[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.