Moving formerly confidential staff into the same job classifications as other staff now that there is no collective bargaining, workplans required in department and division head contracts and stormwater rates increasing 13%, not 10% as passed in the budget and how they will prioritize stormwater/flooding projects.
Here’s the video if you want to follow along
Or you can download the “podcast” here
GETTING STARTED
Mayor calls the meeting to order. Shiva Bidar, Rebecca Kemble, Barbara McKinney, Donna Moreland, Mike Verveer and Mayor Rhodes Conway are in attendance. Keith Furman is absent. There are no disclosures or recusals. MG&E has lobbyists Greg Murray and Ken Farsetta in attendance in support of item 19.
Verveer separates 11 & 18. Moreland separates 12 & 13.
All the other items on the agenda pass without discussion with the recommendations as noted.
11. Accreting CG17 employees into CG20, 18, and 44, where appropriate, creating new classifications in CG20 to accommodate the movement of employees, creating a new classification of Administrative Supervisor in CG18, R03, and Transit Administrative Supervisor in CG44, R03, recreating the various positions in their new CG and Range, and reallocating the incumbents to the new positions.
Alder Mike Verveer asks Mike Lipski from Human Resources to give an overview. He wants to hear more about the meet and confer process with the employee associations and the conversations with the affected Comp Group 17 employees. Lipski says that since the union contracts expired in 2014 because of Act 10 we don’t have formal collective bargaining, but we do have a meet and confer process with our employee associations. The reason for this conversation is motivated by the fact that we don’t have collective bargaining agreements any more. Under state law in regards to collective bargaining there are certain positions that can be excluded from bargaining units based on the confidential work that they perform. Positions that draft disciplinary letter, contract proposals, grievance responses have been traditionally excluded from bargaining units to eliminate conflicts of interests. Because we haven’t had the formal union contracts except for police, fire and transit since 2014 the employee associations have raised the issue as to whether or not the confidential employees are necessary any more. That came up in the meet and confer process this year. This was one of the issues of concern. They brought it up, we looked at it, we realized they made a valid point since we don’t have formal labor relations anymore. The other purpose of comp group 17 was that we had a lot of supervisory positions in comp group 17 over administrative staff and looking at the number of classifications that we had that were designated as supervisory in nature and the closeness of their positioning in the salary schedule, we looked at this as an opportunity to consolidate some classifications and move the supervisory function into comp group 18 which is where the rest of the supervisors and professionals are classified. The net result of comp group 11, the rest of the positions that are not supervisory and don’t have the labor relations function any more, we are moving them into the employee association in their respective classifications and for the supervisory positions they are creating a new classification of position in Comp Group 18 to reflect that work. Throughout the process they were in consultation with the associations, they met with each employee and their supervisor to look at their position description and determining if they had those supervisory responsibilities and whether the labor relations work exists. They did conclude that in police they have an administrative assistant who is performing that labor relations function, because police maintain that formal collective bargaining and that position is staying in Comp Group 17 as a result. Otherwise the employees have a choice about staying in Comp Group 17 or more into the other affected comp groups with the understanding that with a vacancy that position would be recreated in the appropriate comp group and all the employees have decided to move except for one. That position is staying behind in comp group 17, otherwise all the other positions are moving as reflected in the attachment to the resolution.
Verveer asks if the police administrative assistance chose to stay in Comp Group 17 or was that management. Lipski says it was the reflection of the duties that does still play a role in labor relations. Verveer asks if the Chief wanted to keep it in 17? Lipski says “correct”
Verveer asks about some employees that aren’t listed on here, is there really only one besides the chief’s administrative assistant that chose to stay in 17. He says the memo talks about the litigation assistant in the city attorney’s office and that they are studying that. Lipski says yes, they are not on the list, also one of the mayoral office clerk’s wanted to stay in Comp Group 17. Verveer asks if there is a 3rd? Is that one of the blank ones? Lipski says yes. Mayor Rhodes-Conway says they only have one of those positions filled right now. Lipski says position 58 has an incumbent that must not have made it through on the org chart, but that person is staying in comp group 17. Verveer asks if that was their choice or the Mayor’s Office. Lipski says it is their choice and on vacancy that position will be converted to comp group 20. Verveer asks if there were others. Lipski says that was the only one. Verveer asks if the ordinance revisionist is in Comp Group 17 but isn’t in the chart. Lipski says the classification is still listed in the salary schedules but the actual position is in comp group 20. Verveer says only one incumbent employee and one manager requested to stay in 17. Lipski says one employee in the mayor’s office requested to stay, one employee is staying because of the function of the work (police) and then the litigation assistant that they are studying. Verveer says everyone else chose to leave. Verveer says that the employees are excited because they qualify for (Vee-ba)
Verveer asks about the Police Department position not moving, what happens in the other agencies that still have collective bargaining rights, fire and metro transit. Why don’t they need confidential employees in those agencies. Lipski says Metro Transit still has Fran Taylor in comp group 43 as their employee relations assistant, so that position is still staying in comp group 43. Verveer says that was one of the follow up questions, why comp group 43 wasn’t being deleted in the resolution. Lipski says yes that is because of Fran’s position. In Fire Denise Desario (sp?) is moving into the administrative supervisor classification so they don’t have the comp group 17 because she provides that function but also supervises. Verveer says Fire won’t have a confidential? LIpski says they use Denise’s position as an administrative supervisor. So its not part of the bargaining unit, she is moving into 18 instead of staying in 17.
Verveer says they are leaving one in 43 and 3 in 17 as of today. And one becuase of the study might move later in the year. Lipski says that once the other position become vacant it will move to 20.
Verveer thanks them for meeting with the directly affected employees and their supervisors. Lipski says Erin Hill (?) in Labor Relations did a lot of the legwork. Verveer adds Greg as well.
Donna Moreland asks about the advantage of the employees that opted to stay in range 17. Lipski says it is their choice. The salaries are slightly higher because of the nature of the way raises have happened over the years. The base salary is higher, but if you go to Comp Group 20 you have access to the VBA, so you have to weigh what they preferred.
Moreland asked what VBA is? Lipski says it is a post employment health benefit. Verveer says it is Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association under the Internal Revenue Code.
Moreland asks if the people transitioning are not receiving less money, they just don’t have the opportunity to make as much as the 17. Lipski says the dollars and cents are within $50 annually, its not significant. While the base salary bi-weekly might be a couple dollars lower than the 17s are making it negligible.
Mayor says in some cases it is actually higher to move up and we’ve funded the difference in the budget.
Verveer says the fiscal note reflects it, there is a fiscal impact.
Moreland says yes, but it didn’t do it by individuals.
Motion to approve passes on a voice vote seemingly unanimously.
12. Submitting the appointment of Robert F. Phillips for confirmation of a five-year term as the City Engineer.
Bidar moves adoption, McKinney seconds.
Moreland asks the Mayor about the requirement of a workplan, is there a time limit and will the council be able to see the workplan? The Mayor says the expectation is that there will be annual work plans and those will not go through a formal council process, but she is sure various department heads would be happy to have conversations with you about their work plans. The mayor says they are in the process of developing them across various departments and unsurprisingly different departments take different approaches to it. Some of them have been at it for month and some have a very engaged process with not just the department heads setting the work plans but with the different divisions and work groups. Rob can speak to his process but some are more centralized and set out for the year.
Moreland says the reason she asked is that if they get feedback from constituents or from citizens with negative feedback it would be helpful if we at least knew what the goals were. And maybe if what they were upset about fell outside of what that workplan is, then we can support you. It’s difficult to support if we don’t know what you plan to accomplish.
Mayor says it would also be useful if you would share that with me, she can make sure that she is having a meeting at least quarterly with every department and division head – she thinks that is true, they are setting that up. So, part of what they are talking about in those regular meetings is how is the workplan going, what is the feedback, what needs to change or be worked on. Any feedback you collectively have as alders or that you hear from your constituents is useful.
Moreland asks how long Rob Phillips has been in the position, she doesn’t feel like this is a recurring contract. Mayor says it is a 5 year contract. Moreland asks when he first started. Rob Phillips, City Engineer, says it has been 10 years. The mayor asks Phillips how long he has been with the city – Phillips says over 30, 31 or something. Verveer says he started in high school – jokes . . .
Barbara Harrington-McKinney publicly thanks him for walking her through a very complex situation with Jeffy Trail. She literally learned so much from just sitting in your office and you saying “alder look at this”, “alder, look at this”. So, she appreciates him taking the time because it gets an alder further in terms of understanding the complexity of your work.
Shiva Bidar asks if they can change his or her to their. Mayor says it is her intention to go through all of their language and make sure they start using their pronouns. Bidar says it needs to be changed in the contract template. Mayor says someone should make a note for HR.
Motion passes. Congratulations says Verveer.
13. Submitting the appointment of Matthew R. Wachter for confirmation of a five-year term as the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development
Moreland says she had the same questions, he’s congratulated and the motion passes unanimously.
18. Amending the 2020 Stormwater Utility Operating Budget to fund additional watershed studies for the Willow Creek Watershed and the Yahara River/Isthmus Watershed.
Verveer says he fully supports the intent of the resolution, that is not the basis of his question, he was just curious looking at the fiscal note about the timing of the various utilities rate increases coming before the policy makers. He says for years and years it was in December and then the last few years it has been in March that they considered the rate increases. Is the plan for this year to have the resolution come before us in March, effective April 1. “Janet” says that they are planning on bringing it forward in March or April.
Rob Phillips says that is the intent again this year. Verveer confirms that they will see it at the Finance Committee in March? Phillips says yes.
Verveer asks about the fiscal note, the effect of this resolution is that instead of what is in the adopted operating budget of 10% rate increase, instead it will be a 13% rate increase as estimated today. Phillips says yes, they wanted to be very transparent about that. This will have an impact on what is already anticipated to be a very high rate increase. Verveer says that he appreciates the transparency.
Verveer asks what the impact on the average residential property would be with a 13% rate increase? Janet (?) says that 10% was estimated to be about $9.60 per year on a single family home. She doesn’t know the 13%.
Moreland asks for a cheat sheet saying it is going up, but in return this is what we are doing that could affect other things, like these watershed studies. She says a plan to mitigate flooding is a big thing. Phillips says that is what is driving the rate increase – the watershed studies and ultimately they will have projects to prioritize as a result of those studies and it will be a big challenge to come up with the priorities for that. It is expensive. A big fix is $6-7M a piece for a really big fix.
Moreland asks if they know a ballpark of what citizens said they lost, as far as the flooding. If we had an idea and these studies and ultimate fixes will prevent that from re-occurring hopefully.
Janet says what they were seeing, and she feels it was under-reported, but they were estimating about $30M worth of damages citywide. With a large majority of that coming from the health care clinics on the West Side in the Old Sauk Trails Business Park. She also knows that a lot of people had not reported their damages at all, so she thinks the $30M was under-reported but that is what they were estimating.
Moreland says it would soften the blow for another increase.
Mayor says the alder’s point is well taken, we should be collectively communicating well about the financial impact of flooding has been and how spending this money up front hopes to mitigate future impact on private property. She also wants to say that we are very aware of this increasing cost on the utility side, and that she personally does not think it is sustainable in the long term. They are going to have to figure out how to support particularly low income households impacted by these utility costs. That is a question this body is going to have to wrestle with at some point. The avenues that are perhaps most interesting that are available to other cities are not available to us so we just need to figure out how we want to handle that. As Rob points out, this is just the studies, this isn’t even funding the projects and doing the work. So they have some pretty big challenges ahead of them.
Harrington-McKinney asks about the priority and prioritizing the selection process. Is that a process that you are working on, is that on the table and how do you move towards that to get to those that are more significant that you are going to have to begin work on. Phillips says they are working on that, but at this point the studies have not yet identified specific improvements yet. That is going to be happening over time and not all at once, all the studies are in various states, some are further along than others. They are going to start getting them in over the next year and they will have to do more work to figure out how to fairly prioritize those projects. That hasn’t taken place. As they get those they are going to have to figure out how to prioritize those and what criteria to prioritize those with. That is yet to be developed. Janet says they have a frame work but it will have to be vetted. They internally had some ideas on that, but without having a specific handful of projects and seeing how that shakes out, she doesn’t know if it is fair to put forward as a final process for vetting the projects. The criteria will be the damages, the cost for repair, what kind of neighborhood is it in, is it in a more challenged neighborhood, is it more prosperous, economic losses – it is going to be difficult to weight these.
Mayor says she expects they will also take into account when there is synergy on other public works projects. So if they are already going in to fix a street and they can do a storm water improvement at the same time, its a lot easier to do than if you’re not already in the area. She thinks Janet is right and there will be a whole list of things they will want to look at and that’s not quite soup yet.
Janet says that they are trying to keep the studies a step ahead of the major construction work, so that they can use the studies to inform the major decisions on what they are doing.
Harrington-McKinney says she wanted to add the importance of informing and keeping the communities informed as they move along that process. She hears that it is on their agenda and thank you Alder Moreland for bringing that up.
Motion passes.
ADJOURN
and done!
