Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright.

Good evening, everyone. We'll call the Tuesday, 09/30/2025 meeting of the finance committee to order. We have a full quorum this evening. Next item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance. Please rise.

One nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Alright. Next item on our agenda is public comment. I have two, going on three, folks that have signed up. We're going to go through these three. And if somebody didn't sign up and you still wish to address the committee, we're certainly going to give you your opportunity to do that. Rules are very similar, if not identical to the common council. You get three minutes. Please give the finance committee your name and home address. I also wanna note that once we start the meeting, we don't take questions or comments from the audience. Because so when once we're done with public comment, if you hear something tonight and you have a question, please make a note of it.

Drop an email to your respective alderman. Drop an email to the mayor's office, to Tony. You can even email me as chair of the finance committee. But I just wanna mention that we don't take questions or discussion from the audience once we start the meeting and we move past public comment. So with that, the first one on who signed up is Adele Vogel.

Hello. Thank you. I'm Adele Vogel. I live at 1090 Baxter Street and I'm concerned about the $160 surcharge on the water bill. But what I'm really concerned about is the fact that that's really just another cost shift from me to my tenants, from you to me to my tenants.

And the reason that is upsetting to me is I work very hard to have convinced myself that a $20 a month rent increase, it will be okay for people and rent increases are coming out very soon in a month. And now I'm gonna add another $13.33 on per month per tenant. For my four family which I live in, that is $640 a year and for my second four family next door, the total for the two is $1,280. My commitment to Waukesha which has been for the last greater than ten years has been to try to continue to afford affordable housing for people that really really need it, including housing assistance, including single people, whatever the situation may be. And when I get hit with this, what's next?

The snow removal, the weed removal, it won't end. And the fact is this committee is really not giving me an increase. They're really giving all of my tenants an increase. And I'm here to speak on their behalf. But I do have a couple of innuendos. Are you going to be billing me? Are you gonna bill the tenants? Are you gonna bill the tax bill? Which I'm thinking is the most logical. And what about when I have a vacancy for six months to a year because I'm renovating a property?

Believe it or not, I had one of my four families unit open for ten years. That's well documented, everyone knows it and for the first time in ten years, I will have a tenant next month. But would I also be paying a $160 a year to the city to collect the trash on an apartment that nobody lives in? I believe that I pay a very very fair amount if not high taxes to the city. And I feel like this is just slapping another little surcharge on me which of course I will wind up having to pass on and and already my water bills are over.

For one four family, my water bill is over $400 a month. That is with me constantly checking for drips, checking the toilets, checking And you know, it's just another charge. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to listen.

Thank you. Next is George Forish.

Good evening. My name is George Forish. I live at 1108 Fleet Foot Drive, in Waukesha. And I have, well, I have one one comment and that is, you know, I I it bothers me to see this kind of a fee being imposed or implemented. You know, I think it's the start of this community going down a path that I look to our East to Milwaukee.

I have friends who live there and they get charges every year for, you know, for trash, for street lights, for sidewalks, for snow plowing, things like that. I think I I'm not sure that's the most fiscally responsible thing to do. And I hope you folks think long and hard about that that we don't set us down a path that is not not good, at least in my opinion. Secondly is I I have a question which perhaps will be addressed later is that I I am president of a condo association and we have never had citywide garbage pickup and we just took responsibility for our recycling this past April with the new contract with the city. So now now we we get no garbage pickup services from the city.

And I own an a family apartment building, which is a commercial property, and I have never received any services from the city. So I guess a question I would have, and I've been paying for it because I pay property taxes on on, you know, we all pay property taxes on our units. Will theoretically my tax go down because, you know, if this happens that the trash will be carved out and, just be paid born by the people who are who are receiving that service. So that's, that is my question and comment and thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. John Thomas.

John Thomas, 134 Douglas. Well, may be I'm barking up the wrong tree because I thought the fee was based on single family homes and there was a complete there's few single family homes being proposed and built that they can't expect that to be covered that way. You've you've already committed, I'm sure you have, for this fee to balance the budget. But next year, let's hope that the fee isn't necessary that maybe some construction project for Park Rec can be sidelined in order to balance the budget. So you don't have to have extra fees.

And this is all planned a little bit more in advance instead of at the last minute. This is kind of at the last minute I think. So thank you.

Thank you, John. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the committee? Yes, sir. You can give us your name and your home address.

Frank Palm, 625 Chicago Avenue. I have a number of questions and probably a final statement. First of all, we're talking about a $160 per household, and we're running at approximately 30,000 households in the city of Waukesha. And so we're generating you're gonna generate somewhere close to $4,800,000 is my question. Are my numbers wrong?

So maybe you can address it when when the time comes for it. Is there option to opt out of this program for a homeowner? Would you be another question for there? And, is there going to be an additional fee on top of the 160 for large item pickups would be my third question to you. As far as lowering taxes, I don't see that happening. I don't see that happening at all because of all of just everything that seems to be going up, whether fuel costs, equipment cost, whatever it happens to be. I don't see the taxes going down, but I see this as an additional tax. So if you could ask answer those questions for me, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Palm. Anyone else wish to address the committee? Yes, ma'am. If you could please come up and give us your name and home address.

Hi. Beth Shannon. 616MadisonStreet. So, I'm here as just to listening to see what is gonna happen with this the fee that is is being talked about tonight. I'm hearing some things with we're all confused.

It sounds like we we don't know, and that's probably why you're having this meeting. I recall seeing something about this about a year ago that it was a proposal and I have done a little bit of research and it seems like it's the trend because of the way that the state is funding cities and municipalities. So this seems like this is a general trend. Pay as you use or pay as you throw out or there's some there's some there's some agendas out there that they have different ways that they're doing it, whether it's the size bin you have, how many bins you have, garbage bags. But so basically, I'm here to for it to be fair, I'm hearing from people that have multifamily, properties, and I'm representing single family properties that use very little garbage.

And I would too, like Frank said, I'm wondering if it's gonna be an opt out situation or even, a situation where it's gonna be based on the size or the amount because there are some single family units that have two bins. So how does the two bin pick up equal to the one bin? So just basically looking for fairness to all the different types of people that are gonna be paying the service. And I do understand that I I thought that some of the money would be carved out of the taxes because right now, it's buried in there. And quite frankly, this is good that we can see actually what we're gonna be paying for the service as opposed to we have no clue at this point what we're paying.

So I like the transparency. I like the accountability. So I agree with that move, but my concern is just how are we gonna be fair to all of these different situations. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else wish to address the committee? Alright. Well, I wanna thank everyone for coming, and I wanna thank everyone for their comments this evening. So we'll move on to item number four, 4A, which is approval of minutes for the September 9. Any changes to those minutes from the committee? Alright. Seeing none, those minutes are approved through unanimous consent. That will move us into our business items for tonight. 5A is actually on hold.

That's going be coming back at the next meeting. I spoke to Jennifer today. So that's going to move us to item 5B, which is a matter of report, the twenty twenty five to twenty twenty nine financial projection discussion. Joe, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the folks at home and the floor is yours. Sure.

Thank you. Joe Schirrell, I'm the city's finance director. And this item is basically is we're we're the reason why we're presenting this is a, it's been a little while since you've received an update to the operating financial projection and really thought it was good information to consider as we move to the next item on the agenda. So just to kind of give you those listening that aren't as familiar, during the 2025 budget process or even a little before that, the management team and staff put together a five year operating projection. Previous to that, we have been kind of going from year to year during the budget process, making sure that the budget is balanced between the revenues and expenses.

But what it wasn't really looking at was the inherent items that the city has to deal with into the future related to trends, inflation, what we're allowed to do with our revenues and our tax levy. And so we put that together prior to the '25 budget to kind of illustrate for everybody what is coming. And so what we're part of that process was establishing a financial management plan, which was partially implemented in the '25 budget process. And part of that plan also was related had a '26 component, which is on the agenda for tonight. So what I want to do here is just kind of give you what the projection looks like from for 2025 through 2029 with updated assumptions, updated numbers now that we're vast majority of our way through the 2025 year and kind of look at what that looks like from a net income net loss standpoint.

So moving so with that, if we the first slide we have here is our financial projection for just revenues. You can see there the primary revenues that we have in our general fund and I guess I didn't say it, I assumed it, but this is related to the city's general fund, general operating fund. So on the revenue side, can see here that the forecast is what we expect our final numbers to be. We're going through as a city our 2026 budget process. Part of that is projecting where we think the 2025 results are going to be.

And that's what this that's what the 2025 forecast is and then 2026 through 2029 is using assumptions to project forward. And so as you can see there in 2025, we anticipate just over $84,000,000 in revenues. The assumptions you can see below, the primary driver for property tax increases in net new construction. Have that information for 2026, which is about 1.6%. And we probably jump up and above and below about 1%.

So in every year after that, our assumption is 1%, understanding that there's some variability there. The other categories you can see here, we have intergovernmental revenue. We receive as a city a decent amount of state aids that flows through state shared revenues, local highway aids, a couple of exempt personal property. So we receive a decent amount of that. We're projecting roughly 2.5% increase from year to year.

Interest income, we are kind of expecting a flat trend line here about $2,000,000 We used to budget about $1,000,000 but when interest rates jumped about two years ago, I believe we hit our peak at about $3,800,000 We're coming down in 2025 where we expect to be just over 3,000,000 and if you've been kind of keeping track with what the Fed is doing, they are getting ready to cut rates. And so we anticipate being we feel it's appropriate to be a little more conservative going forward the investment income. And then the other revenues that you see there, we assume about 2.5%. That includes basically all the other revenues that we have, which are charges for services, citation revenue, a bunch of basically of the catchall. We assume about 2.5% growth there.

On the expense side, as you can see like if you look at these four categories compensation, utilities, other operating and transfers out, about 75% to 80% of that budget is personnel. That's been pretty consistent story if you've been listening to our budget process over the last number of years. It's pretty consistent with what a lot of governments have to deal with is that personnel is a very large portion of their budget. And with that in mind, the assumptions for this growth going forward is depending on the year, it's kind of an alternating effect of 3% to 3.5% for personnel on salaries. That is completely tied to the existing approved fire contract that is in effect through 2028.

So it kind of assumes that same assumption going forward. Utilities tend to bounce up and down that relates to our We Energies, so our electric, our gas and then water and sewer bills as well. And then on the other operating that is basically all of the other items and services that are all of our departments use to serve the community as you can see there. So those are kind of the assumptions on the expenses. As you can see in 2025, we're at about $81,600,000 with those assumptions that by 2029, we're a little over $90,000,000 if we stay on those trend lines.

So what does that do for the overall net income or net loss? We talked to you on the revenue side about the vast majority of our revenue, which is the levy, the assumption being around 1% increase from year to year and the expenses anywhere from 2.5 to 4.5% increase depending on the line item. Obviously those trends tend to grow in different paces. And as you can see on the graph, the red which is expenses overtakes revenues right about 2027 beyond 2027. So the one thing that I'll note here, this does address the financial management plan that we put in place, but it also shows that we have more work to do as we move forward in our budget process from year to year.

So with that, I thought I would ask if there are any questions about the projection that aren't specifically related to the garbage and recycling fee, which is the next item on the agenda, then we have a separate presentation that discusses that specifically. Is there anything about this holistically that you have a question on?

Questions from the committee for Joe on the projections? Aldeperson Helven Slabham?

Yeah. I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding the projections correctly in 2026 specifically and then kind of that trend. So it looked like the projection for the amount of property taxes is gonna be lower in 2026. Does that mean I guess, is that the assumption that the trash and recycling fee will bring that overall levy down?

The answer to that is yes. Okay. We are actually gonna be specifically talking about that during the next presentation, but that correct. That's why it did dip in 26% and then grows by 1% after that.

Yes. I figured we'd be talking about that. I just want to make sure that I was clear in understanding this presentation as well. Thank you.

I think it's not really a question, but I'm pretty sure Tony is going to address this. When you look at the 3% rate or the 3% in there for employee salary increases, and I think Tony's gonna touch on the fact that about 82% of the budget is people and 80% of that 82% is police and fire, which still have negotiated contracts. I know Tony's gonna touch on that, but I just wanted to make that for the clear for the public, thinking that everyone in city hall is gonna get a 3% raise. Well, the vast majority of those folks, even with act 10, still are contracts and that's the police and fire department. That's my, I guess, question slash statement for the projection piece. Anything else for Joe before we move on to Tony? Alright. Joe, thank you. You. Mr. Brown?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a second while I get plugged in here.

We tested this out so we're hoping this works now.

Alright, I'm gonna come to Bayou Joe.

I guess, Tony, from an agenda standpoint, do you still consider us in on 5B, the projection discussion? Or are we moving on to 5C, which is the resolution for the garbage and recycling collection?

Moving on to the next item.

So we'll move on to make sure we're doing this the right way. We'll move on to item number five c, which is review and possible action on resolution creating and setting fees for residential garbage and recycling collection services. Mister Brown.

Alright. Thank you, mister chairman. Just for anyone watching or the members of the public in the gallery, my name is Tony Brown. I'm the city administrator. And before I do get started, I just wanna say that I appreciate you all coming out.

I think that fundamental to making any city government work is making sure that we have engaged citizens and clearly you all are because you're here this evening. So again appreciate that. So what I'll start off by going through is how we got here. Because I think there's certainly a lot of information out there in terms of what this charge is, what it isn't, why it's happening, why it's being considered. And to start out, I wanna go through really what the service demand has been for the city in terms of how it's grown, but then also how that impacts the available financial resources that we do have.

So as you'll see on the screen, since 2014, the city has changed significantly in a number of ways. So we have seven forty plus new homes, five fifty additional commercial spaces, 44% increase in annual EMS calls, and 11 new lane miles of road. And what this all boils down to is that over this period of time through development, there are a lot of additional services that are needed to make sure we're meeting the Not only the demand, but the quality that the community has become used to and would like to see. As was referred before during Joe's discussion about forecast, we are a service based organization. A lot of what we do is manual in nature, so it requires humans to do it.

And as a result of that, when you look at our budget off to the right is a pie graph that breaks things expenditure categories, roughly 75% of all expenses that the city has is people. And over the past ten years, we've added to meet that demand that I just outlined, roughly 23 positions. And out of that 50% of those 23 positions, roughly 50% is public safety employees. So that's police and fire sworn members. And as the chairman pointed out, between police and fire and the way that the state has set up how we interact with employees in the workplace, there is still collective bargaining for those two groups.

Right now, we have a settled four year contract with the fire union that runs from 2025 to 2020 negotiations with the police union as well at this time. But as Joe alluded to, we have to make assumptions about, how we project the budget moving into the future, but then also how we budget for 2026. In terms of the funding framework that the state allows for local governments, there is two primary revenue sources that municipalities rely on. That's intergovernmental revenue. So that is things like state shared revenue, general transportation aid, expenditure restraint, and then the other category is property taxes.

As you can see, taxes is clearly the majority, but between these two categories that makes up 80% of the city's overall budget on an annual basis. And that has been largely consistent over this period of time. And if I look pre 2019, it would probably be very similar as well. So what I want to do is I want to break down those categories a little bit further illustrate kind of how that ends up impacting us in terms of how we provide services to the public. So starting out, this is just comparing those intergovernmental aids, and it's specifically looking at state shared revenue and a supplement program called supplemental county and municipal aid and then expenditure restraint.

Restraint. And this is looking at us compared to our peers. And as you can see, and I won't get into why this is because that's a more convoluted discussion in terms of the formula for how the Department of Revenue determines these aids. But it's fair to say that the city of Waukesha in comparison to our peers does not receive the same or similar type of aid from the state. And that is pretty dramatic when you look at the city of Racine as an example.

They're close to about $33,000,000 $34,000,000 worth of aid coming to the state from the state, and we're about $5,000,000 you can see the dramatic effect that that has, and that largely doesn't change year to year in terms of not only what the amount is, but the formula is the same. But probably the more impactful piece and the piece that has led us to having discussion this evening is related to property tax levy limits. And levy limits are not abnormal. 46 states including the District Of Columbia have some form of property tax limits. How those are actually determined varies.

But really this started back in the nineteen seventies and this is where I get a little nerdy, so I apologize if this is a little boring. But I think it's interesting because it leads us to where we are today. So in California in the seventies, there was a proposition 13 that was passed. And that was really the first property tax limit that was approved at a state level. And then from there it just kind of spread across the nation.

So for the state of Wisconsin, we've had levy limits since 2006. And from 2006 to roughly 2011, there was a floor for levy limits that ranged anywhere between 2% to 3% that you could increase your levy. 2011 rolls around, and then it is tied to the amount of net new construction or new development that happens within your community. And as you see off to the right, and it relates to that last bullet point, it really was kind of unfortunate timing because the Great Recession happens, as you can see, in 2006. And then the housing starts take a nosedive, and they've never recovered ever since that period of time.

So as an ancillary piece to this, that's why you hear about housing affordability issues, housing shortage issues, Because once the Great Recession happened, we never got back to a point where we were building as a state or a nation the amount of housing units that are necessary to meet the demand. And then I just noted also that the levy limits that we have are the strictest in The U. S. So what does that mean in terms of an annual basis for our budget? What it means is that if you look at the amount of not new construction, again, new development, the percentage that we've averaged since 2014, we're about 1.2%.

And then if you compare that to CPI, the consumer price index or commonly referred to as inflation, that is about 2.6. So you can see between what we can raise the levy and what things cost on an annual basis, there's a gap between those two. And that puts stress on the budget in terms of making sure that we maintain the service provisions that we have year to year. And just to illustrate this a little further, and I know this is hard to see. Oops.

So the average after the reevaluation this year, the average single family home is about $350,000. So to get a 1% increase in the levy, which equates to $518,000 of additional revenue that the city can spend on an annual basis for $83,000,000 budget. We would have to build 285 single family homes that are of this value every single year just to get that 1% or $518,000 of additional revenue. So just coming back Joe's projection, finance projection, this is with no garbage and recycling special charge. And it really gets to the point that because of levy limits, because of intergovernmental revenue and kind of the constraints in terms of being able to have local control over making decisions, it really creates a system where year to year we're going to be having discussions about how do we either increase revenue, reduce expenditures, or a combination thereof.

So this is not something I know there's comments made that this is rushed, this is something that came out of the blue. It really didn't. This is a conversation we've been having for a little more than a year. At a staff level, it's something that we've been talking about for it well well over a year. And what we did was we wanted to be proactive about how we address a known, bless you, shortage or deficit, structural deficit that we have to deal with.

And the goal that we've always had in mind is to stay two years ahead of whatever the deficit is. So for example, for the '26 and '27 budget having a balanced budget in the projection. So at the time when we put this together, the financial management plan, in 2025 this year, the net impact was about $2,500,000 And just to give you a flavor of some of the things that were contained within that plan. So Waukesha Metro bus service routes, they've decreased. And this is going back a little bit further, but we also did some additional road cuts this year and last year.

Since 2020, there's been a twenty four percent decrease in the bus service routes. And that's all while in other communities, their municipal contribution has gone up anywhere from 6% to 24%. So just to kind of repeat that, so for other transit systems throughout the state, the amount that the municipality is providing to help fund that bus service, the contribution has gone up 6% to 24% in the last ten years. Now you contrast that with the City Of Waukesha, we've actually decreased that by 5% over that same period of time. Another thing worth noting is, and I think this is timely because we're coming upon this, is leaf collection.

We changed our approach last year and that saved the city over $140,000 dollars year,

From a personnel standpoint, we reduced quite a few seasonal positions

city and then eliminated a handful of vacant positions as well. And in terms of restructuring, there was kind of two examples that I would point out. For IT, we had a contracted service for a help desk and some other ancillary support services. But we actually found that bringing that function in house would save us money. So that's what we ended up doing.

Then for the assessor's office, we did the opposite. We contracted out commercial assessments and also changed some of the departments or positions within that department. And then for 2026 initiatives, that is truly related to the, special charge, which would have a about a $3,200,000 net impact. So I think the major takeaways before specifically the garbage and recycling special charge is one that the city funding has been neutral for ten plus years in real dollars. The city has had strong financial stewardship as seen by the amount of reserves we have and the fact that we're trying to be proactive about addressing a known structural deficit.

And underlying all that is the fact that the municipal funding framework is broken and unsustainable. So for the Garbage and Recycling Special Charge, the current funding model is that all costs related to that whether that's collection or disposal are covered by the general fund. And again, the general fund is the operating fund for the city. All non eligible properties end up paying for the service through their property taxes right now. So examples of this would be commercial properties, multifamily properties, those types of establishments or households.

Also there is no mechanism to adjust revenue for inflation and increasing costs. So right now we have a six year contract with John's disposal and the maximum year over year increase that they can pass on to the city is 3%. And then we do have two one year extensions for an eight year contract. In terms of the special charge, it would be a flat fee. And what would be included within within that special charge is John's contract plus the disposal cost.

So that's what makes up roughly the $3,200,000. Now to do that, what we would do is remove the garbage and recycling cost from the general fund and then create a special revenue fund. And how this would end up going to taxpayers is that it would be on the property tax bill. So there would be your regular property tax bill and then off to the side or below somewhere on that tax bill, there would be a notation that says garbage and recycling special charge a $160. And I point out there that it is per household unit.

So it is the case that per unit, so if it's a two family, it would be two charges of a $160. So overall, the garbage and recycling fee will be a flat user base charge that is moved from the general fund to a dedicated special revenue fund. Why are we doing this? There's a number of reasons, and I listed most of them here. So the first is to strengthen financial capacity by removing these costs from the general fund.

It allows us to reduce our budget gap. It protects other services. So as we would see if we left garbage and recycling in the general fund, if year to year seeing those 3% increases, that would crowd out other essential services. Services. And then also this allows us to control cost because it provides a mechanism for us to adjust the special charge would to what the actual cost is for collection and disposal.

And then lastly, just noted that it's a fair user based model that only the people who receive the service, and to be clear, it's everyone who is receiving the service right now. They would pay for the service moving forward. So the the big probably question for most people is, okay, well, how does this impact me individually at a household level? So if we take that same $350,000 property and we say, what was the amount of city taxes that they paid in 2025, which was $2,841, what would they pay in 2026 with their city taxes? Because at this time, we know what the projected operating and debt service levy is, plus this garbage and recycling special charge.

So if you combine those two pieces, they would pay $2,890 And off there to the right in the purple, you see the difference or the net impact, which dollars. And to be very clear, very, very clear, please pay attention to where it says estimated, and please pay attention to where it says asterisk. Calculation is subject to change with final assessment. And I want to point that out because this is truly an estimate, but it's an estimate based on figures that we know at this time. So for the financial projection, this is again without the garbage and recycling special charge, keeping in mind that we want to stay two years ahead with a surplus or a balanced budget in 2026 and 2027.

So for 2027, clearly there is a deficit. But with the special charge, we get to a point where there is a balanced budget. So this is just looking at kind of the two scenarios with and without a fee. Clearly, as you can see the impact is definitely helpful in terms of planning for the future. So overall, is our recommendation?

Both Emera and I recommend adopting Resolution twenty twenty five-seventeen to create the annual fee for garbage and recycling collection and disposal rather than it being on the property tax levy and then that the annual fee be set at $160 The other thing I would note is that within resolution, there is identified a notice. I believe it's a class one notice that we have to send out by statute. Just notifying all households, any impacted individual about this fee. So that is just worth pointing out because we want to make sure that we're abiding by what are the statutory requirements that are laid out by the state. In terms of next steps, so if this was to move forward to council, this would be on the agenda for next Tuesday, October 7.

But I think probably what I would say is larger conversations that are important to continue having is the community conversation. So with the way that the funding framework from the state is set up, we are going to continue to have budgets where there are deficits. So we're going to continue to have to have conversations about service levels and where we go from here. So what we would like to do next year is every other year we do a community survey and 2026 is one of those years. So there will be an additional section within within the community survey that talks about budget priorities.

In addition to that, we would like to have or we're going to have workshops to talk about this exact topic in terms of the funding framework we need to adjust with and manage. And then the last thing is having focus groups. And that is all to determine what are the services that citizens value and how should we start to prioritize those as we look at either maintaining those services or adjusting them accordingly to make sure that we're able to meet whatever the challenges in front of us to make sure we have a balanced budget. And then the last thing there is just encouraging you all on the council, but then also the public to speak with state legislators really in terms of the two bullet points that are laid out there is some type of levy limit relief so that we're more able to adapt to cost increases for essential core services. And then the second thing is a large part of how we fund local government is based on property taxes.

So are there alternatives or different methods to fund local government, which there are? And could we really research those and seriously consider implementing some of those so that we're in a better position to sustain and maintain city services. So with that, I will stop talking at twenty four minutes and thirty six And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great. Tony, thank you. So we'll take certainly take questions from the committee. We also have four aldermen here this evening. So gentlemen, if you have any questions and the Mayor, certainly let me know.

Yna, if I could. So our Assistant City Attorney is here for any legal related questions. Our Public Works Director along with the solid waste coordinators here for any service related questions. And then Joe and I can certainly touch on any financial related questions.

Very good. Tony, thank you. Questions from the committee? One second, Rick. Alderperson Molson, and Rick will come back.

One of the women in the audience was talking about having a vacant department for a lengthy period of time. Have we considered like some type of a statement, like your registration for your car, can attest that you haven't used the car all year? So I mean I wouldn't think like two weeks or something would be way too short, but if it's not used all year, have we considered that?

I wouldn't say that's something that we've considered. We'd have to look at whether or not we could statutorily do something like that, which is certainly something we can do. But no, we have not considered that at this point.

Thank you.

I think Tony, of the other questions was can you is this something that a resident can opt out of?

There would not be an opt out option. K.

Other questions from the committee? Yep. He did. Alderman Lunke.

In my district, are quite a few condos. Some of them are on private roads. They do not get garbage pickup at all. They pay for their own. There are a lot of apartment complexes in my district that, pay for their own garbage. I have, one constituent who lives on a private road. Right next door to him is a constituent who is on a public street due to the layout of the subdivision. One gets garbage pickup, one does not. Their taxes are are the same. So you have one paying for their garbage and one that does not.

So by taking the property taxes off of the levy for the garbage, both of those people will be paying approximately the same amount for their garbage. And so I'm kinda in favor of eliminating the garbage fee, from the taxes so that the people who are paying for theirs currently don't have to pay it twice. It's one of my biggest things. I probably have a 100 to 200 homes or oh, god. I'll bet you half of my constituents pay for their own garbage currently and are paying for it in the in the property taxes.

So if you are paying for garbage already, you won't be paying this $160 rate. In fact, your taxes will go down. And I guess the $160 for those that are paying now is you're paying for your garbage one way or the other. That that isn't changing as if if if I'm understanding correctly. So thank you. Alderman Camacho.

Thank you, Chairperson. Okay. So my question is if we could look at one of the other slides you had on how you came up with. So the flat fee that was stated was a $160. Now when you go and you put up the slide that said $49. Right? Perfect. So how mathematically do you guys do we get to that number with that fictitious $350,000 house. So it looks like you're only from this perspective, from my understanding, you're only actually increasing at 49, not the 160. Is that correct? Or am I off?

All right. First off, I'll just mention, $3.50 is the average family value home. So not necessarily fictitious, but I understand what you meant.

Yes. No, it is. It's a real number.

I get that. Yes. We got that from the assessor's office. It's not my house. So but I get what you're saying. But with that in mind, the total tax levy we don't know what the total tax levy is, at least we estimate what it is. For our operating levy, we just passed a capital budget that is going to be paid back with we're issuing debt for that we're going to pay back with levy for that debt service. So we know what those two pieces of the levy that is out there. We also have estimates for what the total assessed value is for the city. We don't have final numbers.

That's why we're saying subject to change. This is estimated. But when we came up with the levy before we had the assessed, part of the process that's required by state statute is that we have to remove a portion of our tax levy to add to create this fee. So we're removing $2,000,000 out of our tax levy. That's why so our levy went down some And that's the reason why the actual net effect isn't the full $160 That's why it's $49 instead of $160 that's how we calculated it.

Perfect. So in reality, then $160 is kind of the base number. And depending the house and the taxes you pay, the number does fluctuate for the actual money coming out of the accounts of the public.

Am I asking that right? The way that it act like, everyone's tax bill fluctuates obviously depending on their value. Right? So that that particular calculation is is the independent on their value. So for us though, dollars 160 per household or per user I should say is going to go to the special revenue fund to pay for this contract. It's going to directly pay for the cost. And again, that fund is meant to be a breakeven fund. It's meant to just pay for those costs. So that's the best way I guess I could explain it. I don't know, is that clear?

Yes, think we're good because then you're seeing the 160,000,000 and then when you take off that property tax, then the net, so you add the fee, take down the levy, so the net is 49 Okay, perfect.

Thank you. And on that value of property.

Right, sorry.

And change a little bit.

Thank you.

Got it.

Anything else, Rico, at this point? Aldeperson Alvin Slabin?

Yeah. I'm gonna start because I did receive a constituent email. She wasn't able to make it tonight, so she sent sent me an email instead. So I'm just gonna read it. It's pretty brief. She says, I live in the Bridgewalk Apartments on Saint Paul downtown. I wanted to give some input on the trash and recycling fee. I think it's a good idea because my building has a private trash service, so if they are not having to pay taxes to the city for something they don't use, it may help stabilize or minimize any rent increases for tenants. So with that, I do also have my own comments. You know we've gotten to a point as a city where I think there are very few places where we can trim the fat in a meaningful way.

I know that's that's always something you know, is there anywhere else that we can can get more money or get more services for the money that we have and I think that we've gotten to a point where we need to start getting even more creative and they're trimming the fat is not really an option anymore. When we are considering how to overcome these potential budget deficits that we've seen, the next step if we don't do this would be potentially to cut staff. This could mean cuts to departments that are vital to the health and safety of our residents. Joe said in his presentation prior to this agenda item that 75% of the city budget is personnel and so that's potentially what we would be looking at. My fear is that without this fee, we might even need to sacrifice things like public safety which would mean cuts to police and fire which in my opinion is not acceptable.

In addition, this is beneficial to folks who are using private disposal services because they live in larger apartment buildings, condos, among others like private streets as Aldersperson Lemke mentioned. The only people that would be paying this fee would be the people who are actually using the service, which as mentioned, I think is a fairer system. And so while I don't think any of us here love the idea of adding a fee, I think that we recognize that this is what's best for the residents of this city. And please know for the public who are here in the room and also anybody watching, I think it's important to note that all of us in this room also live here, at least those of us up here. I can't speak to everybody, but we all live here too, and this is a fee that will very likely impact us.

So know that we have to pay it too, I guess is what I'm saying. So keep that in mind when thinking about whether or not this is a good idea. We're all we're all in the same boat as everyone else too. So thank you.

Alderperson Wilson.

Just for transparency, everybody's tax bill, unless they pay the fee in advance, the tax bill is going to have a line on it that says special charge garbage fee and a $150. Something similar to that?

Correct.

Okay. Well, I with the alderperson Elvis Laban, I'm not it's unwelcome news that everybody has a additional $160 fee. And I'm it's I wish we had better news, but the financial reality of the city and the financial health of the city requires that we do something. And I think is the most responsible way to handle the budget deficit at least in the short term, so I'm very supportive. Thank you.

Alderman Alderson Wiggerson. Alderman Leipke.

My business is in Wauwatosa. And yesterday, we did 85 vehicle registrations. And there's been talk in the newspapers about communities figuring out a wheel tax. Now New Berlin just shot it down, but in Milwaukee, they pay a $145 for their license fee. We pay $85.

So that difference is going to Milwaukee to supposedly pay for their streets, but it's to balance their budget because they have the same costs and restrictions as we have. I don't wanna see a wheel tax. And I think folks are are getting confused. It's not an additional $160 on your property tax for most folks. It is a $49 cost for most folks because your property taxes, the levy is gonna go down which is going to offset some of that $162.

The reality of it is, with a 3% increase, you know, I can see maybe the $160 going up two or 3% a year to keep that special revenue fund the same. But, you know, as a city, we have to keep the budget balanced. And there's really no place to cut fat anymore. And putting the garbage as a special line, it puts the garbage fee where it belongs to the person who's using it. So I'm supportive of the fee. Thank you.

Alderson Wiggerson.

I just want to point out a couple of things. I think number one, the transparency that's been very evident with the strategic plan. I am a newer alderman appointed last year and had probably a lot of the same concerns that some of the residents that have expressed here today and even on the wonderful Facebook page. But my eyes were really opened when I came in last October and saw just shockingly how much little shared revenue Waukesha gets amongst the rest of the communities in our state. And I have to say that that's really a problem for me on the legislative side.

Where are our legislate let let us legislators, in the state and the senate, on the states or the legislator and the senate side on here in Wisconsin for Waukesha. I was one of only one other person that attended the county budget process meetings that Paul Farrow had set done and no one showed up. And interestingly enough, $1,600,000,000 Waukesha County gives to the state of Wisconsin and we only get $60,000,000 back. So I would say to all of you, that's where you need to be shouting and getting mad at because Waukesha is not getting our fair share. Racine is getting $35,000,000, and we get three or five.

They're bankrupt. I actually got a phone call from one of the aldermen from Racine wanting ideas on how they can make it work down there. You got way more money than us and and we're making it work. And I really think that kudos to you all for being transparent. I don't see any other option when we have to look at everything because we just don't know what the state's going to do, and they they haven't done anything for us. So I am supportive of this. I feel that it's fair. You've got people paying for the service that are using it, and I just I I am in favor of moving it to the the full council.

Mister mayor?

Thank you. So I I actually wrote out a statement, so bear with me. Property owners in Waukesha pay for the lion's share of municipal service. This was not always the case. Prior to the early two thousands, the state was a much larger contributor towards the overall revenue for Waukesha and all other municipalities.

For Waukesha, the state is not only a minor contributor of municipal revenue. Property taxes pay the majority of municipal expenditures. The city administrator and I are proposing to change the cost of garbage and recycling to a special charge. Special charges can only be imposed upon the entities that are receiving the service. We would not ask the common council's approval of this change without considering all options.

This proposal is controversial and many will be opposed to the charge, but I support the charge. A special charge is needed as one way to partially address a broken municipal financial system. If the state had not continually reduced the amount it returned to municipalities while also imposing strict levy limits at the same time over the last two decades, Waukesha would not be considering this special charge. I'm the president of the Urban Alliance, which is all the larger municipalities in the state of Wisconsin. And as a president, I speak to many other mayors, village presidents, and administrators from municipalities throughout the state.

I'd say 99 out of a 100 other municipalities, I know of one that isn't doesn't have this problem, and that's the only one, almost every other municipality is working in ways to address severe financial issues. Most municipalities are exploring wheel taxes, referendums, sales tax, and special charges. Sales tax requires legislation for that to happen for municipalities just so no one's confused about that. If future inflation is significantly more than 1%, municipalities' financial problems will become much worse, and they will continue to become much worse. This isn't a problem that's gonna go away unless there's changes in state law.

The point is that Waukesha is not alone in trying to find ways to find additional revenue to pay for services while at the same time continually working to lower expenses. I would like to make that point. It's it's somewhat behind the scenes, but we are always working to try to reduce our expenditures. There's a lot of work that's gone into that for more than a decade. It's been it's been much, much longer than that.

State laws pertaining to property taxes, special charges, and levy limits are not easy to explain, but I have worked for or been an elected official for more than thirty five years. Wisconsin municipalities are subject to the strictest levy limits in The United States. Our general levy is limited by net new construction. This averaged about one percent per year going back for at least ten years. CPI has gone up significantly more than our levy limits.

The average change in the CPI has been 3%. The average change in the amount of levies can rise that levies can rise has been 1.2%. A consistent shortfall of 1.8% per year compounds and adds up quickly. Adopting the special charge for garbage and recycling is a difficult decision to make as we know it will be imposed by many residents. We all understand their frustration.

Property owners have been continually required to pay for a larger and larger share of municipal services. This charge adds to that burden. What I ask is for residents to have an open mind and spend the time learning about the financial difficulties facing almost every municipality in the state and the way that state law severely limits revenue for municipalities and places almost all the burden on property owners. Follow our budget process. If there is something that you believe should not be part of city services, let the finance committee know and also let them know why you believe that we shouldn't be spending money on any particular item in the budget.

I have to warn you, it's a very big document. It's many, many pages, but all your aldermen go through it pretty much line by line. And they're looking at that type of process where they if there is something they think that can be removed, they ask for it to be removed. We will be having community conversations in the 2026. I also ask that our residents follow the process and become involved if they are able. This garbage and recycling charge is needed to make our budget work. I'm asking the finance committee to recommend approval and for the common council to adopt the special charge. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else from the committee? Alderman Camacho. Okay.

Yes, sorry, this will be the last thing and it's going to be hard to follow what everybody else just said because mine's going to be a lot more simplistic. But I would like to echo what Alderperson Haversleben said about we're hitting we're getting the same tax, so it's about us as well. And both alderperson Richardson and Mayor Riley, yes, everything they said is a 100% on board as well. I'm on board with as well. Let's try that again. But my question is actually a little bit more simplistic, like I said. My question is I think directed at Alex here. Single family homes if they have two garbage cans and two recycle cans, would they be paying double?

So in the in the city here, each resident has one garbage and one recycle. If they have another garbage can, it was them going to John's disposal and ordering another one, and they pay for that one directly already. Does that make sense?

Yep. So thank you. So

Alright. Well, I I guess oh, Alderman Lemke. Thank you, Sean.

I asked a couple questions before earlier today. I got a couple of answers. Just wanted to ask you, Tony, because of where I live in the city, if our houses around in in District 13 are more expensive, what does that do to the overall fee for what these citizens, these residents pay?

So if I understand your question correctly, if you have a higher assessed value, what is going to be the net impact when you factor in the levy reduction and then adding in the fee? And the answer to that is is that then the impact that an individual household with that higher value, it would probably likely be less than the average property. And the average property again was $350,000.

So when I get all these calls, I'm supposed to tell them they're gonna be charged less. You just said less.

I would say that the net impact of what the projected 2026 levy is plus a special charge if it is adopted is likely going to mean that their taxes go up, but that amount is gonna vary by your assessed value.

We'll have to have a talk about this later because I can let you know right now, I've been around a while, and I've sat through a bunch of nontransparent meetings, meaning through the water and the tax and and the property reevaluation. And the the mill rate will go up, but your property taxes won't. That's what we were told. Well, that wasn't the case. So maybe we can meet later and you can explain this to me so that when I get these phone calls and emails, I can be speaking intelligently.

I'd be happy to do that.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Alright. I wanted Tony and Joe, I wanna thank you for the very good presentation tonight and educating the committee. I also wanna thank a number of the other council members that are here. I know Eric I believe Alderman Eric Payne, you wanna add a question or a statement as well?

Thanks, Joe. Eric Payne, 215 Randall Street. I just have a couple of questions. First of all, I I find it a little bit misleading when when we say that we're taking the trash off of our property tax. Okay?

Because actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but all we're doing is taking the heading off the property tax but we're not giving the money back to the people, we're just moving it over here and then we're doing a special assessment which could be 49 or it could be $1.60. Is that right? Because we're not giving the money back. The money is still we're taxpayers we're still gonna be paying that amount but it's not gonna be towards the garbage. It's gonna be put into the No. Fund. I

would say it's more accurate to say that the levy is actually reducing and that yes, the amount of the service recycling and garbage collection and disposal is moving over to a special revenue fund. So when we're reducing the levy by 2,000,000, we're not increasing it $2,000,000. It's we're actually reducing the property tax levy by $2,000,000.

Okay. But I'm still gonna be paying that trash the what I'm paying right now today for trash pickup. But it's gonna be moved over under a different heading.

That's correct.

And I'm gonna pay $1.49 or $1.60 whichever. The other question I had is we had noticed, I don't know how how far back staff knew about our upcoming shortfalls. We first heard about it last budget time. Okay? But at council level at least, I can say that the spending habits have not changed.

Alright? Everybody just including department heads just went on like nothing you know, nothing to see here. Alright? And my other point is our financial advisor that we have come and give us our outlook from time to time. Where does he fit into all this because every meeting that every time he would come and give us a financial outlook, it would be projected, we're okay, we're good, double a rating.

Does he not pay or unless he was saying something behind the scenes and it never came to counsel as that report. I don't know the answer to that. But it seems to me somewhere along the line, it shouldn't have been outlook positive when we're headed in this direction. So

Yes, Tony, I think that's a fair question. Mean, can you talk a little about what Baird's opinion is of this?

Yes. So I think that maybe we're mixing up different topics that aren't necessarily related to each other. So when we're talking about the general fund, what we're talking about is operating costs. What is being referred to here is our bond rating that Baird does when we issue debt on an annual basis for capital related expenses. So capital related expenses, that's a totally separate piece.

So capital cost, that makes up the debt service levy. Operating cost, that is the general fund. So those are two separate pieces that operate independent of each other. And when Baird comes from year to year, they have a scorecard in which they look at different components related to the city. So they'll look at, for example, household income.

And in doing that and looking at those different categories, one of the things they do is look at a municipality's outlook. Now our outlook in terms of the reserves that we have, the governance and management that we have, some of our other criteria or metrics that they look at, those are all positive. They're not looking at kind of future year projections for a budget. And Joe, I don't know if you have anything to add. Sure.

So I generally get as the finance director sitting on the actual calls with Moody's as well with Baird to kind of discuss those things. And as far as being sustainable or what, you know, I guess without any necessary concerns when they when they give us those scorecards, they're looking at risk. And first, they're looking at risk when it comes to repaying our debt. When we're issuing that debt, it's general obligation debt. The one thing that the state of Wisconsin allows us to do is that if we issue debt and we're within our debt limits, statutory debt limits, the city is allowed to levy to pay back that debt.

Because that we're because we don't because we are able to do that, we're very low risk when it comes to a debt issuance. That's why from a Baird's perspective and Moody's perspective, there's there's a reason why they say that about us from a scorecard standpoint. They do, I will say this, because of our levy limits for operating. That does come up in the call. It's the reason why we actually have a harder time getting a better rating than we already have.

It's because they know that we have operating levy limits that restrict us from raising that revenue more easily, I should say. But because they know that we're managing it, we're doing projections to see where we are, We have balanced budgets every single year and have historically. That's the reason why they're comfortable with our situation. Because we're at least monitoring it and we're talking about it to make sure that we always are passing a balanced budget.

Thank you everyone.

Thank you, Alderman Payne. So from my standpoint, we've heard a lot over the last few years about just the current state of affairs and numbers don't lie. And we've been in a very, very good and continue to be in a very, very good budget position. The challenge we have is that when you can only raise revenue by 1.6 to 2% and all your costs are going up from anywhere to 3% to 10%, that's just simply not sustainable. And there's been a lot of folks a lot of talk about Madison tonight, and I'll, I guess, for lack of a better term, add on to that, in that there's been a lot of folks in Madison that have made that a huge part of their platform for fifteen years, that they've frozen property taxes or they've decreased property taxes or they've limited property taxes, but very few of them have ever sat in these chairs.

And very few of them have really ever come to these meetings. For nearly twenty years, probably over fifteen years as chair of this committee, I sent an email out most years, most every year, and I asked legislatures to come. Just come. Come to one meeting. Listen to what we're dealing with. Here are some of the challenges that we're that we're faced with. Here are some of the successes that we've had. And up until recently, very few, if anyone, has ever come. This year has been different. I give one state legislature came this year and another one senate senate staff person.

But for the course of twenty years, and it's been certainly since for the last fifteen, it's been a little easier to say to to walk around, especially around reelection time, say, I'm limiting property taxes. But they just they don't understand the implications of what that means for a budget like ours. When you've got 75% as people, and I'll adjust my numbers a little bit, say 80% of those 75 80% of that 75 is police and fire, that is what people in this town expect. We are a public safety town. An ambulance had to come to my house recently.

Everyone's okay. I was talking to dispatch, and I had an ambulance in at my house in under four minutes. While I was still talking to dispatch, I heard them coming from Station 4. That's what people expect in this town, and that's our job. A big part of our job is to maintain that. And, unfortunately, we're in a position where we we have to look at looking look to do something like this and impose a fee for a service. Because if we don't, there are gonna there will have to be cuts in other parts of government, and that's gonna include public safety. It just has to. It just has to. So my ask is to give a little bit of trust to the fact that we are very methodical about how we approach this.

I don't view this as a slippery slope. We've, as council, have been educated by staff around the implications of doing this and, more importantly, the implications of not doing this. And there is a fund there is a need for change fundamentally in how local government is funded. And that has to happen at the state level because I'm only I only report to 5,000 people. I don't report to hundreds of thousand like a lot of our state legislatures do.

And those changes need to be made. But as Harry Truman always used to say, the buck stops here, and we're the ones that have to make these difficult decisions. And I'm willing to do that. And with that, I'll make a motion to recommend the council to create a resolution for the setting of fees for residential garbage and recyclable collection services. Alderperson Albansladen.

I'll second. And just for a matter of record, because I don't think I said it earlier, the letter that I did read earlier from the woman in the Bridgewalk Apartments, her name is Carly Proust.

So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion from the committee? Alderman Lemke.

I just wanted to follow-up, Joe, on the comment you made about working with the state legislatures. Our city has three state legislatures. They're kinda broken up into three parts. We're partitioned off, and our legislators, I feel, have been working on this issue. But, the other cities that you saw on the graph that are getting the big dollar amounts, 35,000,000 from Racine, they probably also have three legislatures, legislators with the state.

And do you think any one of them is gonna vote to take away Racine's 35,000,000 and give some of it to Waukesha? And that's what we've been battling for for twenty years or thirty years. And so I think we're kinda have to do this even though it it, we have to to do it. So I'm in favor of it.

Any further discussion from the committee? Alright. So we have a motion and that is to recommend to the common council a resolution that would create and set fees for residential garbage and recycling collection service. All those in favor sign aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That item passes unanimously. Tony, Joe, thank you. That will move us on to Item number 5D, which is review and possible action on amending the disposition of surplus property financial policy F-fifteen. Joe, Tony?

All right. Thank you, sir. All right. So this item is a review of our disposition of surplus property. This is stemming well, I should say two things.

One, when we passed the strategic plan, it was in the strategic plan to make sure that we reviewed and updated all of the financial policies that the city has by the 2020 And more specifically, Alderman Rick Lemke did have a referral for staff to look at the policy and make sure that we do review it, then we continue and then we and then we follow it going forward. So what this policy before you, does have a few different changes and clarifying, items. And so I'm just going to go through a couple of them there in the memo, but I want to at least verbally state a few of them. First off, the original policy is a little more vague. It primarily related to like equipment, vehicles, personal property.

Well, this policy takes those items and also adds real estate property to that as well to make sure that it's kind of all encompassing for anything surplus. The other couple of things that are noted is that whenever we have a disposal or we sell surplus property, we're selling it as is. If it needs to be transported for any reason, that's at the responsibility of who is purchasing that. From a like I said, now that we've included real estate, we do have numerous items in there and how we will put that item out for sale. I know that the council are just recently approved selling a surplus property.

This that process that you kind of went through and discuss is now documented in this policy. The other couple items that are in here as far as oversight is concerned, asking that the threshold that would require specific council approval be raised from $10,000 to $25,000 On the authority side, we ask that department heads are able to authorize sales of property within those limits and that the city administrator can execute any contracts associated with that. And then as far as employees

Up to the $25,000

Correct, within those limits, yes. On the employee side, city employees are able to bid on surplus property, but they cannot just purchase directly from the city without the public process. That's that's cited. So with that, I just want to see if there's any other questions, but really it's cleaning up the policy, it's adding the real estate and then making sure that we kind of adjusted some limits and then who really has authority to sign off on certain things. So if there's any questions, we're we're here to take those.

Any questions from Aldeperson, Halvind Slavin.

Yeah. I'm just especially for the record, guess. What was the what was the thinking behind raising the dollar threshold for the personal property disposal that needs council approval from 10,000 to 25,000?

I don't specifically know that particular amount outside of that. Is that is more in line with what our historically our purchasing policy has been is a $25,000 limit. From a public construction standpoint, that is usually the limit that's required. So that's just seemed like more of a consistent dollar figure.

That's what I assumed. Thank you.

Sure. Alderperson Moltze.

Okay. I didn't bring my computer with me, so I don't have it in front of me. So if I'm asking, just refresh my memory. So when the city administrator is authorized to sign all the closing documents and all that? Is he allowed to designate somebody else to do that? Or can only the city administrator do it?

I'm just trying to find that section here real quick because I just wanna refer to it. But as I recall, it would be the city administrator is the individual who would have to execute those documents.

Okay. And if that person is not present? Like, you're on a fishing trip?

I don't go on fishing trips. I I sleep at City Hall. What would happen in that case is that there is if I'm on my ten day fishing trip up in Canada, there is an acting city administrator so that individual would be able to execute the documents.

Okay. And and I can't remember. One of the things it said in there was that we must accept the high bid, which which sounds like a good thing, but the public bidding laws also say, you know, from a reasonable bid from a reasonable bidder. So if if somebody, you know, gave the high bid, but they were unreputable in some way or told us what their plans to do with it, whether it's, know, say, criminal activity or whatever. Can we modify the language to say we must accept the high bid from a responsible bidder? Does that make sense?

I'm just trying to find the section here.

It's section three on the

Is it?

On the cover sheet that you guys sent.

The section So C does that two where it's talking about personal property?

I thought it was three, real estate disposal process.

D one? Yeah. Thank you for covering for me.

I mean, that's something I I would say that we we could change. That could be part of a motion.

Okay. Well, since I don't have the sentence written for me, I don't know what that what exactly I would propose.

I thought there was d one Yeah. D one currently states that and I'll read it. Offer for sale to the general public using commercially reasonable means. The use of a broker shall be discretionary in light of the circumstances. The real estate shall be sold for the highest possible consideration. However, that consideration need not consist solely of money. Consideration other than money is permissible if other such consideration has a benefit to the public.

Okay.

So you think that covers?

I think

so. Internally That covers it already.

That is a topic oh, yeah. There we go.

Miles. We do have Miles. I

would say that would cover it because part of consideration could be goodwill. And I think what you're getting at is that there's sometimes a goodwill component to this where there might be somebody who's and but there's someone who is. And even if they're offering less money, we would consider part of the consideration the fact that this person is more reputable. I I think that's worked into that language. I think that works.

And with respect to the other comment, I it would be very simple for us to include language in the other provision authorizing the city administrator to sign off on those types of sales to include the city administrator or a designee. It's what we put in most ordinances to cover a situation where the person who does have the authority to authorize it isn't present. So that might be one way of simply resolving that issue.

Yeah. Well, Tony might be at the US Open or something. Okay. And then I have one quick one further question, which I'm not sure which of these calls is. I don't know what a motorized rolling stock is. It's not a vehicle. What what is an example of that?

A chipper or shredder.

I mean, that could be I believe that that takes like other working equipment that you might see with public works or parks, the parks department that are on wheels. It's a rolling stock as motor.

Like an end loader?

Not a vehicle, but that's generally what it is. Yes.

Alright. That's it. Thank you.

Alright.

Thank you, Beth. Other questions? Alderman Lemke.

I just wanted to state that I made this motion because real estate, it wasn't clear as to whether it had to go through the policy. And I firmly believe that if we're selling a a piece of property, it should be marketed to the entire community of Waukesha and even some of those that aren't to maximize the value that we get for it. And by not making it at least an attempt to get the maximum value to value the piece of property, it could potentially go to someone on a cheap price because we didn't do our due diligence to find out how much the property is really worth. Oh, it sounds like a good idea. Let's do that.

And so that's why I brought it up because attorney running stated to me, well, we don't real estate is not part of the asset disposal process. So that's why I brought it up about reading through this. This establishes all the things that I was fearful about prior to its revision. And so I'm supportive of the program. Thank you. And I ask for your support.

Is that a motion, Alderman Lemke?

Yes. It is. I I would like to review and accept amending the disposition of surplus financial policy.

Perfect. Is there a second to that? Second person second person. Alderperson Helven Sladen.

I'll second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second to adopt the disposition of surplus financial policy F-fifteen as presented. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor sign aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That item passes unanimously. And Item 5E is review and act on a revised financial policy F. Six, purchasing and bidding as presented. Tony?

Thank you. So as you recall, on August 12, we reviewed the purchasing policy. And at that time, there were two changes that the committee wanted to see. The first was with regard to public construction. As you might remember, there was a state bill that talked about modifying the cost thresholds for public construction.

So in addition to the $25,000 that it currently is, there is or the current limit stated in Wisconsin Statute six thousand two and fifteen or any successor provision. So that provides us the flexibility that if that specific piece of legislation or a future piece of legislation is approved that the policy would automatically increase hopefully to that amount. The second item is with regard to fleet purchases. We outlined that the process through which fleet purchases are purchased, there is an exception. And if the item is within the budget and does not exceed that line item amount, the mayor or city administrator would be allowed to execute the given contract for that piece of equipment.

Beyond those two items, there were a couple of things that were changed at a staff level to make the policy clearer. The roles and responsibilities were clarified along with some definitions. The procurement method language was modified to make sure that that was also a little clearer as well. And then I think the other two modifications that I noted that are worth mentioning is for professional services. In reality, the way it was outlined within the policy and making an exception to just that category, it already fell within the purchasing thresholds.

So we just removed that section. And then the emergencies section was revised as well. So happy to answer any questions. Probably the only other thing I would mention that was worth keeping in mind is that this is the policy. So once it is adopted then there will be a procedures manual that's put together in terms of how do we operationalize this at a staff level in terms of the purchaser and then also the role that the finance department serves in fulfilling these types of transactions? Thank you.

Tony, thank you. I think the one question I have I'm gonna ask it and I'm gonna try to answer it at the same time. Because I know we had talked at one of the other meetings about there was some language in the one of the previous ones that spoke to bear with me. The purchasing authority. And now we have in the new policy, we have a designated purchasing authority, and I'm looking at just the last page, that graph.

And is it fair to say, if I go back up to the definitions part, that the designated purchasing authority is an individual in a in a within a specific department that might be working on said project, but will still need either your approval or a department director's approval to move forward.

Correct. That's exactly right.

Okay. Because I see that under six point five point eight, under designated purchasing official, seek approval from department director or manager when appropriate. So that's that's that check and balance for lack of a better term. Is that fair?

That is fair. Okay.

That was the question that I had. Was there any other questions on this from the committee? Okay. Alright. Tony, Joe, anything else on this? No, Miles? Alright. So I will make a motion to review or excuse me, to approve. And is this a recommendation to counsel?

Yes, To

approve and recommend the counsel the revisions to financial policy f dot six purchasing and bidding as presented. Is there a second? Second by alderperson Molson. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Alright. All those in favor sign aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen. Brings us to number six, communications. Joe, Tony?

All right. So I had mentioned it before. We have gone through the capital budget process for 2026, but we are now just getting started. We are in the middle internally at the staff level of pulling together the operating budget. We anticipate the document being, put out there by October Friday, October 10 at the latest when the agenda for the the finance committee then that following finance committee is is is when that agenda is released.

And if you I I mentioned this in the past, but just please make note that that week is kind of a busy week for all of us. We have two meetings scheduled that week, one on Tuesday, one on Thursday. We're kind of splitting the presentations between all of the departments between those two days. And then so basically we're looking at October Tuesday, October 14 and then Thursday, October 16. And then we will have, again, the departments will be there for questions. Well, they'll present and be there for questions. They'll tell their story. And then the final the last meeting of the month is what we would ask for you to have some action on the operating budget towards council.

And just I'll add on that if you have any inkling that you're not going be able to make the meeting, please let Tony and Joe know because we just need to make sure we've got a quorum. And we all know quorum is three of us. And we like to have a full quorum for budget, but I also know that life has a tendency to pop up. And again, Alderman Lemke and Manion, thank you for coming this evening. Alderman Payne, I know, was here as well. And Alderman Camacho, all are welcome from a all are welcome at the finance committee, especially as we go through the budget. And Miles, thank you for coming this evening. Sure. Any referrals from the committee? Gentlemen, I apologize. Tony, did you have anything to add for communications?

No, just thank the committee for indulging me on journeying down talking about Prop 13 in California. And certainly appreciate to us going through the policies. I know that those aren't the most exciting things, but those are certainly important for our operations.

Absolutely. All right. Anyone I'll ask one more time. Any referrals? Any objection to adjourning? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you, folks.