Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect that the pay rate proposed is for Wausau Water Works utility staff, not DPW. Eric Lindman heads both areas. Wausau Pilot & Review regrets the error.
Damakant Jayshi
Wausau’s human resources director is questioning the fairness and financial impact of a proposal to raise pay for Water Works utility staff, prompting a pause on the plan Monday by a city committee.
HR Director James Henderson was blunt in terming the utility’s proposal as nothing other than a pay hike for the utility’s staff under the name of “reclassification.”
“I have got a bunch of questions on this one,” Henderson said after the utility Director Eric Lindman briefed the committee on why he felt the reclassification and the associated pay raise were needed. “First of all, what kind of science was used other than ‘hey, I want my guys to make more money?’”
Lindman said he was trying to adjust to a pay structure developed by Gallagher, a compensation consulting firm previously hired by the city. He said the Wausau utility’s proposal was also based on a comparison with other utilities and examining compensation studies. On more than one occasion, Lindman said current staff pay is below other utilities and a raise is in order. Wausau Water Works utility comprises drinking water and wastewater divisions.
Henderson objected to the utility-only pay raise and the proposed classification, terming it a “horrible idea.” Under the terms of the proposal, water and wastewater superintendents would be promoted by two grades, which would then bypass police captains and fire battalion chiefs. The superintendents would then be at par with the city assessor and the assistant director of community development.
One superintendent would see a raise of $13,000 per year and the other an annual raise of $12,000, Henderson noted. This is on top of the 3% raise that Gallagher has recommended for all city staff and an additional cost of living assistance pay, making it at least a 10 %or 12 % raise, he said.
“How is it fair to say we are going to raise them 10% or 12% and then go to the rest of the city and say ‘you may get 3%?’” Henderson said.
Lindman suggested an alternate option of placing employees into the next pay grade, rather than a two-grade increase, but “if the fiscal impact is an issue, we just drop them back to the next closest step they are at by a fraction that reduces the budget impact.”
The utility director also complained that Gallagher’s representatives never consulted the utility prior to making their recommendations.
Henderson said all directors were asked to give their feedback on the Gallagher study. Lindman said he was given just two weeks to go through 40 job descriptions, so he could not do it. Still, he insisted, he gave an appropriate response.
The HR director said the utility proposal would add half a million dollars to the budget and that was without even calculating the cost of the three new positions for the utility that they just agreed to add “which is another $200,000 or $300,000. So, we are about to drop about a million dollars conservatively with something that really has no science behind it. It is just basically someone saying my people deserve more money.”
Lindman objected to that characterization and said the total was $450,000.
Henderson said he needs to look out for the entire city staff and not just one department.
He added that utility “is at a critical juncture and it has been since the implementation of the last wage study in 2019.” If the reclassification is not done now, they will continue to have issues and the “our next issue is noncompliance and they are going to be expensive and they are going to have an issue with us coming back in the compliance without skilled labor and without being able to retain and without us being able to draw people in.”
Committee Chair McElhaney said she was not comfortable endorsing any proposal that asked rate-payers to fund it. She sought clarification from the city’s Finance Director Maryanne Groat, who said she would get to the committee with her response after hearing from the city’s financial consultant, Ehlers Public Finance Advisors.
Committee member Tom Kilian said he watched the proceedings of the Wausau Water Works Commission last week where the discussion on reclassification took place. The Dist. 3 alder said the whole issue was becoming problematic and added it appears to be an issue of sovereignty of decision-making and said the structure needs to be examined.
Henderson had objected to the proposal last week as well, prompting Mayor Katie Rosenberg, who chairs the commission, to suggest that the HR Committee look into it holistically. On Monday, she told committee members that her intention was that they should all be on the same page on the matter.
Instead of approving the proposal, the HR Committee will now hold a joint meeting with the Wausau Water Works Commission, as proposed by Alder Gary Gisselman. Alder Kilian who had initially suggested a meeting between the commission and the city’s Finance Committee and finance staff, backed Gisselman’s proposal.
McElhaney then suggested tabling the Wausau Water Works’ proposal until after the joint meeting and all the committee members agreed to that.
The date and time for the joint meeting has not yet been set.
