Milwaukee aldermen press DPW over December snow-plow failures and weigh refunding snow-and-ice fee

Aldermen pressed Department of Public Works leaders on Jan. 8 over failures and communication lapses during the Dec. 19–20, 2024 snow event and debated whether the city could or should refund the annual snow-and-ice fee.

The discussion unfolded at the Milwaukee Common Council Public Works Committee meeting, where Alderman Westmoreland — sponsor of a file about the December plowing failures — described widespread constituent complaints and said the central problem was “the lack of communication from DPW leadership.” DPW director of operations Danielle Rodriguez and Public Works Commissioner Joe Kruschick answered detailed questions about how the department responded, what happened in the field and what changes the department plans.

Why it matters: The committee reviewed whether the council should pursue a partial refund or other adjustments to the fee that funds snow-and-ice operations, and sought operational changes including more timely responses to aldermanic inquiries, better real-time tracking of trucks and more proactive staffing and supervisory coverage. The fee generates roughly $11.3 million a year and is part of the city’s adopted budget for 2025.

DPW timeline, tactics and numbers DPW described the department's operational timeline for the Dec. 19'20 event and the tactics used: - The department said it initiated pre-treatment and a general ice control (GIC) operation before the storm. Early residential pretreatment used granular salt targeted at roughly 500 pounds per lane mile; mains were later treated at rates varying from about 300 to 500 pounds per lane mile depending on conditions. - Crews were directed to move from mains to residentials once mains were judged safe; directives changed multiple times between about 4 a.m. and 9 a.m. the Friday after the storm as conditions varied across the city. - DPW reported roughly 102 plow/salt trucks scheduled per 12-hour shift, with additional reserve vehicles available to fill gaps. The department said routes were right-sized this season so some went longer but with fewer extreme outliers.

Operational constraints and failures highlighted by aldermen Aldermen raised several recurring problems: - Communication: Westmoreland and other aldermen said they and constituents sent multiple emails and calls that were not answered; Westmoreland said he had not received replies weeks after his messages. Rodriguez acknowledged she had been out for a medical procedure during part of the response and said emails were forwarded to managers, but she also said she "should have responded" and pledged to do better. - Field supervision and staffing: Aldermen described few middle supervisors patrolling trouble spots and asked how many supervisors were in the field. DPW said it has a multi-tiered supervision structure including three snow-duty managers and multiple support managers, but acknowledged supervisor coverage is a pressure point. - Equipment and breakdowns: The department reported 107 breakdowns during the roughly two-day operation, with an average downtime about an hour and a half; field mechanics work to repair equipment rapidly. Council members pressed on vehicle age and on the fact that trucks budgeted in prior years had not yet been delivered because procurement takes 12'18 months. - Parking and enforcement: Aldermen said widespread double parking and weak enforcement blocked plows and reduced the department's ability to clear residential streets; aldermen urged closer coordination with MPD and parking enforcement during snow events.

Pilot technology and near-term changes DPW described several near-term and planned changes: - Cameras and telematics: DPW is piloting onboard cameras with GPS and telematics in plow trucks; the department said the pilot is installed on about 80% of trucks and will provide managers with maps of truck locations and data on salt dispensing. The department said full rollout will take more time and additional budget. - Route changes and standbys: DPW said it has rerouted routes this season to balance lane miles and plans to use more standbys (pre-staged staff and equipment) on certain storms to get resources in place sooner. - Training and rider feedback: The department commits to additional briefings for aldermanic aides and continuing debriefs and surveys of drivers after storms.

Data and budget context A summary of figures discussed at the meeting (committee and staff provided these figures during the hearing): - Snow-and-ice fee: DPW said the standard snow-and-ice fee calculation for 2025 is $1.15 per front foot of property frontage and that projected revenue of roughly $11.3 million is included in the 2025 budget. - Salt usage: The department cited about 26,000 tons used in 2023 and 32,000 tons in 2024; procurement and storage cycles affect annual purchases, and the department said the 2025 procurement authorization is larger because of storage and supply planning. - Trucks and procurement: New trucks budgeted in recent capital appropriations were credited but not yet delivered; DPW said lead time on vehicles is 12'18 months and that a tranche of vehicles budgeted for the coming period will make about 20% of the fleet new when delivered over the next 18 months. - Breakdowns: The department reported 107 breakdowns over the two-day operation; staff said breakdowns range from short field repairs to major failures that remove a truck from service.

Feasibility of refunding or reducing the fee Alderman Westmoreland's file asked DPW, the comptroller and the budget office to study the feasibility of refunding snow-and-ice removal charges. On the legal and budgetary questions: - City Comptroller Bill Christianson told the committee that, in general, a charge-for-service should be tied to a real, current and direct service provided to the property; he said he was not aware of an established refund process for situations where constituents felt work was inadequate. - The budget director told the committee that the administration does not recommend a midyear reduction of the fee included in the 2025 budget because the revenue is already budgeted against ongoing costs; staff said a reduction is technically feasible but would create a midyear budget gap and would be a policy decision for the council and mayor. - Commissioner Kruschick and Director Rodriguez said the department is providing services citywide and that the core dispute is about quality and timing, not whether some service occurred — a distinction that affects whether a refund is legally supportable.

Committee action and next steps The committee took procedural steps at the meeting. The committee held file 241409 (the refund/feasibility communication) to the call of the chair; it received and placed on file file 241416 (Alderman Westmoreland's communication about the Dec. snow response); and it held file 191930 (DPW status/operations file) to the call of the chair. Alderman Westmoreland moved the procedural holds; the chair announced the holds after discussion.

What the department will provide: DPW agreed to share an internal post-storm timeline and debrief documents with the council, to provide additional data on staffing and truck availability for the Dec. 19'20 operation, and to continue the truck camera/telematics pilot and provide updates on procurement timelines for new vehicles.

Quotes "This is not about you guys at all. This is about the lack of communication from DPW leadership," Alderman Westmoreland said.

"I simply don't have the bandwidth to reply individually to every single constituent," Danielle Rodriguez said, adding she would change how messages are tracked and acknowledged.

"If an email comes to Daniel or myself during an operation, it is not effective," Commissioner Joe Kruschick said, urging aldermen to use the city's 286-CITY call center or the Click4Action app for service requests because that is how calls get dispatched.

Ending Committee members called for a mix of near-term fixes (clearer response acknowledgements to aldermen, more supervisory checks, better coordination with parking enforcement) and longer-term investments (new vehicles, full telematics and camera rollout). The administration said it did not recommend a midyear fee refund for 2025 but agreed to provide the committee with the requested operational data and recommended that any fee change be considered in the 2026 budget process.

Votes and formal actions at the Jan. 8 meeting were procedural: the committee held file 241409 to the call of the chair, received and placed file 241416 on file and held file 191930 to the call of the chair. The committee did not adopt a refund or fee change at this meeting.