Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Pay Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee of the Whole tables Carlson Dettman pay-plan amid questions over comparables and appeals
Summary
The Committee of the Whole voted to table adoption of the mayor’s Carlson Dettman pay plan after councilors raised concerns about which labor-market comparables were used, fringe‑benefit treatment and a mistaken appeals deadline.
The Committee of the Whole considered Mayor Hagan’s recommended phase-two pay plan — produced by Carlson Dettman — and voted to table final action after councilors raised questions about the study’s market comparables, fringe-benefit treatment and the appeals timeline.
Mayor Hagan opened remarks by describing the plan as a “long-term pay plan” intended to address recruitment and retention, noting phase one last year upgraded classifications and an across‑the‑board 2% increase. Hagan said the current package also includes longevity adjustments and a multi-step pay structure.
Councilor Sweeney strongly criticized the consulting work, saying the contract required comparables from the Duluth‑Superior metropolitan area and private‑sector data but that the delivered study used a broader set of southern Wisconsin cities and omitted private-sector comparables. Sweeney asked that Carlson Dettman be asked to redo the parts of the study that do not match the contract specification.
Other councilors voiced mixed reactions. Councilor Bender said she opposed the original $30,000 study cost but supported longevity adjustments and noted represented employees favor the package. Councilor Olson said he supports city employees but objected that several requested data items, including two differing salary charts and a cost-to-fill analysis, were not provided. Councilor Dalbec said some comparables had been established years earlier by an arbitrator and that the council had used those comparables historically.
Charlie Carlson of Carlson Dettman addressed the committee and offered to redo the study using the comparables the council requested at no cost to the city; he estimated a redo could take about 30 days and projected the recosting might lower the pay plan by roughly 2–4 percent, depending on schedule placement. Carlson also offered to perform appeals work at no cost to the city if the council adopts a study.
Councilor Bender moved to table the item, citing the need for corrections and a 30‑day turnaround; the motion to table was seconded and passed by voice vote. No final approval of the pay plan occurred; the committee recorded a decision to send the study back for the revisions requested.
