Dysfunction Junction
Twice in the last five days city emergency crews have been out on River Mill Road working in the dark to repair underground utilities. Their appearance, which I hadn't seen at all in the previous 10 years, comes a few weeks after city workers dug up parts of many lawns while "upgrading" water valves in preparation for the unwanted sidewalks that we will soon be getting.
I guess it could just be a coincidence that the emergency repairs were required after the city set out to make some improvements. But I can't help but see these incidents as emblematic of how our local government operates--and a warning that it's always possible to make a bad situation worse.
Consider the Common Council and its deliberations of what to do about the city manager. A former mayor, the Northwestern and numerous individuals have already registered their amazement about how things have unfolded, with a duly elected Council member, Bryan Bain, disqualified somehow from taking part. What in the world is going on?
Well one theory holds that City Attorney Warren Kraft has rigged the process in favor of his boss the city manager by recommending a lawyer who would find a way to derail any effort to get rid of Richard Wollangk.
Another theory, or part of the same theory referenced above, is that one or more Council members are having second thoughts about the wisdom of firing the city manager. Whatever his deficiencies, he has done what he was told to do. It's really the fault of this and previous Councils for not doing a better job of articulating what he needs to do and making him do it.
The city staffers who have drawn the ire of Council members are some of the department heads. If Wollangk were to agree to dump a couple of them, then he might garner enough support to hang on. (With Bain out of the voting picture for the moment, a tie vote is a likely outcome, and that would keep Wollangk in his post.)
There aren't good alternatives here. Give Wollangk his walking papers, and watch city initiatives and planning grind to a halt just in time for budget season. A national search for a successor (and nasty arguments about paying more money to attract a more dynamic personality) would waste some more time and help keep redevelopment efforts from moving ahead.
Or the Council could take a deep breath and emerge from its secret sessions to announce that the city doesn't need new faces at City Hall, just new attitudes. (From the recent sidewalk discussion, we know that a majority of Council members has the ability to keep straight faces while talking nonsense out of both sides of their mouths. So don't doubt that this could happen.)
Clearly what the Common Council needs to do next is ... change the subject. Maybe it could identify some more streets without sidewalks and make that the focus of attention.
Is a new form of government needed, maybe an elected mayor with veto power or one who presides over a group of alderpersons elected ward by ward? I don't really think so.
What needs to happen is that the city has to find a way to enlarge its tax base. Plain and simple. Everything else is just a distraction.
It ain't sidewalks. It ain't smoking. It's taxing cottonwood trees (only kidding).
Granted--enlarging the tax base isn't a trivial task. If it were easy to do, it would have already been done.
But appointing an economic development commission or hiring a new city manager and offloading the task to someone else won't work either.
The Council was elected to provide the city with leadership. A first step is to define clearly the desired outcome, and the second step is to establish benchmarks and intermediate goals. The third step is to start working in that direction.
Time's a-wasting, here in Dysfunction Junction.
I guess it could just be a coincidence that the emergency repairs were required after the city set out to make some improvements. But I can't help but see these incidents as emblematic of how our local government operates--and a warning that it's always possible to make a bad situation worse.
Consider the Common Council and its deliberations of what to do about the city manager. A former mayor, the Northwestern and numerous individuals have already registered their amazement about how things have unfolded, with a duly elected Council member, Bryan Bain, disqualified somehow from taking part. What in the world is going on?
Well one theory holds that City Attorney Warren Kraft has rigged the process in favor of his boss the city manager by recommending a lawyer who would find a way to derail any effort to get rid of Richard Wollangk.
Another theory, or part of the same theory referenced above, is that one or more Council members are having second thoughts about the wisdom of firing the city manager. Whatever his deficiencies, he has done what he was told to do. It's really the fault of this and previous Councils for not doing a better job of articulating what he needs to do and making him do it.
The city staffers who have drawn the ire of Council members are some of the department heads. If Wollangk were to agree to dump a couple of them, then he might garner enough support to hang on. (With Bain out of the voting picture for the moment, a tie vote is a likely outcome, and that would keep Wollangk in his post.)
There aren't good alternatives here. Give Wollangk his walking papers, and watch city initiatives and planning grind to a halt just in time for budget season. A national search for a successor (and nasty arguments about paying more money to attract a more dynamic personality) would waste some more time and help keep redevelopment efforts from moving ahead.
Or the Council could take a deep breath and emerge from its secret sessions to announce that the city doesn't need new faces at City Hall, just new attitudes. (From the recent sidewalk discussion, we know that a majority of Council members has the ability to keep straight faces while talking nonsense out of both sides of their mouths. So don't doubt that this could happen.)
Clearly what the Common Council needs to do next is ... change the subject. Maybe it could identify some more streets without sidewalks and make that the focus of attention.
Is a new form of government needed, maybe an elected mayor with veto power or one who presides over a group of alderpersons elected ward by ward? I don't really think so.
What needs to happen is that the city has to find a way to enlarge its tax base. Plain and simple. Everything else is just a distraction.
It ain't sidewalks. It ain't smoking. It's taxing cottonwood trees (only kidding).
Granted--enlarging the tax base isn't a trivial task. If it were easy to do, it would have already been done.
But appointing an economic development commission or hiring a new city manager and offloading the task to someone else won't work either.
The Council was elected to provide the city with leadership. A first step is to define clearly the desired outcome, and the second step is to establish benchmarks and intermediate goals. The third step is to start working in that direction.
Time's a-wasting, here in Dysfunction Junction.
posted by Miles Maguire at 9:45 AM
140 Comments:
Sadly, I have to agree and am not very optimistic about the possibility of the city's attention refocusing on the real issues at hand. The nuances of redevelopment are ungodly divisive in this town. A successful redevelopment project in this city will mean that someone -- be they from town or elsewhere -- will make some money and there seems to be no greater sin in Oshkosh public life than success.
These distractions are far easier narratives to wrap people's minds around. It has a villain, it has a martyr, it has what appears to be a clear cut injustice -- and it means we don't have to look at many of the harsh economic realities that are only compounded each day that the city chooses to stand idly.
Part of this problem has been the "if you build it, they will come' strategy that hasn't gotten us anywhere (see 100 N. Main -- sure, the apts. are mostly rented, but the street level retail space is as empty as the day it opened). What we should seriously consider doing is begin aggressively courting growing businesses from out of town and/or state that are looking to expand, selling the city to them based on what their needs are, and then teaming up with developers to accommodate those needs in exchange for a long term commitment to the city.
That will be a difficult process that not everyone will be able to participate in -- it will actually take expertise rather than self-righteous indignation, something there seems to be no end of in town right now. It will also require that the public invest a good deal of trust in the people chosen to carry this mission out, something that is not likely to happen given the current squabbling.
We're not just loosing time debate things of a lesser priority, we're also actively weakening the council's or the (next) manager's ability to do anything. If we could have a legitimate conversation about what the role of the city manager should be in the future -- that would be productive. But that's not what's happening here and it's truthfully embarrassing.
Miles - you simply are filled with hate because Paul Esslinger listened to an average citizen living in a modest neighborhood who asked him to look into why modest neighborhoods were required to have sidewalks, but wealthy neighborhoods somehow could circumvent the system.
I'd say Paul was doing the right thing...and so did Frank, Dennis and Tony. It took 4 votes.
You are really in rage of Frank because you never thought he would vote that way...but he did! Frank is showing he has the kahones to do this job. No special interests for him. He and Paul even voted the same on the smoking question. It failed 5-2, but Frank voted with Paul even though it wasn't the way the entitled folks would want him to cast his vote. We have a great council!!
Go ahead and continue to whine. Your walks will be installed soon!
BTW...I'm thinking Frank will be the key vote on the Manager issue also. I think just as he joined Dennis, Tony and Paul on the sidewalks, he will also join them on a vote to oust Wollangk. Frank is gaining GREAT respect from the average base of Oshkosh taxpayers. Didn't think I'd be saying that, but his voting record really tells the tale!!
Hopefully Bryan can be brought back into the fold and make it a 5-2 vote. We all know how King and B. Tower will vote. They seem to now be in the minority.
If you think Tony is going to vote to get rid of the city manager, you may want to consider his statement on a recent appearance on "Eye on Oshkosh" where he said he was willing to give Richard another chance.
Does not sound to me like he is ready to vote to oust Wollangk. I do not think he wants to be accountable for that vote.
Without haven't heard Palmerii's comment on "Eye on Oshkosh" myself, let me hope that he did not mean that he was willing to give the city manager another chance based on his performance while Palmeri has been on the council. That has only been a couple of month's; and, frankly, if the manager got a second chance from every new council member that was elected he would actually be racking dozens of "second" chances.
Again, just going on what 9:52 is saying, Palmeri must base his decision on the manager's job performance throughout his entire tenure, not just what has occurred since Palmeri took his seat on the council. Otherwise nothing would ever get done.
Maybe Tony said what he did (if what 9:52 says is true) because he didn't want to publicly slam Dick and end up like Bryan. Smart move Tony!
Could be, but then does that statement make him biased so he should be removed from deliberations just like Brian? He did state he was willing to give Wollangk another chance.
Sounds like he has already made up his mind. According to the attorney, that would make him biased wouldn't it? He should probably leave the meetings also.
I thought about the possibility of a head fake from Palmeri, 12:16, and if it were from any other person I would think that would be the case. But Palmeri's best attribute as a public official is his genuineness. I never get the impression that he doesn't believe what he's saying -- no matter how wrong I think he may be.
Like I said earlier, I didn't catch the "Eye on Oshkosh" segment, so I can't make a good informed opinion on what was said; but I'd much rather have Palmeri be wrong than to start having to parse his words.
Are you sure it does not take 5 votes to remove the city manager. I believe it is a percentage of the council and not the simple majority.
I believe it is 2/3 of the council.
Want to change the subject?
How about questioning whether the city is going to pursue the personal guarantees on the 100 Main Street TIF?
jb I completely agree with your 1:16 comment. As far as the part of: ". . . What we should seriously consider doing is begin aggressively courting growing businesses from out of town . . ." you were right on!!!! We cannot count on current Oshkosh businesses to expand rapidly enough to do the job especially in light of some apparently not wanting to do business (See http://independent--thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/oshkosh-area-businesses-need-to-help.html). I hope we can start courting other businesses and grow Oshkosh.
We do aggressively court business. And so does every other community in the U.S.! Take a look at our city government and OASD. Both are in dissaray. Why would a business want to take a chance on Oshkosh? There is alot of competition out there. What do we have to offer that others do not?
I have to disagree with the ‘aggressive’ part of your assessment, 9:21.
Yes, there are attempts to court businesses, like the New North, but this is a regional effort and a passive one at that. It’s a step in the right direction, but – let’s face it – it’s going to take more than a fancy brochure and web site to get people to think about starting up a business here.
Two things need to happen in Oshkosh that to my knowledge are not currently happening. The first is that we need actually start aggressively courting existing businesses. And this is what I mean by that:
There needs to be someone – in my estimation this should be one of the jobs of the city manager – who conducts extensive research on growing businesses nationwide with an eye to their growth potential and the possibility of the company being a good fit in the community. Once a few prospects are identified someone then approaches the company – and I mean literally cold calling them if necessary – and says, “Hey, we’ve noticed you’re looking to expand … why not expand here in Oshkosh?” Then begin a negotiation with an aim to bringing them here, making accommodations to expedite their move here in return for a long term commitment to the community.
This will undoubtedly be a long, labor-intensive process that will require someone with a skill set that includes development, business, shameless cheerleading and schmoozing. We’re going to need someone who can sell ice to Eskimos, and if one person can’t do it all by him or her self, then it should become a team effort by various leaders of the community. (Each sales pitch will be different, of course, depending on the business, but I’d imagine a common theme would be pointing out that Oshkosh is home to the third largest public university in the state, where between 1000-2000 young, skilled kids graduate every year.)
This person should literally get on a plane and meet with the company, get to know the important people in the leadership and then coax them into visiting town. He or she should give them a tour of the city, the schools, take them to dinner, play golf with them – the whole nine yards. They should leave Oshkosh thinking this place is paradise.
I’ve never heard of that being done. And if it has been done or is currently being done, the results aren’t impressive.
The second point I think the more difficult of the two. This would be developing home-grown businesses. The largest employers in the city of Oshkosh tend to be manufacturers who make things for people all over the nation/world. After these guys business mostly offer goods and services to people here in town or in the area. We need to find people who want to run a 21st century business that caters to the world from Oshkosh. I mean biotech, financial services (think Wausau Insurance), computer programming, etc. This won’t be easy either, but it’ll be critical to fostering an environment that encourages economic growth. There are some things being done in this regard right now, but more can be done.
Of course we’re competing with other cities and those guys have plenty to offer too, you don’t dwell on the negatives when you’re trying to sell something. City government maybe a mess right now, but it will resolve itself one way or another within the election cycle. We need to think strategically. If city government is uncomfortable, unwilling, or unable to be a part of this process voters should not elect them to leadership positions.
So- jb are you going to run for council or apply for the city manager position should it become open? (I say this in all seriousness). You seem to have a real handle on what this town needs and it sure needs someone who knows what is needed to lead it.
I totally agree with JB. The fact is we are not getting the bang for our buck from the City Manager or his Staff. They seem to be coasting and trying to fly under the radar until retirement.
Oshkosh deserves better. We lag far behind our neighbors to the North and South.
Lets clean house at City Hall and get a real LEADER as City Manager.
I’m flattered at the suggestion, Q., but at the end of the day I think I'm just too introverted to be able to do either job successfully according to the standards that I’ve laid out for the position. There’s simply not enough P.T. Barnum in me to pull that off.
This will become especially important given the additional problems the council and manager will face in the not so distant future. The sandwich board-wearing doomsday crier in me tends to think that there will likely be a recession sometime in the next 18 months. This is in no way the fault of the city leadership, but it will mean a whole new ball game that they will have to contend with. If a recession does happen development in Oshkosh will become exponentially more difficult to accomplish – fewer businesses will be likely to expand or start, and securing the financing for new building projects will also be a pain.
That means there could be the potential that several riverside development projects, including the Marion-Pearl Street district and the Pioneer Inn area, could lay undeveloped for several years to come. That would not be good for city tax revenues, job creation and economic growth in Oshkosh. I would much rather be wrong about this prediction, of course, but all this means that it would be wise for the leadership to start preparing for a rough future.
I actually think they’re capable of that – at least individually. Right now I think there’s a lot of talent and potential on the common council. Each of the members really does embody a certain sliver of the city to an extent. That’s a great thing so far as representation is concerned, but it has its draw backs – and one of those is occurring right now. I get the distinct feeling that a few of the members of the council believe they were elected for one reason or another and now they have to deliver to their constituency.
That’s fine. I’m entirely cool with that. I understand a bit how politics works … but there’s a time and a place for everything. Right now, I think the council is extremely unfocused – if Oshkosh is a cart then there a seven different horses trying to pull it in seven different directions. What I think needs to be made perfectly clear – and in no uncertain terms – is that development is this city’s number one priority and all other issues will have to take a backseat for the moment.
This doesn’t mean day-to-day council work has to grind to a screeching halt – liquor licenses and zoning variances can still be approved as they arrive at the attention of the council.
But a lot of other issues are dependent on what the development areas turn out to look like. For example, I don’t think we can honestly expect to see a comprehensive school district realignment plan until we know if the redevelopment areas will be residential or commercial. If the former, who will be living there: more students and young, single folks without kids, or starter homes for young families or someone else? If it’s commercial property, what kind of jobs will people be working there – high-paying, career track employment or something else? And regardless of what the answer to that is where will these people be living – close to work, or will they be commuting in from Winneconne et al.? Without answers to these and dozens of other related questions, I wouldn’t expect an adequate long-term solution to the redistricting problem any time soon.
The city’s leadership doesn’t necessarily need another person in their midst to start beating this drum – but they desperately need to start hearing this drum being beaten from the voters themselves. When the rhythm gets loud enough, someone will stand up to the occasion, be they a long-standing member of the leadership or someone new.
A lot of times in politics – and especially in Oshkosh – people will look at an elected body like the common council, find the one person on it who they think most resembles themselves and then stay almost slavishly devoted to that one person. Everyone does this at some time or another – I’ve been just as guilty of it, too, but the result is that that voters do more heavy lifting for their adopted official than the official does for them – and that, my friends, is not the way it should be.
So why not try it the other way around, for once? If the din of people saying we need redevelopment in this city is loud enough, you will see action.
So here’s my proposal – mostly outlined in the previous posts above and elsewhere. If you like it, then run with it – tell a neighbor, tell a friend, go forth and preach the gospel that unless this city makes a genuine commitment to redevelop itself, it risks long-term economic, social, and cultural stagnation.
If you need to hear more – just turn the Bat Signal on – I’d be more than happy to carry on.
If you’re in a position to do something about it (and I have a feeling our elected officials probably do a bit more blog reading than they’d like to admit), it’s yours. Make it your own. Go nuts. I 'm much more interested in seeing something get done than seeing what it's like to do your job.
JB,
I'm interested in your prediction-
"This will become especially important given the additional problems the council and manager will face in the not so distant future. The sandwich board-wearing doomsday crier in me tends to think that there will likely be a recession sometime in the next 18 months. This is in no way the fault of the city leadership, but it will mean a whole new ball game that they will have to contend with. If a recession does happen development in Oshkosh will become exponentially more difficult to accomplish – fewer businesses will be likely to expand or start, and securing the financing for new building projects will also be a pain."
Can you please expand on the recession you mention will occur in the next 18 months? I'd like to hear a little more of what your thoughts are regarding that.
Thanks in advance.
Let me first say that I’m probably in the minority opinion on this one (for what it’s worth), but the Cliff’s Notes version of this song and dance is that volatility in the housing and money markets will make the lives of people who live and die on credit or loans very difficult. That’s everyone from the private equity firm manager who needs to borrow tens of millions of dollars to buyout a company to the guy who uses one credit card to pay off another. It’ll be something of a credit reckoning that will force people and businesses to reassess just what kind of financial footing they stand on and I’m afraid that’s not something a lot of folks are ready to do and will likely result in a decrease in domestic consumer spending, a lot of which has been based on some form of borrowing of late.
Most people would say that any expectations of a recession are indicative of a Malthusian pessimism, that the market will “correct” itself soon enough. They could be right. But there hasn’t been a recession since the early 1990s (some people don’t count the economic discord that followed the dot com fizzle and 9/11 as a “real” recession) and there are those who would argue that we’re due.
The reason the “we’re due” line of thinking strikes me as a little more substantial than it may seem at first is that for about 20 years now the financial services sector has been developing or increasingly utilizing new institutions and methods that have made a lot of money for a lot of people. Some of these methods, like sub-prime loans, have turned out to be not as stable as they probably looked on paper not long ago – and I’d be willing to wager that there are a few other schemes out there that we just haven’t heard of yet that will suffer a similar fate.
Maybe this all happens … maybe it doesn’t, but one of the things I was hinting at, which I suppose I should just come out and say, is that if the city decides to put someone in charge of aggressively reaching out to out-of-town interests, this person will have a very difficult time ahead of them, so it would probably be a wise investment of time and resources to find a sort of “business ambassador” with the capability and motivation to get the job done correctly, even under harsher than normal economic circumstances.
Hope that helps.
8:35 -- if you're still interested, I'll putting together a sort of "mix tape" of economic news on (what I hope will be) a daily basis for the next we weeks at my own blog -- prepare for shameless self-promotion:
http://foxtrot-echo.blogspot.com
The idea of a possible recession has actually been something of an intellectual curiosity that's captured much of my attention of late and I've doing a lot of reading on the topic, so I may as well share it with anyone who is interested or who can add additional insight
I'm not going to try to synthesize anything or add additional commentary, just pass info ad opinions along.
Congratulations to all 7 council members for unanimously agreeing to drive the change at City Hall. By your actions today, you’ve set the tone for progressive change to our City government. You have made it clear, in no uncertain terms; City Hall will not be conducting “business as usual”.
Your next task will be to select the next Oshkosh City Manager. Although no one disagrees that Mr. Wollangk was not deeply committed to Oshkosh, many would agree his leadership and managerial style was not in the best interests of the taxpayer. We now hope you approach Mr. Wollangks replacement in a systematic approach, and attempt to identify a strong willed, proven city planner and leader who will be able to take the change you’ve started this evening and drive it throughout the entire city administration.
Although it was undoubtedly a difficult task, you’ve all served your City well today.
I think Frank Tower is doing a fantastic job in his role of Mayor. First he was the final vote to fix a discrepancy in how sidewalks are installed. Now he as the Mayor is pushing to make a change in city hall and the way it runs. Many people say Wollank was put in his job by the good ol boys network. Well I think the good old boys thought they had a lap dog with Frank Tower, but he’s showing they don’t! Way to go Frank. You rate really high marks in my book.
I find it interesting to read two somewhat polar opposite columns in the Sunday paper today.
1) The Letter to the Editor about the Omachinski issue.
2) The lead story about City Unions moving to arbitration.
On one hand, you have a man with extraordinary fiscal responsibility, driven to “make tough decisions that maintain profitability for the company”. The shareholders demand better value, so he did what was needed to maintain “financial long-term success of the company” Additional costs of labor simply could not be passed on the consumer.
Then we hear that several city unions have taken Oshkosh’s last offer to arbitration. It appears that these unions believe they deserve more than the contract that was approved by the police unions. These union members who already have 95% of their healthcare paid by Oshkosh property taxpayers feel that the wage increase they’ve been offered (on top of those extraordinary healthcare benefits) isn’t enough. They want more!
So many people line up to support Mr. Omachinski and his position to cut jobs and do whatever it took to maintain profitability and shareholder value in a private corporation, yet when we taxpayers are funding healthcare and providing raises to our city workers that are well over and above what most of us obtain WE are called insensitive and uncaring. Something is terribly wrong with our labor system.
I think laws need to be changed to level the playing field.
Municipal union employees should not be held in higher regard than any other labor group. Jobs in the private sector are downsized and wages are re-organized on a regular basis. It’s often called “Supply and demand”. I’m fairly certain there would be a long line at city hall to fill some of these city union jobs just for the healthcare coverage without any wage increases at all. Supply and demand.
Two polar opposite and troubling articles. More reason to believe there is much work to be done at city hall when our new manager comes aboard.
Furthermore, all city workers should read this article, and then on this Labor Day weekend, be glad for what they have and be more sensitive to the fact that “Big Corporations” aren’t paying their wages and benefits, mostly blue collar Oshkosh (not Town of Algoma) taxpayers are!
http://www.postcrescent.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070902/APC03/709020540/1888
4:50 I see you have been posting the same garbage on multiple sites. One has already deleted it because it was not on topic. Get some mental health help.
Another excellent article in the paper today. Again discussing healthcare benefits.
This paragraph is a snapshot of part of the problem:
“Besides the cost, the current system is incredibly unfair. Anyone who works for the government (Oshkosh City Workers) gets health insurance as a benefit. People who cannot afford insurance pay, through their taxes, for the health insurance of government employees (Oshkosh City Workers).”
This is exactly what has been mentioned on this and other blog sites so many times. The middle class blue collar worker who struggles to put food on his table and keep a roof over his families head may not be able to afford healthcare insurance for his family…yet thought his property taxes, he helps fund a healthcare plan that pays 95% of all costs associated with a city workers healthcare plan.
The taxpayer can’t afford health insurance for his family, yet his taxes pay for a Cadillac healthcare plan for city workers.
“It is the height of hypocrisy for politicians to tell the uninsured that they should set up Health Savings Accounts and use that money to pay for their insurance. First, they don't have any money to save and second, why should they have to buy their own insurance in addition to paying for their representative's? If we took away their insurance, I am sure they would find a way to cover everyone.”
For more, read this excellent article:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
OSH06/709030375/1189
City employee healthcare coverage is a topic one poster does not want discussed. He would rather it be left in the shadows, not talked about. I believe his fear is that as more Oshkosh taxpayers become aware of the benefit structure in place with city employees, and they weight those benefits against the benefits provided by their employer, they become angry.
Why should people who cannot afford to cover their own families with a decent healthcare package continue to pay more property taxes to afford city employees 3% wage increases on top of 95% taxpayer funded healthcare?
The civil service employees should not exist in a "bubble". They need to experience reality just as the rest of everyday working class Oshkosh taxpayers do!
9:12 Copy and Paste Dude is back!!!!!
11:25 - Try bettering yourself through education, then get a job, then you will be able to "afford" healthcare.
11:25 AM - The comments of a likely city employee upset that people want to have a dialog about the benefit package we the taxpayers fund.
Truth is, if he is a city employee, he doesn't need to worry about affording a wonderful healthcare plan because WE the property tax payers pay it for him!
Mr. Omachinski has been heralded as an executive just doing his job. A job, which required him to choose between company profitability and local jobs. The free market system could no longer support the cost of goods created by Oshkosh B'Gosh local labor. Manufacturing was moved offshore so the corporation could compete.
We can't offshore services provided by city employees. But the resulting escalating expectations of labor towards those that pay them would never fly in a corporate setting.
Just as corporations can't continue to compete with sky-rocketing labor costs, taxpayers can't continue to fund things like 95% healthcare coverage for city labor when they themselves are unable to afford healthcare for their own families.
Those, the city workers that are in the position to receive these benefits seem to want to stifle this discussion. They want these benefits to fly under the radar screen of the average taxpayer.
Article such as
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
OSH06/709030375/1189
Bring to focus the healthcare crisis is America, and furthermore focus on how the working - middleclass taxpayer is hurting.
11:25 sounds like a miserable person that did not get the education he should have when he should have and now blames others for his lot in life. He certainly has an axe to grind with the City of Oshkosh employees. I wonder how long it will be before he brings back his favorite saying . . . "gold plated benefits"! Sad excuse for a human being.
9:48 says:
“11:25 sounds like a miserable person that did not get the education he should have when he should have and now blames others for his lot in life. He certainly has an axe to grind with the City of Oshkosh employees. I wonder how long it will be before he brings back his favorite saying…”gold plated benefits”! Sad excuse for a human being.”
Well 9:48, I’d like you to take a moment of you time to read another excellent article published in the Northwestern today. Please read:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070904/OSH06/709040368/1189
Some specific comments in that article you should pay attention to as you call me a “Sad excuse for a human being.”
Your attempt to belittle people with a differing opinion from yours seems to fit this comment from the article:
“They oppose consideration of different points of view, leave no room for discussion and discourage people from voicing disagreements with their conclusions.”
Another comment from that article seems to fit your profile:
"Unless you agree with us, your voice doesn't matter."
I have no axe to grind with City Employees.
My problem is with a benefit package that provides city taxpayer funded healthcare benefits. The ratio of 95% paid by the property taxpayer and 5% paid by the city employee is simply not in line with other average middleclass Oshkosh taxpayers plans.
Something needs to be done to curb this. Rising healthcare costs are a primary concern for all Americans.
Many Oshkosh taxpayers can not afford healthcare for their own families, yet through their property taxes, they fund 95% if city employee coverage. To any common sense human being this is and obvious inequity.
I certainly applaud our City Council for their stand in contract negotiations. I am pleased to see that after many attempts for compromise, when faced with an unreasonable demand, the Council did not flinch and chose arbitration. This may be the first step in setting a new course for managing the run-away healthcare costs born by the property tax payer.
Furthermore, I expect that a new Manager or Strong Mayor may pay much more attention to this one extremely costly part of the overall city budget.
7:05 I see your blog hijacking skills are strong again today. Copy and Pasting is so boring. Time for me to go to work. You just keep bashing those city employees while you sit at home today . . . collecting benefits! By the way, who is paying for those benefits? Oh ya, ME!
Here is the issue to be discussed:
Most of us have employer sponsored healthcare coverage. Most of us currently pay about 20% for the coverage; our employers pay the remaining 80%.
As the cost of healthcare continues to soar, we as a society no doubt need to demand our elected officials intercede and stop this run-away train…but until such time as that happens, we all face these rising costs.
Most corporations public or private have addressed the rising cost of healthcare by passing along costs to their employees. Private sector unions are not insulated from these rising costs either. Most private sector unions have made significant concessions related to healthcare costs. Union members are aware that if costs continue to spiral out of control, they may very well loose their jobs as the cost of healthcare coupled with the overall benefit package makes the product they produce uncompetitive.
It is in the public sector that the problems still exist with regard to healthcare cost sharing.
Public sector employees are funded by taxpayers. Historically, property taxes are raised to provide additional funding for wages and benefits to those in public sector jobs. These jobs seem insulated from the reality most union and non-union private sector employees are faced with regarding healthcare costs.
If you look at some of the largest corporations in Wisconsin, you will find that in some cases, the healthcare plans provided to their employees are very often much weaker than those provided to pubic sector employees.
Taxpayers fund public sector employee wage and benefit packages.
Corporations and business owners fund private sector employees wage and benefit packages.
Taxpayers are not an un-ending source of funding. Public sector employees need to realize that in many cases throughout our State and Nation many workers can no longer afford healthcare coverage for their families…yet through property taxes and increased rent, they fund a very high percentage of public sector employee healthcare costs. In Oshkosh, that percentage is about 95%. Oshkosh property taxpayers pay about 95% of the entire cost, and the employee pays about 5%. Most private sector programs are in the 80%-20% range.
Furthermore, public sector employees assume that on top of these extremely favorable healthcare costs, they should continue to receive 2.5% - 3% wage increases.
If these were private sector jobs, corporations would simply shut the doors and move the business.
I applaud our City Council for the decision to take our wage and benefit package offer to arbitration. That stance is the first step to show that given the constraints of laws currently in-place, we recognize that we can not continue to pass these costs on to the property taxpayer without a fight.
This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
8:07 Why do you insist on Copying and Pasting? Is someone paying you by the word? You go blog to blog in an attempt to bash city employees, and then play the victim when other posters have had enough of your nastiness. Be nice, enjoy the city services you receive, and stop stabbing city employees in the back every chance you get.
This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.
The reason you see similar comments posted on various sites is simply the word of this needs to get out among a wide segment of the Oshkosh population.
We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.
The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?
What will become of the arbitration now in progress?
Will the results of the arbitration ruling effect the relation between the police union and others?
Will our new City Manager or "Strong" Mayor have any influence, one way or another on these costs?
What tack will our new city executive take? Hard line or let sleeping dogs lie?
All interesting and yet unanswered questions.
Can't let it fly under the radar???? Give me a break. It's been in the news and yo've made certain to plaster it everywhere -- on any blog that will allow your repetitive drivel. perhaps you're more upset that more taxpayers aren't pounding their fists and screaming at the top of their lungs like you are. If you're so concerned about this, go to a council meeting and express your complaints face to face to the council. I suspect you don't want to do that because we'll see who you really are and your jig will be up. Better yet, contact reps in Madison. They're the ones who make the laws you're also frustrated with.
Heres and interesting statistic for you:
According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.
That is JUST the cost to us property taxpayers for city employee HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.
I can see why people like 3:20 don't want this type of info to get out. They want to somehow dismiss this huge sum of money as if it were unimportant.
I'm simply outraged at the cost to all of us taxpayers.
As the Northwestern said today:
"Can the city of Oshkosh truly afford the 3 percent annual hikes those five labor unions seek?
Doesn't really matter, according to current mediation and arbitration rules. The arbitrator will decide. Budget freezes and affordability really aren't factors.
That has to change."
That has to change.
3:20 said:
"...go to a council meeting and express your complaints face to face to the council. I suspect you don't want to do that because we'll see who you really are and your jig will be up."
"we'll see who you really are"
That almost sounds like some kind of threat. But then again threating is not uncommon for some greaseball union people I guess. Your type give labor unions a bad name.
The Northwestern’s Editorial this morning stated:
“Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/articleID=/
20070907/OSH06/709070414/1189
This is exactly what needs to be fought for. AFFORDABILITY.
This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.
We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.
The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?
What will become of the arbitration now in progress?
We need to take back control of negotiations. Property taxpayers are not an endless trough of money to be tapped into at each and every contract renewal period.
I personally thank the Oshkosh Common Council for not simply rubber stamping contract approval and taking this issue to arbitration. We need to send a clear signal to the city employees that the residents, property taxpayers, renters and voters in Oshkosh have a finite tolerance for the cost of labor to provide city services.
No threat at all 6:42PM. You just don't want poeple to know who you are is all, especially after making all the comments you have about city employees taking advantage of taxpayers. So cynical are you that you presume I am a card carrying member of a union. You couldn't be more wrong. there are plenty of us who have no connection to a union at all bt at the same time do not have the same worries and problems with the wages and benefots city workers get. Again, you don't want people to know who you are, especially since we'd probably all too easily recognize you. Spin it any way you want. You have a problem with city workers and you're angry because you can't do anything about it and more people aren't mad about it like you are.
Excellent comments and perspective from a blue collar union employee and Oshkosh property tax payer:
"Well, I'm a union member that works in the real world and I'm getting sick and tired of having to pay for increases in city union workers. I'm all for union people making more, but we have to look at where these city union workers are.
They make VERY good money and get 95% of their insurance paid for them! I make $15,000-$20,000 less per year for a comperable job, work my butt off and have to pay 25% of my insurance and have a $2,000 deductable.
City union workers are giving the rest of the union base a bad name!
Every time I'm talking to people and they hear that I'm a union person they think that I make a lot of money. I tell them that I work in the private sector not the public sector.
Sep 8, 2007 10:21:00 AM"
Those comments posted by anonymous 9:15 PM are not only taken from another anonymous posting on Kent Monte's blog, they sound just like Kent Monte himself. He is a union member who works in the private sector (Oshkosh Truck) even though his employer is the federal government (you and I). He is one who coined the phrase "gold-plated" benefits and he likes to use the word "bash" any time someone disagrees with a position taken by he or his friends.
On the other side of the coin, I am not a union member but I take no homage with the salry or benefits the city workers receive. That opinion may change with future contracts but at present I am satisfied. Those couple people who keep copying and pasting the same messages all over the blogosphere are just unhappy individuals who probably can't better themselves so they want to take from others who have bettered themselves in some fashion. Instead of practicing the "art" of copy and paste, they should go back to school and learn a trade or skill where they, too, can become employed in a position where good money and benefits are provided.
9:15 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
10:20 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs
The Northwestern recently ran an editiorial discussing the affordability of labor in Oshkosh.
A quote from that article:
“Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
"...little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
This is the crux of the problem. Can Oshkosh continue to afford the cost of city employee labor?
Can Oshkosh afford to continue paying 95% of employee heathcare cost? According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08!
On top of all that, can Oshkosh afford to provide 3% wage increases to city employees?
These are all real questions, and questions that affect each and every property taxpayer or rent payer in Oshkosh.
OK Kent, whatever you say.
12:42-
Thank you for finally appreciating the common sense solution proposed.
Why toss the baby out with the bath water??
Better everyone maintains a job and shares in the cost of benefits provided. Simple and logical.
While I'm sure 1:04 believes themselves to be highly clever, if they have any intelligence at all they would realize it was a tongue in cheek comment that was made by 12:42. These anonymous messages are the exact same thing Kent continues to shout from his pathetic pulpit. He is a hypocrite who wants and expects city workers to take a pay cut or reduce their benefits, but he is unwilling to do the same. He was asked on his own blog to take a voluntary 5% pay cut to make things easier on blue collar workers. He never answered the question but keeps singing the same ole tune. He's fooling no one with his message of hypocrisy nor his anonymity.
As a city union leader 2:53 has every right to fight for greater benefits for his crew, we however need to look out for the welfare of the entire Oshkosh property taxpayer base.
It was clearly pointed out:
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs
This compensation topic was supported by a story the Northwestern recently ran; an editiorial discussing the affordability of labor in Oshkosh.
A quote from that article:
“Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
"...little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
This is the crux of the problem. Can Oshkosh continue to afford the cost of city employee labor?
Can Oshkosh afford to continue paying 95% of employee heathcare cost? According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08!
On top of all that, can Oshkosh afford to provide 3% wage increases to city employees?
These are all real questions, and questions that affect each and every property taxpayer or rent payer in Oshkosh.
If city workers aren't going to make concessions, it's time for the city to cut jobs. The city council is going to be faced with personnel cuts come November. Wollangk even indicated so. Wollangk mentioned police and fire should not be immune from the chopping block this time around....scary, isn't it? Wollangk the protector of city jobs suggesting nothing, job cut wise, should be off the table.
Seems to me the union would want to protect jobs and adjust cost sharing so all the employees could remain employed, but if they choose to eliminate their membership, I guess we may have no choice!
So sad.
6:44, why don't you use your clear thinking to do something more useful than constantly repeating your tired ideas while trashing city employees?
If you are really concerned about health care equity you could use your time to promote the state senate's Healthy Wisconsin plan. Healthy Wisconsin would create 13,000 new jobs and $1 billion in new business activity in addtion to covering all state residents. The plan will provide all businesses and their employees with the healthcare coverage they need at a cost for many companies below what they are paying now for healthcare insurance. The plan promises to make Wisconsin businesses more competitive and ultimately make Wisconsin an attractive place to do business.
So, there you are! Go cut and paste away.
6:44 You make assumptions from the very start of your rambling comment. Please engage your brain PRIOR to typing. There are many jobs out there, you should be able to find one . . . you can do it . . . go better yourself.
8:37 as a union representative, it is your duty to support your position; I understand that.
I’m happy to hear that you are concerned about the healthcare crisis is America. Yes it is a crisis.
Many people in Oshkosh and throughout the nation have no healthcare or are faced with unaffordable healthcare plans. Some of Wisconsin’s very largest corporations now have plans that are far more inferior to those provided by taxpayers to public sector unions.
In the private sector rising healthcare costs are passed on to the employee as healthcare costs are contributing to making labor costs uncompetitive.
We as taxpayers are being squeezed by our employers to pay more of our own healthcare of risk losing coverage. On top of that, we are faced with a property tax system that provides healthcare coverage to city employees that is 95% funded by the taxpayer.
Anyone can clearly see that continuing to provide healthcare coverage at the current rate, along with providing wage increases is making the cost of city labor unaffordable to the average taxpayer.
So given that, how do we provide tax relief for the property taxpayer or rent payer in Oshkosh?
We can ask the city employee to increase their share of the cost of healthcare. In most private industry, the employee pays 20% and the employer pays 80%. We’ve heard that the federal government plan requires the employee to pay 25% while the remaining 75% is paid through federal taxes. You can quite quickly see that the city of Oshkosh plan which requires the employee to pay 5% and the property taxpayer or rent payer to pay 95% is out of balance.
Requiring city employees to provide their fair share of healthcare costs is not something we need to be ashamed of. Our City employees see the plight of many city taxpayers and understand that many are struggling to provide quality healthcare to their own families, much less pay for 95% of their coverage.
I am proud that our City Council has taken the necessary steps to take the current proposal to arbitration. It sends a message that Oshkosh taxpayers have reached the end of their ability to pay, and that the current negotiation session, as the Oshkosh Northwestern reported, makes city employee healthcare unaffordable for the Oshkosh property taxpayer or rent payer.
10:23 - How many union leaders do you think there are on this blog? You have an obsession with bringing down people that have worked to support their families. Their spouses and children deserve to be able to fulfill the American Dream and you should stop bashing them for the choices they made in life as compared to your choices.
10:23 said - "You have an obsession with bringing down people that have worked to support their families."
Show me where I've bashed a city employee. I've stated countless times that city employees are extremely valuable, and so are the men and women working to provide the property taxes that pay them.
"Their spouses and children deserve to be able to fulfill the American Dream..."
Oshkosh property tax payers also desire the same consideration. Asking city employees to pay their fair share is putting no greater hardship on them than what the property taxpayer or rent payers face.
"...and you should stop bashing them for the choices they made in life as compared to your choices."
I've not bashed any city employee and continue to make the point this is not about "bashing" anyone; it is about affordability.
The current level of healthcare costs coupled with wage increases is making city services unaffordable to the average Oshkosh taxpayer.
This is nothing personal, it is simple economics.
11:09 Have you any idea what Passive Aggressive means? You are a very nasty person and your constant assertions that the employees of our city are not deserving of what they bargained for is mean-spirited. I suspect if you were gainfully employed, your view would be different.
12:58 you keep making this personel which it is not. It is simply an economic issue.
The current level of healthcare costs (95% taxpayer funded)coupled with wage increases is making city services unaffordable to the average Oshkosh taxpayer.
I'm sure you can understand the concept of affordability and cost vs benefit.
Here is a budget breakdown for your review:
Our city budget for the 2007 calendar year is about $60,000,000.00. Of that sum, we see the city administration justify about 13% of it during the workshop sessions. That 13% equates to about $7,800,000.00. That $7,800,000.00 covers every operational expense other than labor costs, to run our entire city for an entire year.
The remaining portion of the $60,000,000.00 budget is set aside to fund wages and benefits to all city employees…union and non-union. 87% of the entire budget covers wages and benefits. That 87% equates to about $52,000,000.00.
Of the $52,000,000.00 set aside for labor compensation, about $6,600,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund over $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund about 95% while the city employee contributes about 5%.
Can our property taxpayers and rent payers afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers?
12:58 -- I bet the person you're talking about is gainfully employed but still resentful that his union wouldn't or couldn't bargain for the same deal the city workers have. His message is very similar to what we heard at election time the last 2 years. I'd also bet it's the same message we'll hear from Paul Essligner when he runs again in April.
And 2:53 PM, that breaks down to exactly how much per $1000 of property valuation? Let's be completely honest about how much or how little this is really costing each property owner shall we, instead of using the scare tactics of big numbers?
3:26...You must suscribe to the "butter burger" concept I see.
Well it can't get much more simple than this then:
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
Most private corporations employees pay 20% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs.
Can our property taxpayers and rent payers afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers?
With the levy freeze and Oshkosh voters strong message last year that they want no new taxes, if city employees don’t agree to participate in a more fair and balanced contribution to their healthcare, I wonder how many employees jobs will not be filled or even worse, cut? I’d hate to think of any city employee losing their job just because a few other fellow workers wouldn’t help out by paying a bit more for their healthcare plan. I don't think it's too much to ask the workers to pay something more like 20% rather than the 5% they pay now.
4:20 and 4:27 talk a good game and have proven their skill at regurgitating the same old lines. Now try giving us an honest answer to an honest question. I'll ask it again. How much per $1,000 of property valuation is the insurance benefit for cty employees costing Oshkosh property owners? Here's another number I'd like to see you give us. Since you want them to pay 20% of their premiums instead of the 5% they're currently paying, please tell us exactly how much per $1,000 of property valuation that 15% difference in their premiums is costing us. When you do the math and present it for everyone to see, I think you'll understand why few more than you is continually worked up by this.
Speaking of dysfunction, how about that crazy Paul Esslinger at tonight's council meeting? He was downright rude and indignant with our city manager. It looks like he figures since Richard is on his way out he can be as rude and snotty as he wants. The fact of the matter is Wollangk and the public works director were absolutely right in how roundabouts are introduced to communities. Esslinger wanted to do things ass-backwards -- which must be a distant relative of approaching things with a negative attitude. Esslinger wanted a public workshop on roundabouts before voting on something, so the public could have input on whether or not we want roundabouts. In the first place the roundabotu at Murdock was already approved. And in the second place, Esslinger's always talking about how he and his fellow councilors were elected to make decisions for the public. So why get input from the public on something that, in most cases, is coming to the Oshkosh community by the DOT's authority alone. The DOT has also said it will do public meetings to educate the public on roundabouts. If Paul Esslinger doesn't get the concept he might want to rethink his ability to make decisions for us (believe me, plenty of voters already are) or he could go to Neenah and try out one of theirs.
He also didn't read the document very well that discussed mayors' initiatives for sustainability. In the first place it said the city would "strive" to do certain things, not that it would do each one of those things. The other thing is he said he didn't know what the one goal related to Energy Star products meant. Paul needs to get out from behind his computer more often and check out some appliance stores. Most products out there these days are Energy Star products and ahve a nice little emblem on them saying so. While they cost a little more up front they save money in the longrun. Such simple concepts and yet they escape this so-called seasoned councilman. Wow!!!
5:57,
If the difference between 5% and 20% seems so insignificant to you, why do you fight so hard to maintain that we taxpayers contribute to the entire difference?
If you really believe that the money isn't much, cough it up and help out the other tax payers that struggle to pay their own healthcare insurance.
In our 2007 Oshkosh city budget, of the $52,000,000.00 set aside for labor compensation, about $6,600,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund over $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund about 95% while the city employee contributes about 5%.
Some posters are masking the wage and benefit issue with emotion.
The equation is simply economics. It really has nothing to do if people do or do not “deserve” a specific benefit; it is about the ability to finance the costs associated with that benefit.
In the business world, if pressures brought about by share-holder expectations are such that higher profits are demanded, the corporation must find a way to increase the profitability by producing more goods, selling at a higher margin, lowering expenses…or a combination of the three.
The results of these pressures often affect labor wages and benefits. Labor compensation is held in check or rolled back. If labor does not agree to these accommodations, plants are closed or relocated to areas more favorable to meeting these economic demands.
City government is also and economic engine. The labor associated with performing work desired by city residents comes with a cost. If labor wants additional compensation the city must find a way to increase the tax levy funded by a larger tax base or requiring greater taxes from the existing base…or a combination of the two.
Oshkosh property tax payers as a whole clearly do not wish to pay more property taxes or have any desire to fund common taxable services with user fees.
On November 7, 2006, Oshkosh voter’s overwhelming went to the polls and made their collective feelings known.
By overwhelming margins, they voted a resounding:
YES (Set the garbage tax at zero)
NO (No additional tax levy)
Unless Oshkosh creates a greater tax base, additional wage and benefit increases by labor unions will be met with resistance by current property tax payers.
At the current tax base, it appears Oshkosh can no longer support the ever increasing wages and benefits demanded by the represented labor unions.
The Oshkosh City Council has shown strength and understanding of this concept as they have been unable to persuade many labor bargaining teams of this matter and therefore moved the matter to arbitration. This is a distinct signal to Oshkosh City organized labor that the taxpayers, and those that represent them have reached the limit of their ability to pay…City labor is no longer affordable!
Here is the actual 2004-2006 contract with one of the unions which again highlights the very small out-of-pocket expense to the city employee.
As healthcare costs continue to rise, this type of contract is unaffordable to the property taxpayers and rent payers in Oshkosh.
2004-2005-2006
Contract
Oshkosh Professional Employees Union
Local 796-C, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Article VII
Medical Benefits Plan
The Employer shall provide health coverage to a level of benefits available to employees under the City of Oshkosh Medical Benefits Plan Master Plan Document(s) effective January 1, 2004. The Employer agrees not to reduce the benefits during the life of the contract. Changes in the participation of health care providers listed on any preferred provider list shall not be viewed as a reduction in benefits.
(Note: This paragraph is effective from 1/1/04 through 5/31/04 at which time it will be deleted from the contract. The City will continue to provide a PPO. The plan will have a $250.00 (single) and $500.00 (dual and family) deductible. Employees will pay 3% up to a monthly maximum of single - $15.00; dual $30.00 and family - $45.00 towards the cost of the single, dual or family plan premium equivalent.)
Effective June 1, 2004, the city will implement a dual choice health plan; a PPO and an EPO.
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective June 1, 2004, employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $35 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2005, employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $25 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2006, employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $60 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective June 1, 2004, employees will contribute 3% up to a maximum of $15 per month toward single; $25 per month towards dual and $30 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2005, employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $35 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2006, employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
The City may, from time to time, change the medical benefit plan administrators, PPO provider, or method of funding for healthcare coverage if it elects to do so. At least 30 days advance notice of any change in the medical benefit plan administrator, PPO provider or method of funding shall be provided to the Union. Whenever the City is considering any of these changes, the Union may provide input into the decision. This input is limited to advisory only and will not affect the City’s responsibility to select a provider or administrator.
So 6:43 AM, you still refuse to answer the question huh? To those just entering the discussion or perhaps lost among the copy and paste mantra of 1 or 2 keyboard happy individuals, here's what was asked:
"How much per $1,000 of property valuation is the insurance b