was 30 year 35 year

[1:05:02] mechanic. He came from the private sector to us about 15 years ago, I think

[1:05:07] 12 years ago. and he had his time, you know, he he just didn't want to work the

[1:05:12] 60 hours or 70 hours a week that some of these truck shops have to work because

[1:05:16] they're all on um you'd be able to tell me, Todd, because I know you were a

[1:05:20] mechanic for years, uh flat rate. He was on flat rate, so he didn't want to work

[1:05:25] that hard anymore because he was 52 years old or whatever, you know. So, um,

[1:05:32] like I said, um,

[1:05:38] to to attract somebody, we're we're not we we're not attracting anybody right

[1:05:42] now. >> I would just like to add, Todd, the guy,

[1:05:46] the gentleman that left after 30 years was due to retirement. So, he didn't, it

[1:05:52] is not a monetary thing. He had his time and he had worked with WRS and he

[1:05:59] retired and welld deserved. So yeah, and neither was this last person.

[1:06:05] Both of them had been retirements. It the people that have left were

[1:06:12] comfortable, happy with what they were making because they simply just wanted

[1:06:15] to end their careers. The the hardest part is is trying to attract these young

[1:06:20] people that are coming out of college. I mean, we we've for this has been an

[1:06:25] issue for like three years because we've had uh what three three vacancies in the

[1:06:30] four vacancies in the shop. No, three, sorry. Three vacancies in the shop in

[1:06:34] the last three years. We're trying we tried to get um students at Midstate to

[1:06:40] come and work in the afternoons or or work the second shift for us just to

[1:06:45] help out, you know, because some of it it's simple stuff. Some of it's oil

[1:06:47] changes, brake jobs, things like that. But there is some stuff that's that's

[1:06:52] difficult that you need to have the education for it. Um um but we can't

[1:06:58] even attract those kids to come over here, you know. And there's uh I know a

[1:07:04] young man uh that has been out of Midstate or out of uh the tech school in

[1:07:10] Green Bay for four years that's making 45 bucks an hour working second shift

[1:07:13] over in Green Bay.

[1:07:24] So Paul, I mean, I get the more money in

[1:07:28] different cities because obviously there's it's bigger and there's probably

[1:07:30] more to do, but do you think this 30 cents an hour or whatever the shift

[1:07:35] differentials for second shift is going to make 20 people apply to that

[1:07:38] position? >> No.

[1:07:39] » It's just I mean, what are we what are we going to do to try and help that? Do

[1:07:44] you think a first shift would bump down to second

[1:07:48] if the pay was better and they get back more money and they don't have a family

[1:07:51] maybe and then we could hire for for first shift or I guess I'm just trying

[1:07:55] to understand what your thought is on how we can get somebody to apply to

[1:07:58] that.

[1:08:02] So this I put this referral in because I was requested to by my staff, you know,

[1:08:07] because this this hasn't been looked at for

[1:08:11] at least 18 years. I can't tell you what it was prior to that, but I'm pretty

[1:08:15] sure that's probably what it was when the contract was started back in the

[1:08:18] early 2000s. Um, but uh I mean it is it it I feel strongly enough that that we

[1:08:27] need the second shift because of what they accomplish at night. There's lots

[1:08:31] of times that they accomplish things more with those three guys at night than

[1:08:37] the three guys do during the day. you know, uh, both those guys over there can

[1:08:42] say they've had stuff that the their guys have brought in and it goes out a

[1:08:46] half hour after they bring it over there, you know, and they need to have

[1:08:49] it the next day, you know. Uh, again, it it's it's important. They feel like

[1:08:57] they're, you know, like you said, 30 cents times 8, that's $2.40 an hour.

[1:09:02] That's nothing. It's 10 bucks at the end of the week. They're making $10 more to

[1:09:07] work two o'clock to 10 o'clock at night. Um,

[1:09:15] and I guess I went to, you know, I understand that we are um in a financial

[1:09:21] situation right now. I get it. You know, I our budget got cut a quarter million

[1:09:26] dollars last year. And and to Mattiey's statement or whatever, if you want me to

[1:09:31] absorb three and a half%, tell me what we're not going to do because asphalt

[1:09:36] has gone from $45 a ton 5 years ago to 103 a ton 5 years ago to $103 a ton. Not

[1:09:45] my control.

[1:09:49] Uh castings have gone from $150 to $325. We've gone to the point where we're

[1:09:58] using old stuff. The only thing that we replace is when it's broken,

[1:10:05] but I I also understand that, you know, I live in town and pay taxes and know

[1:10:10] what it's like. Yeah. I don't I mean I'm not saying 30 cents is by any means a

[1:10:16] lot, but you know I mean I'm just curious if that would be enough to bring

[1:10:19] people into that position or if we're just

[1:10:21] » struggling because of the the 2 to 10. >> I think sorry I think in one of these

[1:10:29] recommendations you know the second shift thing a buck

[1:10:33] 50 that runs out to $3,150. So, say you put just for just for

[1:10:41] example purposes, you put somebody in at step three, which would be the one-year

[1:10:45] rate. They're going to go from, you know, currently they would walk in

[1:10:51] at $61,100 and if they went to a $150 for second

[1:10:55] shift, they would then be looking at a $64,000

[1:11:00] salary at at step well step three one-year rate. So then with the rollups

[1:11:07] and everything else that the city has, um, you know, your daytime guys are

[1:11:11] making the 61, your second shift are making the 64.

[1:11:17] I I I think it might be enough to get some arguments for somebody because

[1:11:21] we've been close a couple times and it used to be we could really swing

[1:11:27] them with the WRS and the health insurance and this and that and

[1:11:30] everything else. And now this generation, I forget what letter of the

[1:11:36] alphabet gen we're in. They want cold cash. It's all about cold hard cash on

[1:11:42] my check right now. And if it means I can get it for 75 cents more 30 miles

[1:11:47] away, even though they don't do the gas costing, they're going to go get that.

[1:11:52] And we've had that happen. And it hasn't been just that position. It's in pretty

[1:11:58] much every position has been my experience. Right now it's a I want the

[1:12:02] cold hard cash and I'll go wherever the next best place is offering. And we're

[1:12:06] trying to find those that say I understand the big picture concept. I'm

[1:12:13] 25 26 years old and I'm maybe out of that phase and I want to look at

[1:12:18] retirement. Holy cow WRS. I want to the great health insurance because I'm

[1:12:23] looking at getting married and having kids and buying a house and those

[1:12:26] things. That's who we're try or what anybody that we're apply this is, you

[1:12:31] know, the total package value of the city of Wisconsin Rapids besides just

[1:12:36] that dollar value. But I think this might be enough to create a little bit

[1:12:41] more interest that they then look at the full package and be like now I got a

[1:12:46] good deal. My two cents.

[1:12:53] older person Tim, you uh you [clears throat] asked me a question of

[1:12:56] what I think it needs to be or whatever. Um

[1:13:01] when the when the wage study was put in place, you know, as Ryan had said, our

[1:13:06] wages were our starting wages were cut down to whatever he just said. If I

[1:13:12] remember right, it was like $35 an hour. um Chief Host's I believe when he first

[1:13:19] started to ask for the the last referral that that you had originally shared or

[1:13:25] that you just passed um Chief Host had um a graph in one of his original things

[1:13:32] that had showed that our officers were making I think it was like $3,500 more

[1:13:39] than Steven's Point. And you had the pay scales of of uh point and sorry this

[1:13:44] microphone stinks. Had the pay scales of point and and Wisconsin or the wood

[1:13:49] county highway and things like that. Years ago we used to get 75 to 80 people

[1:13:53] apply for a common labor position. We're getting like 25 now. I used to be able

[1:13:58] to pull people from Wood County Highway and people from Point and people from

[1:14:02] Marshfield. I don't pull anybody anymore, you know. Um so we're equals to

[1:14:09] those people. where before we were in the same boat that the police department

[1:14:13] was where we were pulling those people because they were getting a pay increase

[1:14:17] and they're not now. So, um I would say to attract people we have to be more

[1:14:24] competitive than than what our neighbors are.

[1:14:30] » Thank you, Paul.

[1:14:33] When is the next time we're going to look at the uh streets department and do

[1:14:37] a comparison with our neighboring municipalities?

[1:14:42] When is the next Well, >> next time I'm doing the market Yes.

[1:14:46] » survey. Actually, we've started that already. So, it'll be Yeah.

[1:14:49] » Great. >> Yep. And again, I could tell you right

[1:14:52] now it's within range. There's going to be most of them that are within range.

[1:14:57] The problem is they identify some of their positions different than ours, but

[1:15:01] I we sifted through that the first time we did the study. Um, and now it'll just

[1:15:06] be checking things out. Um, but yeah, we've started that already. Uh, and the

[1:15:13] the caveat to it is going to be that introductory wage um versus somebody

[1:15:20] else's starting rate. Um, but that's that's where that's at. ranges I feel

[1:15:26] fairly comfortable. There will be a couple that will probably need

[1:15:29] adjustments um similarly to to what we talked about this evening, but

[1:15:35] not 20 of them. >> And do we have the 30 and 40 cent shift

[1:15:39] differential listed in our current policy?

[1:15:45] No. What's our current policy on ship journ? It's really 30 and 40 cents.

[1:15:49] » It's currently 30 and 40 cents. Yeah, Paul. Yeah.

[1:15:52] » And we have policy that states that. >> Mhm. So this referral would just be

[1:15:55] changing those items in that policy. >> Correct.

[1:16:09] [clears throat]

[1:16:12] » May I speak? >> Please. I'd like to make a motion to

[1:16:18] consider a second shift differential of $1 per hour and a third shift

[1:16:25] differential of $1.50 per hour. >> Motion by Ferky, second by Holly. All

[1:16:33] those in favor? >> I as have it 30.

[1:16:38] » What were the amounts again? >> Okay, thank you.

[1:16:43] Right.

[1:16:47] Item eight, adjournment. Meeting adjourns at 4:48 p.m. Thank you.

Human Resources Committee | Sept 3rd, 2026

Transcript