2023 WI 20

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2019AP1319

COMPLETE TITLE: Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, John 

Cwiklinski, Cheryl Ferrill, Kimberlee Foster, 

Dale Grudzina, April Hoffman, Joel Kujawa, 

Christopher Lehner, William McKeown, Jason 

Mucha, Brenda Nogalski, Tony Snow, Albert Carl 

Sunn, Jr., William Welter, Mark Zaremba and Joe 

Farina,

 Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association 

Local 215,

 Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner,

 v.

City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees' 

Retirement System,

 Defendants-Appellants.

REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at 399 Wis. 2d 840, 967 N.W.2d 306

(2021 – unpublished)

OPINION FILED: March 21, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: October 12, 2022 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: Circuit 

COUNTY: Milwaukee 

JUDGE: Jeffrey A. Conen 

JUSTICES:

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 

unanimous Court.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:

For the intervenor-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs 

filed by Christopher J. MacGillis, Sean E. Lees, and MacGillis 

Wiemer, LLC. There was an oral argument by Christopher J. 

MacGillis and Sean E. Lees. 
2

For the defendants-appellants, there was a brief filed by 

Patrick J. McClain, assistant city attorney. There was an oral 

argument by Patrick J. McClain. 
2023 WI 20

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2019AP1319

(L.C. Nos. 2018CV1274 & 2018CV6612)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, John 

Cwiklinski, Cheryl Ferrill, Kimberlee Foster, 

Dale Grudzina, April Hoffman, Joel Kujawa, 

Christopher Lehner, William McKeown, Jason 

Mucha, Brenda Nogalski, Tony Snow, Albert Carl 

Sunn, Jr., William Welter, Mark Zaremba and Joe 

Farina,

 Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' 

Association Local 215,

 Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner,

 v.

City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees' 

Retirement System,

 Defendants-Appellants.

FILED

MAR 21, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 

unanimous Court.

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed 

¶1 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. The Milwaukee City Charter

entitles firefighters injured on the job to duty disability 

retirement (DDR) benefits, which provide monthly wage
No. 2019AP1319 

2

replacement payments to firefighters unable to continue active 

service. As with all pension benefits provided to City of 

Milwaukee employees, the City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement 

System (MERS) administers DDR benefits. Under the Milwaukee 

City Charter, MERS must pay an eligible DDR beneficiary a 

percentage of the "current annual salary for such position which 

he held at the time of such injury." MCC § 36-05-C-1-a.

"Current annual salary" is undefined in the Charter, and its 

meaning is the subject of this dispute.

¶2 Under the 2013–2016 collective bargaining agreement

between Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association Local 

215 and the City of Milwaukee (CBA1), certain Milwaukee 

firefighters are entitled to a 5.8% "pension offset payment"

conditioned on an employee-paid pension contribution equal to 7% 

of salary. Currently, all active Local 215 members make this 

contribution, but DDR beneficiaries do not. Prior to 2017, MERS 

included the pension offset payment in the "current annual 

salary" for purposes of calculating the amount of DDR benefits.

In 2017, however, MERS excluded the pension offset payment from 

the calculation of DDR benefits. 

¶3 The Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization (MPSO)

and Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association Local 215

(Local 215) challenged MERS's shift in policy. The circuit 

 

1 All subsequent references to the CBA are to the 2013–2016 

version.
No. 2019AP1319 

3

court2 granted summary judgment in favor of MPSO and Local 215. 

The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's grant of 

summary judgment to Local 215 but affirmed with respect to MPSO, 

extinguishing MPSO's involvement in this appeal. Milwaukee 

Police Supervisors Org. v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2019AP1319, 

unpublished slip op., ¶24 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2021) (per 

curiam). 

¶4 Before this court, Local 215 argues the pension offset 

payment must be included in the calculation of DDR benefits for 

beneficiaries hired before October 3, 2011. We agree, and 

therefore reverse the court of appeals. Under the CBA, the 

current annual salary includes the 5.8% pension offset payment; 

therefore, the plain language of the Charter requires MERS to 

include the pension offset payment in the calculation of DDR 

benefits. 

I. Background

¶5 Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee City Charter, titled the 

Employes' Retirement System Act (ERSA), establishes DDR benefits

for any firefighter whose duty-related injuries cause 

disability. MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a.3 The Charter entitles a 

 

2 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen, Milwaukee County Circuit 

Court, presided.

3 MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a provides, in relevant part: 

(continued)
No. 2019AP1319 

4

qualifying firefighter each year to "75% of the current annual 

salary for such position which he held at the time of such

injury." Id. A firefighter who sustains a career-ending 

disability "that would impair the member's (retiree's) ability 

to earn a livelihood" shall receive "90% of his current annual 

salary" in DDR benefits each year. § 36-05-3-c-1-b.4 Although

the Charter does not define the phrase "current annual salary,"

the parties agree the phrase garners meaning from the CBA.

¶6 The process by which Local 215 members contribute 

toward their pensions is established primarily in Articles 23 

and 10 of the CBA. Article 23 requires each firefighter who is 

a MERS member to contribute 7% of his "earnable compensation." 

 

[A]ny fireman or policeman who shall become 

disabled as the direct result of injury incurred 

in the performance of one or more specific acts 

of duty shall have a right to receive duty 

disability benefit during the period of such 

disability of an amount equal to 75% of the 

current annual salary for such position which he 

held at the time of such injury.

4 MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-b provides, in relevant part:

In the event however that such fireman or 

policeman who is eligible to recover duty 

disability has a disability involving the loss of 

both eyes or the full loss of use of one eye and 

one limb or the full loss of the use of 2 limbs 

or an equivalent disability that would impair the 

member's (retiree's) ability to earn a livelihood 

and such disability is determined by majority 

action of the medical panel or medical council, 

then in such event the disabled fireman or 

policeman shall receive a duty disability pension 

of 90% of his current annual salary. . . .
No. 2019AP1319 

5

To compensate for this cost to the firefighter, Article 10 of 

the CBA establishes "pension offset payments" in the amount of

5.8% of the biweekly wage, thereby increasing employees' taxable 

compensation. Article 10 entitles only those employees who make 

the member contribution to receive a pension offset payment.5

The parties agree DDR recipients cannot make the 7% 

contribution, but they disagree whether the 5.8% pension offset 

payment must be included as part of the "current annual salary"

used to calculate DDR benefits under ERSA.

¶7 Article 10 of the CBA also contains two sets of salary 

grids detailing the biweekly wages of Local 215 members. One 

set of grids (Section 10(C)) lists the wages for employees hired 

before October 3, 2011. Another set of grids (Section 10(B)) 

lists the wages for those hired on or after October 3, 2011. 

Within each set, individual grids are labeled with the titles of 

the positions they cover——firefighter, fire captain, fire 

 

5 Article 10 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part:

Commencing Pay Period 1, 2016, employees hired 

prior to October 3, 2011 who make the member 

contribution in accordance with the provisions of 

Article 23 of this Agreement shall receive an 

additional 2.9% pension offset payment. The 

pension offset payment to the employee will 

continue to be made as long as the employee makes 

the member contribution. If the employee does 

not make the member contribution, the 5.8% 

pension offset (2015 offset and 2016 offset) 

payment will no longer be paid to the employee. 

The pension offset payment made to such eligible 

employee shall be base building and pensionable.
No. 2019AP1319 

6

lieutenant, etc. Each grid includes a wage ladder, the numbered 

steps of which correspond with the number of years worked in a 

particular position. To illustrate, the grid below applies to

firefighters and fire paramedics hired before October 3, 2011:

a. Firefighter

Fire Paramedic

Step 1. $1,683.57

Step 2. 1,751.05

Step 3. 1,940.59

Step 4. 2,130.65

Step 5. 2,340.21

Step 6. 2,571.33

Step 7. 2,801.98

A first-year firefighter earned $1,683.57 biweekly. In his 

second year, his biweekly compensation increased to $1,751.05.

¶8 Prior to 2017, MERS used the pre-October 3, 2011 grids 

to calculate DDR benefits for recipients hired before that date. 

The pre-October 3, 2011 grids include the 5.8% pension offset 

payment without reduction for the requisite 7% pension 

contribution by the employee. The 7% contribution is typically 

withheld as a payroll deduction from an employee's base wages.

The figures in the pre-October 3, 2011 grids are therefore

higher than a Local 215 member's biweekly take home pay.

¶9 In 2017, MERS changed how it calculated DDR benefits. 

Prior to implementing that change, MERS asked the Milwaukee City 

Attorney's Office "whether the 5.8% 'pension offset payment' for 

represented public safety employees is includable in 'current 

annual salary' for purposes of MCC 36-05-3-c-l-a." In a 

memorandum, the Assistant City Attorney opined that "the 5.8% 
No. 2019AP1319 

7

pension offset payment is not includable in 'current annual 

salary' as that phrase is used in Chapter 36 of the City 

Charter." MERS accordingly notified DDR beneficiaries it would 

no longer include the pension offset payment in the calculation 

of their DDR benefits. Thereafter, MERS used the post-October 

3, 2011 grids to calculate DDR benefits in lieu of the preOctober 3, 2011 grids. Because the post-October 3, 2011 set 

excludes the 5.8% pension offset payment, the amount of DDR 

benefits decreased. MERS also clawed back excess benefits from 

each DDR benefit recipient on the pre-October 3, 2011 roll,

directing some DDR beneficiaries to return pension payments of

up to $6,000 per beneficiary.

¶10 In response, MPSO sought a declaratory judgment and 

injunctive relief against the City and MERS. Local 215 

intervened, and the cases were consolidated. MPSO and Local 215 

both moved for summary judgment, arguing the 5.8% pension offset 

payment must be included in the DDR benefits calculation. In 

turn, MERS and the City also moved for summary judgment, arguing

the pension offset payment cannot be included. After a hearing, 

the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of MPSO and 

Local 215, concluding the pension offset payment must be 

included in calculating DDR benefits because the CBA provides

such payments are "base building and pensionable."

¶11 The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the CBA 

conditions receipt of the 5.8% pension offset payment on the 7% 

member contribution. Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org., No. 

2019AP1319, at ¶19. Because DDR recipients do not make that 
No. 2019AP1319 

8

contribution, the court concluded DDR recipients cannot receive 

the pension offset payment. Id., ¶20. According to the court 

of appeals, "current annual salary" equals whatever an employee 

would earn had he never made the 7% contribution or received the 

5.8% pension offset payment. Id. Local 2156 filed a petition 

for review, which we granted.

II. Standard of Review

¶12 This case requires us to review a grant of summary 

judgment. "Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no 

genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Brey v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 WI 7, ¶8, 400 Wis. 2d 417, 970 

N.W.2d 1 (quoting Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Islami, 2021 WI 53, 

¶13, 397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912); Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) 

(2021–22) ("The judgment sought shall be rendered if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 

the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 

law."). Because the parties in this case have stipulated to the 

facts, we need only interpret ordinances and a contract to 

 

6 The court concluded MPSO's collective bargaining agreement 

did not condition pension offset payments on member 

contributions. Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org. v. City of 

Milwaukee, No. 2019AP1319, unpublished slip op., ¶1 (Wis. Ct. 

App. Oct. 5, 2021) (per curiam). As a result, the court held 

the "current annual salary" for MPSO members includes the 

pension offset payment. Id.
No. 2019AP1319 

9

resolve this dispute. See Lewis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 

2001 WI 60, ¶9, 243 Wis.2d 648, 627 N.W.2d 484 ("This case is 

before us on a grant of summary judgment. Because the parties 

have stipulated to the facts, this appeal only raises a question 

of law") (citing L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis. 2d 674, 682, 563 

N.W.2d 434 (1997)).

¶13 To determine whether the circuit court properly

granted summary judgment to Local 215, we must interpret the 

Milwaukee City Charter. The interpretation of city ordinances 

is a question of law we review independently. Milwaukee Dist. 

Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2019 WI 24, ¶11, 385 Wis. 2d 748, 

924 N.W.2d 153 (citing Schwegel v. Milwaukee Cty., 2015 WI 12, 

¶18, 360 Wis. 2d 654, 859 N.W.2d 78). "In interpreting 

municipal ordinances, we apply the same principles used in 

statutory interpretation." Id. (citing Stoker v. Milwaukee 

Cty., 2014 WI 130, ¶17, 359 Wis. 2d 347, 857 N.W.2d 110).

¶14 "[S]tatutory interpretation 'begins with the language 

of the statute.'" Id. (quoting State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. 

for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 

N.W.2d 110). "We give statutory language 'its common, ordinary, 

and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined 

words or phrases are given their technical or special 

definitional meaning.'" Id. We search for plain and reasonable 

meaning, not ambiguity. Id., ¶47. If statutory language is 

unambiguous, we do not "consult extrinsic sources of 

interpretation[.]" Id., ¶46.
No. 2019AP1319 

10

¶15 This case also requires us to interpret the CBA. Like 

any other contract, the interpretation of a collective 

bargaining agreement presents a question of law we review 

independently. Roth v. City of Glendale, 2000 WI 100, ¶15, 237 

Wis. 2d 173, 614 N.W.2d 467 ("Interpretation of a collective 

bargaining agreement, as with other contracts, presents a 

question of law that we review independently of the 

determinations rendered by the circuit court and the court of 

appeals") (citing Wis. Label Corp. v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. 

Ins. Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶22, 233 Wis. 2d 314, 607 N.W.2d 276).

¶16 In interpreting contracts, courts must ascertain the 

intent of the contracting parties as reflected in the contract 

language. See Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 

2, ¶23, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65 ("Judicial interpretation 

of a contract . . . seeks to determine and give effect to the 

intent of the contracting parties."). We discern the intent of 

contracting parties from the plain and ordinary meaning of the 

text. Tufail v. Midwest Hosp., LLC, 2013 WI 62, ¶26, 348 

Wis. 2d 631, 833 N.W.2d 586 ("We presume the parties' intent is 

evidenced by the words they chose, if those words are 

unambiguous") (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kernz 

v. J.L. French Corp., 2003 WI App 140, ¶9, 266 Wis.2d 124, 667 

N.W.2d 751). 

III. Discussion

¶17 The Milwaukee City Charter grants duty disability 

payments to firefighters who sustain injuries in the line of 
No. 2019AP1319 

11

duty. Section 36-05-3-c-1-a of the Charter provides, in 

relevant part:

[A]ny fireman . . . who shall become disabled as the 

direct result of injury incurred in the performance of 

one or more specific acts of duty shall have a right 

to receive duty disability benefit during the period 

of such disability of an amount equal to 75% of the 

current annual salary for such position which he held 

at the time of such injury.

¶18 The Charter does not define the phrase "current annual 

salary," but the parties agree the CBA is the source of its 

meaning. Because the CBA describes the pension offset payment 

as "base-building and pensionable," Local 215 argues the phrase 

"current annual salary" encompasses that payment. The City and 

MERS disagree, contending the pension offset payment may not be 

included in "current annual salary" for purposes of calculating 

DDR benefits because DDR beneficiaries do not make the requisite 

7% contribution. Both parties supplement their arguments with 

extrinsic evidence to resolve any ambiguity. Resort to 

extrinsic evidence is unnecessary because the phrase "current 

annual salary" is unambiguous and its meaning is discernible 

from the pre-October 3, 2011 salary grids in the CBA. 

¶19 The salary grids detail the biweekly wages for each 

position. These figures reflect the "current annual salary" for

employees hired before October 3, 2011. The grids, located in 

an article titled "Base Salary," list the biweekly wages 

employees in each position received. The parties agree "current 

annual salary," as used in the Charter, means a position's base 

salary. Most naturally construed, the figures in the grids——
No. 2019AP1319 

12

multiplied by 26——constitute the base salary for each position 

within the Milwaukee Fire Department. Because the "base salary"

for each position in those salary grids includes the 5.8% 

pension offset payment, and the parties agree the "base salary" 

means the "current annual salary," MERS must include the pension

offset payment in the calculation of DDR benefits, which are 

calculated as a percentage of the "current annual salary for 

each position" under Section 36-05-3-c-1-a of the Charter. 

¶20 Local 215 argues the pension offset payment must be 

included in base salary because the CBA describes the payments 

as "base-building and pensionable." Although this description

is unnecessary for purposes of discerning the meaning of 

"current annual salary" under the CBA, the pension offset 

payment does increase the base salary for each position, thereby 

increasing the amount of the DDR benefit payable under the 

Charter. Logically, the pension offset payment "builds" the 

base salary for both active duty employees as well as DDR 

beneficiaries who are paid a percentage of the base salary for 

the position they held while on active duty. As the City 

explains, however, DDR benefits represent wage replacements for 

duty-disabled firefighters and are not a pension. When DDR 

beneficiaries reach retirement age, their eligibility for DDR 

benefits ceases and their pension benefits become payable. Even 

without the "base-building and pensionable" language in the CBA, 

the "current annual salary" for each position encompasses the 

5.8% pension offset payment. The salary grids detailing the 

current annual salary for each position therefore obligate MERS 
No. 2019AP1319 

13

to include the pension offset payment in its calculation of DDR 

benefits.

¶21 The City and MERS contend a provision in Article 10, 

Section (C) of the CBA conditions a member's eligibility for the 

pension offset payment on the member making the 7% contribution.7

Based on that provision, they argue the benefits paid to DDR 

recipients, who do not make the 7% contribution, cannot include

the pension offset payment. We disagree. That provision 

applies to active duty employees, not DDR beneficiaries. Under 

the CBA, "employees" means only those who are "in active 

service." Their duty-related disabilities prevent DDR 

beneficiaries from being in active service. Because DDR 

beneficiaries are not "employees," they are not required to make 

the 7% member contribution. Nevertheless, because the "current 

annual salary" for the positions they held while in active 

service includes the pension offset payment, DDR benefits——which 

 

7 That provision of Article 10, Section (C) provides:

Commencing Pay Period 1, 2016, employees hired 

prior to October 3, 2011 who make the member 

contribution in accordance with the provisions of 

Article 23 of this Agreement shall receive an 

additional 2.9% pension offset payment. The 

pension offset payment to the employee will 

continue to be made as long as the employee makes 

the member contribution. If the employee does 

not make the member contribution, the 5.8% 

pension offset (2015 offset and 2016 offset) 

payment will no longer be paid to the employee. 

The pension offset payment made to such eligible 

employee shall be base building and pensionable.
No. 2019AP1319 

14

are calculated based on a percentage of the "current annual 

salary"——necessarily include the pension offset payment. 

¶22 The provision of Article 10, Section (C) conditioning

a member's eligibility for the pension offset payment on the 

member making the 7% contribution has no bearing on the meaning 

of "current annual salary" as used in MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a. It

merely disqualifies active duty employees who do not make the 

member contribution from receiving pension offset payments. 

That DDR beneficiaries do not currently make the contribution is 

irrelevant. The Charter entitles disabled firefighters to a 

disability benefit based on the "current annual salary" for the

position they held at the time of their eligibility for DDR 

benefits——without conditions or exceptions. The fact that DDR 

beneficiaries neither receive the 5.8% pension offset payment 

nor make the 7% pension contribution is immaterial because the 

current annual salary for the position held at the time of 

disability includes the 5.8% payment. 

¶23 In accepting the City and MERS's interpretation, the 

court of appeals erred. The court reasoned "the Local 215 

contract clearly requires a member to make the 7% pension 

contribution to receive the 5.8% wage increase but "pursuant to 

ordinance . . . DDR beneficiaries may not contribute to the 

pension plan. Therefore, DDR beneficiaries are not entitled to 

receive the pension offset wage increase to their base salary." 

Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org., No. 2019AP1319, at ¶20. The 

court of appeals erroneously conflated DDR beneficiaries with 

active duty employees. Unlike the latter, DDR beneficiaries 
No. 2019AP1319 

15

receive a disability benefit, not a base salary. CBA provisions 

expressly applicable to employees who are MERS members simply do 

not extend to DDR beneficiaries. 

¶24 In adopting the construction of the governing 

ordinance and the CBA advanced by the City and MERS, the court 

of appeals missed the pivotal fact that DDR beneficiaries do not 

receive the 5.8% as a "pension offset payment" per se, but 

instead because the "current annual salary" for members hired 

before October 3, 2011 includes it. Presenting an equity-based 

argument, the City and MERS emphasize the fact that "firemen who 

receive the 5.8% increase also have to forgo 7% of their base 

salary as a member contribution," which DDR beneficiaries do not 

make. We do not balance equities in interpreting either 

ordinances or contracts——we apply their plain meaning. See

Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 27 (1933) ("We do not pause to 

consider whether a statute differently conceived and framed 

would yield results more consonant with fairness and reason. We 

take the statute as we find it"); Wisconsin Marine & Fire Ins.

Co. Bank v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. 111, 115, 69 N.W. 354 (1896) ("It 

must be borne in mind that the office of judicial construction 

is not to make contracts or to reform them, but to determine 

what the parties contracted to do; not necessarily what they 

intended to agree to, but what, in a legal sense, they did agree 

to, as evidenced by the language they saw fit to use.").

¶25 Finally, the City and MERS contend "exempting" DDR 

beneficiaries from the pension offset language conditioning 

receipt of the 5.8% increase on making the 7% pension 
No. 2019AP1319 

16

contribution renders that condition applicable to no one, since 

all active-duty firefighters hired before October 3, 2011 pay 

the mandatory 7% member contribution. The extrinsic fact that 

the CBA may have created "a category into which no employee 

fits" does not alter the interpretation or application of the 

contract's clear text. See Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 

Wis. 2d 748, ¶18. This language of the CBA still "bears a 

textual function," providing that an active duty employee who 

ceases to make the contribution will no longer receive the 

pension offset payment. Id. "Any apprehension about the 

existence of a category into which no employee may fit 

necessarily concerns the wisdom" of the language negotiated by 

the City and Local 215. Id. Second-guessing the prudence of 

that language because all employees currently make the 

contribution "would reach beyond the proper judicial role, which 

is limited to interpreting and applying the clear text." Id. 

Regardless, the CBA requires the City and MERS to pay each DDR 

beneficiary the "current annual salary" for the position he held 

during active service, and for anyone hired before October 3, 

2011 that salary includes the 5.8% pension offset payment. 

¶26 In addition to their textual arguments, each party 

offers extrinsic evidence to support its analysis. We consider 

extrinsic evidence only when contractual or statutory language 

is ambiguous. Kalal, 271 Wis. Stat. § 633, ¶46. In this case, 

the relevant text of the CBA and the Charter is unambiguous, 

obviating any need for resorting to extrinsic evidence. Our 

analysis begins and ends with the governing text.
No. 2019AP1319 

17

IV. Conclusion

¶27 We conclude the circuit court properly granted Local 

215's motion for summary judgment. The Charter, read alongside 

the CBA, requires MERS to include the 5.8% pension offset 

payment in the "current annual salary" used to calculate DDR 

benefits for beneficiaries hired before October 3, 2011.

By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 

reversed.
No. 2019AP1319 

1