Court Opinion

ID: 9380810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 14:10:04.982972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.737826
License: Public Domain

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                                      (2021 – unpublished)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.
    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.

                                  2
                                                                          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,
                                                                       FILED
Milwaukee Professional Firefighters'                              MAR 21, 2023
Association Local 215,
                                                                     Sheila T. Reiff
                                                                  Clerk of Supreme Court
             Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner,

      v.

City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees'
Retirement System,

             Defendants-Appellants.

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

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

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

version.

                                                  2
                                                                       No.     2019AP1319

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

      2The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen, Milwaukee County Circuit
Court, presided.
      3   MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a provides, in relevant part:

                                                                          (continued)
                                           3
                                                                No.    2019AP1319

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. . . .

                                      4
                                                          No.   2019AP1319

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.

                                      5
                                                                  No.    2019AP1319

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%

                                         6
                                                                           No.     2019AP1319

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 pre-

October 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
                                               7
                                                                                     No.    2019AP1319

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

       The court concluded MPSO's collective bargaining agreement
       6

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.

                                                 8
                                                                           No.    2019AP1319

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.

                                              9
                                                                           No.     2019AP1319

      ¶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

                                              10
                                                                   No.    2019AP1319

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——

                                      11
                                                                               No.     2019AP1319

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
                                               12
                                                                  No.    2019AP1319

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.

                                         13
                                                                      No.      2019AP1319

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
                                            14
                                                                                No.    2019AP1319

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
                                                15
                                                                           No.     2019AP1319

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.
                                             16
                                                                 No.     2019AP1319

                                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.

                                       17
    No.   2019AP1319

1