Category Archives: City Council

by | October 18, 2012 · 4:52 pm

Council Update: Wastewater Treatment Projects, Drug Paraphernalia, Emerald Ash Borer, Foreclosure Demolition … And Spirits

From Tuesday’s South Milwaukee City Council meeting …

  • The council voted 7-0 to award a contract of more than $4.5 million to C.D. Smith Construction for a variety of necessary upgrades to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. This includes construction of a new ultraviolet disinfection system, a new pumping system, a new diesel generator to serve as a backup power source for the plant, various upgrades to the plant’s secondary digester, new “tube mixers,” and a new plant power distribution system. The rate increase approved earlier this year will fund the project. Learn more in my previous posts here and here.
  • The council voted 7-0 to give first reading to an ordinance around drug paraphernalia. This ordinance adopts the state statute locally, stating this: “No person may use, or possess with the primary intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance or controlled substance analog in violation of this chapter. Any person who violates this subsection may be fined not more than $500.” An important goal of adopting this ordinance change: Stop local businesses from selling gear that while not solely used for drug use, is clearly meant to be used for just that purpose.
  • The council voted 6-1 to match a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources grant that will help us take a big first step in fighting back against the emerald ash borer. The city recently applied for a $46,000 grant from the DNR, with $23,000 of those funds coming from the city and the other half from the state. If we get the money, the grant will pay for mapping all trees on city-owned land and in the street right of way, preparation of emerald ash borer preparedness and urban forest management plans, and production of information materials. I am a strong supporter of this initial step because, at this point, we don’t know what we don’t know when it comes to EAB. We don’t know how widespread nor how acute the EAB infestation is in South Milwaukee – nor do we have a plan for next steps once we do know this information. This funding will answer those questions … giving us the education we need to make an informed decision. Doing nothing is really not an option here.
  • The council voted 7-0 to approve spending up to $8,400 on demolition of a foreclosed home at 3804 4th Ave. I consider this a sad case study in the impact of the foreclosure crisis on neighborhoods. This home has been abandoned for some time – the owner apparently walked away from the mortgage – and the demolition was a long time coming (too long) because of the complexities so commonly associated with the foreclosure process. While lawyers, lenders and others spent years trying to bring this to a conclusion – including spending months fighting just over who actually owns the property – the home became a hazard as its foundation crumbled. It got so bad that a neighbor’s driveway has been damaged by the deterioration. The demolition will at least stop the damage, bring this property a step closer to being a home again … and conclude, for now, a story that is unfortunately playing out across the country, one neighborhood at a time.

Also, the next City Council meeting is Nov. 13, rescheduled from Nov. 6 (Election Day). The other council meeting next month will be Nov. 27, when the budget will be considered.

And, finally, the newly formed Chapter 68 Appeals Committee, at its meeting Monday night, voted to deny the variance sought by the owner of Spirits Bar & Grill for installation of an automatic sprinkling system. Spirits suffered a major fire in May, and owned Ed Abrams is looking to rebuild. However, city ordinances are clear: The rebuilt establishment must have an automatic sprinkling system, for safety reasons. Abrams told the panel that he wants the exception because he can not afford the estimated $50,000 it will cost to install the system, and insurance will not fund it. I am not sure what the denial will mean to the future of Spirits, but I will keep you posted.

5 Comments

Filed under City Council

Tagged as

by | October 8, 2012 · 8:48 pm

South Milwaukee City Council Recap: Grant Park Plaza, Spirits, Milwaukee Streetcar

Catching up on some news from last week’s South Milwaukee City Council meeting …

The council voted 8-0 to approve a new certified survey map and amendments to the development agreement for Grant Park Plaza, allowing the owners of the strip mall to separate the property into two parcels. Doing so will help the owners sell pieces of the development – including the building housing Pick ‘n Save – to individual buyers. I supported this because a sale will relieve pressure on the owners’ finances, and hopefully it will spur improvements to the center’s too-vacant center section.

Grant Park Plaza needs investment, and it’s pretty clear that the current owners are struggling to make that investment. Maybe new owners can. That can only be good for South Milwaukee.

The council also voted 8-0 to form a “Chapter 68 Appeals Committee” to hear an appeal by Ed Abrams, owner of Spirits Bar & Grill, seeking a variance from the city’s sprinkling ordinance. As you know, Spirits suffered a major fire in May, and Abrams is looking to rebuild. However, city ordinances are clear: The rebuilt establishment must have an automatic sprinkling system. Abrams puts that bill at close to $50,000 … and he wants an exception so he can proceed without it.

The council decided to form a three-person committee to hear the appeal and other non-zoning ordinance appeals that may arise going forward, removing politics from the equation. The committee consists of the council president, city administrator and city engineer, with the city clerk as an alternate. They meet Oct. 15 to hear the Spirits case. I’ll keep you posted.

The council also voted 5-3 to approve a resolution stating that the South Milwaukee City Council is opposed to the Milwaukee Streetcar project, if it requires funding from We Energies ratepayers to pay for utility relocation. We joined West Allis in passing this resolution first suggested, in writing, by Milwaukee Ald. Bob Donovan, a vocal critical of the Streetcar.

I was one of three “no” votes. Why? I think this vote was way too premature, and unnecessary.

There are too many outstanding questions around this project, especially around the utility relocation funding issue, and we have no business weighing in on this until we know more facts.

Will ratepayers be on the hook for the relocation? Will Milwaukee taxpayers pay the bill? Will both? And if it’s both, how much will people have to pay? Pennies? Dollars? More? And will the project even require relocation of utilities in the end? Those are just a few of the questions I have before I’m ready to weigh in on a resolution like the one we passed last week.

We acted too quickly, and, in doing so, the council made a bigger statement against investing in rail as part of the region’s transportation system. It was the wrong statement.

I support rail as part of our transportation infrastructure — in that way, making the Milwaukee area like every other major metropolitan area in the country.

We need to step up our investment in a wide array of transportation options. Of course, that includes roads. But it also includes our struggling bus system and rail.

It’s an economic development issue for me. I support a way to more easily get people workers to jobs. I support a way to help the Milwaukee area better compete with other communities for employees and employers who are looking for a well-balanced approach to transportation. I support that balance.

Unfortunately, the debate on projects like the Streetcar too often becomes, “I’ll never ride it, so I don’t want to pay for it.” I understand the concerns, but the argument can’t end there.

You may never ride the Streetcar. I may never ride the streetcar. But thousands (tens of thousands?) of people likely will, including young professionals and families who already live here or are looking to move to the region – those who are much less tied to their cars than “older” folks like me. Moreover, the companies that hire these workers want to see communities commit to projects like this.

We should do the same … and not stand in the way with resolutions like we passed last week.

1 Comment

Filed under City Council, Transportation

by | September 19, 2012 · 5:07 pm

Public Policy Forum Releases South Shore Dispatch Consolidation Report

The Public Policy Forum is out with its report on the potential consolidation of the South Milwaukee, Cudahy and St. Francis emergency dispatch centers. And it shows some potentially significant cost savings.

Here is the report, which I’m still digesting.

Among the highlights from the report’s executive summary …

  • “By consolidating their dispatch operations into an independent consolidated dispatch center, the three cities could reduce their current combined dispatch staff, thus decreasing annual operating expenditures by approximately $132,000 to $256,000.
  • By consolidating their dispatch operations into an independent consolidated dispatch center, the three cities could eliminate the need to collectively replace two or three dispatch consoles, producing equipment savings within the next five years of approximately $400,000 to $600,000.
  • If one of the three cities were to perform dispatch services under contract with the other two, or if the three cities contracted with a neighboring jurisdiction for dispatch services, then substantial additional savings could be generated.
  • Weighing potential cost savings against the loss of local control and the potential loss of 24-hour staffing at each city’s police headquarters is a difficult endeavor.
  • If the three cities do not decide to pursue consolidation of their dispatch operations, then they may wish to at least review whether the administrative tasks assigned to dispatchers might be more appropriately assigned to clerical staff.”

Of course, this is much more than a dollars-and-cents issue. The conclusion of the report states as much:

The report concludes that each city must consider whether to pursue an independent consolidated dispatch center – or to jointly contract for this service with a different jurisdiction – within the context of its own short-term and long-term financial circumstances and public safety needs.

Indeed, this is a complicated issue that demands more debate.

And, as we do that, this point from the report seems especially salient to me: “City leaders also should consider whether the possible pursuit of other public safety consolidation may further dictate the logic of consolidating dispatch services.” With the separate fire consolidation summary still underway and not expected to be completed until early 2013, it might be best to wait and see how all of the pieces fit together before acting (or not acting) only on dispatch consolidation.

Also, keep in mind that the study’s scope was to examine the potential for creation of a new stand-alone dispatch center merging the three existing operations. Public Policy Forum did not look at other potential combinations, including one community potentially contracting its service to the other two. That would be information I’d also like to see.

Still, this study is a great start and provides a good basis for a consolidation decision that I am sure is coming soon. I look forward reading and learning more — and the discussion.

I enter that debate in the same place I’ve always been: I’m open to consolidating city services where possible, but only if the quality of the consolidated service won’t suffer and if we can actually save money in doing it. Those are some big “ifs.”

Of course, I’d like to know what you think of the report and the potential for consolidation. Post your comments below!

1 Comment

Filed under City Council, City Services, Community, Cudahy, Fire, Oak Creek, Police

Tagged as , ,

by | July 17, 2012 · 10:42 pm

Council Approves Expanded Residency For Many City Workers

Dozens of city civil service workers will be allowed to live outside South Milwaukee following a series of votes at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

The key vote: A 4-3 decision in favor of amending the Civil Service Personnel Manual to mirror the residency requirement for most non-represented employees and members of the firefighter union.

In short, the council voted to allow non-represented and civil service employees — we currently have 86 such employees on our payroll, in addition to 10 vacancies — to live within these boundaries: Highway 20 from Racine west to Highway S; north on S to Highway K; west on K to Highway 164, north on 164 to the Waukesha-Racine County border, east to Highway V (Town Line Road) extended, north on Highway V extended to Silver Spring Road (Highway VV), and east on Silver Spring Road to Whitefish Bay.

I voted yes, and I explained my reasoning in a previous post.

Simply, I think this is the right thing to do. We owe it to city taxpayers to not let geography (within reason) limit our search for the highest quality candidates for jobs in our city.

In the end, I think most city employees will end up living here because they want to — not because they’re forced to. We see it already. Of those 86 non-represented and civil service employees impacted by this policy, 57 already call South Milwaukee home.

And of the 10 new people we’re hiring, I’m hoping all 10 choose to live here and invest in our community … emphasis on “choose.” There’s lot of wonderful reasons to live in South Milwaukee and love this city. I’m betting they’ll want to live here.

What do you think of the decision? Post your comments below, and vote in the poll!

Leave a comment

Filed under City Council

Tagged as

by | July 17, 2012 · 9:48 pm

Welcome, Kleiner’s: New Bar Coming To Former Frozen Rope Location

The bar formerly known as The Frozen Rope — which closed in 2011 following two separate rounds of gunfire outside the bar — will reopen as Kleiner’s.

The City Council unanimously approved the liquor license for the tavern at its meeting Tuesday night, a little over a year after we voted to put a temporary moratorium on the opening of any bar at that location, 1815 10th Ave.

That moratorium expired at the end of June.

Learn more about the shootings — and the council’s decision to revoke the bar’s liquor license — in this blog post.

The Legislation & Permits Committee heard from Kevin Klein, the prospective owner of the new bar, at its meeting Monday. Mr. Klein is well aware of the recent history of that location and said he is committed to responsibly operating what he said he will be a sports bar.

He is no stranger to operating a bar, either. He currently runs The Store in Cudahy, a small tavern at 5274 S. Packard Ave., and his mother was a one-time operator of the bar now known as the 14th Precinct on 14th and Rawson Avenues in South Milwaukee.

I welcome Mr. Klein to South Milwaukee and wish him well.

It was only a matter of time before The Frozen Rope reopened as a bar, and part of the job of the council is to make sure the next owner/operator is the right one for that location. I think Kleiner’s is that bar, although only time will tell.

Of course, I’d like to know what you think of this. Post your comments below!

Leave a comment

Filed under City Council, Local Business

by | July 11, 2012 · 9:42 pm

Where Should City Workers Live? Council Debates Residency Rules

Should city workers be required to live in South Milwaukee? That’s what the City Council will consider at its meeting on July 17.

The Human Resources Committee — and several other aldermen in attendance, including me — vigorously debated the subject Tuesday, voting to bring the issue before the full council next week.

Here is where I stand: I am against strict residency. In other words, I favor changing city ordinances and the Civil Service Manual to remove the requirement that all city civil service employees hired after July 1 live in South Milwaukee (or move there within a year).

Would I prefer that our employees live in South Milwaukee? Of course, and my position is by no means meant to diminish the skills of current South Milwaukee residents. Far from it.

I look at it this way: Placing artificial restrictions like this on workers only serves to limit the labor pool and all but guarantees that at least some quality people will not apply for jobs in our fair city.

Strong local roots. Kids established in school. A historically bad real housing market. Complicated family situations. Those are just a few of the reasons people are hesitant to pick up and move for their jobs – and why some wouldn’t even consider applying with an employer that requires you to live where you work.

And with Act 10 and the demise of public unions, and union benefits being reduced, we are increasingly competing head to head with the private sector for employees – private employers that do not require their employees to live where they work. Neither should we.

Instead, there is a reasonable standard I hope we consider (and pass Tuesday).

It would require that civil service employees live within these boundaries: Highway 20 from Racine west to Highway S; north on S to Highway K; west on K to Highway 164, north on 164 to the Waukesha-Racine County border, east to Highway V (Town Line Road) extended, north on Highway V extended to Silver Spring Road (Highway VV), and east on Silver Spring Road to Whitefish Bay.

Existing non-represented and fire union employees already adhere to these restrictions, while our police officers have no residency requirements (per their negotiated contract).

Now, there should be exceptions to any residency rule. Some jobs should require that workers live even closer to South Milwaukee, or in the city itself … and those job descriptions should clearly lay out those requirements, so current and new employees know exactly what’s expected of them.

A blanket, and restrictive, requirement, however, is a step too far. As an alderman, a big part of my job is to make South Milwaukee a city in which people want to live – not where they’re forced to.

Of course, I’d like to know what you think about this. Post your comments below!

3 Comments

Filed under City Council, Community

Tagged as

by | June 21, 2012 · 9:28 pm

Life-Saving Numbers: South Milwaukee Fire Department Files Annual Report, Grades Well On Study

The South Milwaukee Fire Department has filed its 2011 Annual Report, and it provides a great snapshot into all the work the department does throughout the course of a year.

Check out the report, dedicated to the victims of 9-11 and the firefighters who fought to save them, here. The South Milwaukee City Council accepted the report at its meeting Tuesday.

One key statistic: The total number of incidents the department responded to (2,968) stayed basically static from 2010 (and the year earlier).

The report, however, is much more than numbers. More than anything, it celebrates the people that make the department what it is – and why we should be so thankful for their tireless work.

I encourage you to read it, and post your comments below.

In other news, the department recently went through the Insurance Services Office certification process and saw its rating improve from a five to a four.

ISO collects and evaluates information from communities across the country on their “fire suppression capabilities.” Insurance companies in part base their rental, commercial and industrial rates on these ISO findings. So a lower number can mean lower rates … and that’s a practical reason to celebrate this improvement. Even more importantly, however, this report validates the work our department is doing.

See the full ISO report here.

1 Comment

Filed under City Council, Fire

Tagged as

by | June 19, 2012 · 9:56 pm

Deal Reached: City Council Approves Firefighter Contract

The South Milwaukee City Council has approved a new four-year contract with firefighters represented by the South Milwaukee Firefighters Protective Association Local 1633.

I think it’s a fair deal that is reflective of the city’s financial picture – and a strong example of the type of collaboration that can happen among public employee unions and their employers.

The deal is effective Jan. 1 and expires Dec. 31, 2015. Among the highlights:

  • It calls for no pay raise immediately, then a 2% increase on Jan. 1, 2013; 1% increase on July 1, 2013; 2% increase on Jan. 1, 2014; and 1% increase on July 1, 2014. Additionally, the deal calls for a potential “base wage reopener” for Jan. 1, 2105, under which the union notifies the city by Aug. 15, 2014, of its desire to reopen the contract for wage negotiations.
  • Effective July 1, it calls for the city to pay the same amount toward firefighter health insurance as it does for its non-represented and civil service employees – 88%. Workers pay anything above that amount for the lowest cost health plan.
  • It also brings firefighters in line with other workers when it comes to pension contributions, within a year. Under the deal, the city will pay one half of the employee-required pension contribution effective July 1. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, the firefighter will pay that entire amount (about 5.8% of their earnings), the same amount other non-represented workers pay. All new employees will pay the full amount immediately.
  • The deal also relaxes firefighter residency requirements, making their residency standard the same as it is for all non-represented workers. It requires firefighters to live within these boundaries: Highway 20 from Racine west to Highway S; north on S to Highway K; west on K to Highway 164, north on 164 to the Waukesha-Racine County border, east to Highway V (Town Line Road) extended, north on Highway V extended to Silver Spring Road (Highway VV), and east on Silver Spring Road to Whitefish Bay.

The deal also makes some changes to retiree health insurance; sick leave allocation, usage and payouts upon retirement; bereavement leave; and limited duty assignments, among other areas.

Firefighters ratified the contract on Friday.

Of course, I’d like to know what you think of the contract. Post your comments below.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 Budget, City Council, Fire

Tagged as

by | June 14, 2012 · 7:30 pm

Direct Legislation Update: Petition Certified As Incomplete

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the attempt to use the direct legislation process to enact an ordinance that would require all city capital spending projects over $1 million to go to binding referendum.

The group behind the effort – launched following approval of the Walmart project – did not initially submit enough valid signatures to either compel the South Milwaukee City Council to pass the ordinance or put it to voters in a referendum.

They had 10 days to rectify the situation and submit the proper number of valid signatures. That 10-day window has expired, and the petition has been deemed “incomplete” and will not be forwarded to the City Council for review.

Check out the letter sent to the head of the group here.

I’ll keep you posted if anything changes on this.

1 Comment

Filed under City Council, South Milwaukee Walmart

Tagged as

by | June 12, 2012 · 4:29 pm

Clarifying Composting And Other Recent Ordinance Changes

You may recall that the South Milwaukee City Council, at the request of the Health Department, passed several ordinances at its May 1 meeting related to composting and animal control.

See my previous post here.

The Health Department further explains them in this letter, including specifically laying out what is and isn’t allowed in a compost pile.

Leave a comment

Filed under City Council, Health

by | June 3, 2012 · 5:26 pm

Direct Legislation Effort Update: Not Enough Valid Signatures

In April, I wrote about the effort by some local residents to use the direct legislation process to enact an ordinance requiring that all city capital projects costing more than $1 million be put before voters in a binding referendum.

To make this happen – and either compel the South Milwaukee City Council to pass the ordinance or at least call a referendum on the referendum requirement – the group needed 1,197 valid signatures, or 15% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

Well, the group turned in its signatures recently, and there aren’t enough.

That’s according to this letter sent from the city to Jim Leavens, one of the leaders of the direct legislation campaign.

The letter notes that the city found there were only 1,172 signatures submitted.

And not all of those signatures were deemed valid, either because they fell outside of the 60-day window necessary to obtain them, were missing key information, or other factors – including 17 sheets that were signed and dated by the signature collector before the dates accompanying the signatures themselves.

The group has 10 days to fix some of the “deficiencies,” and if 1,197 valid signatures are not presented within that timeframe, the city clerk will not forward the petition to the City Council.

I’ll keep you posted on what happens … and I reiterate my stance against the proposed city “spending cap.” You can see my argument in my previous post, but it boils down to this: The City Council is elected to make decisions like this, and putting major spending like this to a vote not only is unwieldy, costly and chilling to the prospects of necessary projects, it goes against the whole idea of representative government.

City leaders are up for election every two years. That’s the ultimate referendum.

1 Comment

Filed under City Council, Community, South Milwaukee Walmart

Tagged as ,

by | May 31, 2012 · 8:16 pm

Fire, Dispatch Consolidation Update

The Public Policy Forum has issued its report looking into fire department consolidation involving Oak Creek and four other area departments.

Check out the report here, as well as coverage from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Oak Creek Patch.

You’ll recall that the Public Policy Forum is also working on a study involving the potential consolidation of the South Milwaukee, Cudahy and St. Francis Fire Departments, as well as dispatch services. Work on those reports continues. The report on the potential dispatch consolidation is expected in July, while the report on the potential fire consolidation is expected in mid-fall.

I’ll keep you posted as the process continues.

The Oak Creek-Franklin-Hales Corners-Greenfield-Greendale study contains several potential options for consolidation, with some leading to significant cost savings. From the story:

Franklin, Greendale, Greenfield, Hales Corners and Oak Creek could save $1 million annually in operating costs and about $4 million over the next five years in vehicle replacement costs if they formed one fire department, the report released Wednesday states.

The communities could save money if they stopped short of consolidation and shared some services, but the saving would not be as great, said Rob Henken, forum president.

For example, if the communities retained all five fire departments but operated under an “automatic aid agreement” in which the closest unit responds to a fire or EMS call regardless of municipal boundary, the municipalities potentially could save $3.35 million on vehicle replacement costs over five years. The report refers to this set up as an “operational consolidation.”

“Essentially, all calls would be treated as if it was a consolidated department, but still you would have five independent departments that would maintain their own personnel, their own personnel policies, their own equipment,” Henken said.

A third option, the report says, is to share some services, such as fire inspections, vehicle maintenance and training. This would produce efficiencies but probably not a lot of saving, Henken said.

As I’ve posted before, I’m certainly open to considering consolidation locally. But I want to be convinced we won’t be sacrificing service just to save money.

What do you think? Post your comments below!

Leave a comment

Filed under City Council, City Services, Fire

Tagged as

by | May 15, 2012 · 11:17 pm

Celebrating Our Police And Citizen Heroes

Thank a police officer today … and those among us who help them do their jobs and make South Milwaukee a safer place to live.

The South Milwaukee Police Department and the City Council did just that Tuesday night, honoring a number of officers and citizens for their work saving lives and solving crimes.

It’s all a part of National Police Officers Week this week.

See a list of honorees, and their stories, here … and let’s all celebrate these everyday heroes. One example:

Mr. Joseph DeLong      

Officer Mick Olson recommended Mr. DeLong for a Citizen Recognition Award for his action on February 17, 2012.

On February 17, 2012 Mr. DeLong was working as a United States Postal Carrier in the City of South Milwaukee.  While on his route Mr. DeLong observed three days of accumulated mail at a residence.  He felt this was unusual and notified his supervisor who then contacted SMPD.  Officers responded to the residence, forced entry into the residence under the community care taker role and located an elderly home owner on the floor of the residence.  The owner had fallen three days earlier and was unable to get up.  Because of Mr. DeLong’s actions this individual was able to get help when he needed it the most. 

Although the Police Department has been called to residences by mail carriers in the past, this was the first time a resident was found in duress.  Mr. DeLong’s actions saved the resident’s life.

2 Comments

Filed under City Council, City Services, Community, Crime

Tagged as ,

by | May 14, 2012 · 10:55 pm

Bursting At The Seams: Caterpillar Seeks More Parking From The City

It’s almost always a good thing when your largest local employer needs more parking. That’s certainly the case with Caterpillar.

The mining equipment maker — which continues to be in growth mode locally — has been in discussions with the city for some time about finding solutions to its parking crunch.

And here is where we’ve ended up: Potentially leasing a small piece of city-owned land at 1701 10th Ave. to Caterpillar, which would pave it and do whatever else it takes to get the site ready for up to 50 parked cars.

The city’s Public Works & Public Property Committee discussed the item at its meeting on Monday night. I’ll keep you posted.

The city has owned the site for some time, and it has already put around $20,000 into the property in acquisition and demolition costs. Leasing the land will help us recoup some of that money — while still allowing for future development there, even if that is unlikely given its odd shape and location. And it shows our willingness to do what we can to make it easier to do business in South Milwaukee.

That’s why I support this. What do you think?

2 Comments

Filed under City Council, Local Business

Tagged as

by | May 3, 2012 · 3:43 pm

Council Update: New Employee Manual Spells Out Employee Benefits, Work Rules & More

Update: By the way, for those of you keeping score at home, this was the 1,000th post on South Milwaukee Blog. 🙂

Wherever you stand on the issue of public employee colletive bargaining — and if you read this blog, you know clearly where I stand — this much is clear: It is now all the more important to establish, clearly and in writing, the policies, work rules and compensation package for employees impacted by Act 10 and others who are not part of city unions.

That’s where the civil service manual comes in.

From health insurance to vacation to sick time to overtime, this document details just what we expect of civil service city employees at a broad level — and the public pledge of the pay and benefits we give them in return for their hard work.

The South Milwaukee City Council approved such a manual at its meeting Tuesday night.

Among the key passages for these “at will” civil service employees, or those not represented by police and fire contracts and not classified as professional “non-represented” workers:

  • Pay: The previously approved salary schedule (and the “step increases” given to civil service employees as they gain experience) remains in place.
  • Overtime: Civil service employees working more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week — as well as those working weekends who typically don’t — will be paid at time and a half. Any hours worked over 12 in a single day will be paid at double time.
  • Health insurance: The city will pay 88% of the cost of the lowest cost health care plan offered to full-time civil service employees — the amount called for in Act 10. The amount the city pays for health insurance for part-timers depends on hours worked.
  • Retiree health insurance: For civil service employees hired before January 1, there are two options. Under option one, for those age 55 to 59, the city pays 75% of the premium amount it pays for active employees; the city funds the same amount it does for active employees for those ages 60 to 64. Under option two, the city simply pays 90% of the premium it pays for active employees. For those hired after January 1, the benefit is reduced. The city provides no retiree coverage until age 60, and from age 60 to 64 the city pays 50% of what it pays toward active employee health insurance. And all new hires must work for the city at least 15 years before earning the benefit.
  • Vacation: The benefit here depends on when you started to work for the city. If you started before January 3, 1983, civil service employees get two weeks after one year of service, three after seven years, four after 15 years, five after 25 years and six after 30 years. For those hired after that, and until January 1, 2012, you get a fourth week after 14 years of service and fifth week after 20 years. For those hired this year and after, you get two weeks after a year, three weeks after seven years and four weeks after 15 years (no fifth or sixth week is available).
  • Sick time: Similar to vacation and retiree health care, this benefit will also depend on the employee start date. For those hired before January 1, 2012, civil service employees receive up to 12 paid sick days per year (one earned per month). For those hired after, employees receive up to six paid sick days (one half-day earned per month).
  • Pension: Eligible civil service employees continue to be covered under the Wisconsin Retirement System, and the city will pay only the employer’s share of the required contributions for employees that qualify for the benefit (such as was called for in Act 10).

One important topic left undetermined in the manual is the issue of residency. While the manual we passed lays out a standard — with current civil service employees being able to live throughout Milwaukee County and new hires being forced to live in South Milwaukee — the council has decided to reopen debate on the larger issue at a future Human Resources Committee meeting. I’ll keep you posted.

In the end, we must get this stuff right. It’s our responsibility, and duty, as a city to deliver current and prospective civil service employees as strong a pay and benefits package as possible … a package that allows us to compete with both public and private employers for the best of the best people. At the same time, we must also do what’s responsible for taxpayers and operate within our budget.

This document strikes that balance well.

Leave a comment

Filed under City Council

Tagged as