Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

I'm Alderman Marina Dimitrijevic, the Chairwoman. I'm joined by my Vice Chairperson, Alderman Peter Bergelis. Alderman Scott Spiker is here. Alderman Mielele Cox is excused at the moment, but we'll possibly hearing from her. She's marked as excused.

And then we also have Alderwoman Charlyn Moore that provides us a quorum to conduct the business today of Wednesday, 02/25/2026. We will begin with item number 1241273, communication from the Department of Employee Relations relating to labor negotiations. This will be a continuing item as we have a number of contracts that we're looking at. So my first question as always is, did you want us to go into closed session right away? Yes, please. You do? Okay. No problem with that. Could you remind me your name one more time?

Sure. Bob Sanders, Assistant City Attorney.

Yes, Bob. Okay. Thank you for being here. So then with that, again, we're discussing labor negotiations. So on the motion of Alderman Peter Bergelis is making the motion that we may convene into closed session pursuant to S19.851E Wisconsin State Statutes for the purpose of conducting specified public business whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session. We will then we will actually reconvene into open session on a motion for the regular agenda. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on going into closed session on Item No. One.

Honorable Memoir? Aye. Honorable Spiker? Aye. Honorable Burgess? Aye. Madam Chair? Aye. Prevails four-zero.

Four-zero. We will now move into closed session on Item one to discuss our competitive and bargaining discussion. Back into open session from the Finance and Personnel Committee item two hundred forty one thousand two and seventy three, communication from the Department of Employee Relations relating to labor negotiations. Alderman Scott Spiker moves to hold to the call of the chair. We're doing that and it will be an item that will come up frequently as we continue with our labor negotiations.

Hold to the call of the chair is before us. Any discussion of hold to the call of the chair? Any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. That brings us to item two. Thank you Ms. Fleck. Item two, two hundred fifty one thousand seven hundred sixty three, resolution authorizing the Department of Employee Relations to issue a request for proposal for administration of the city's flexible spending and health reimbursement arrangement benefits. Department of Employee Relations, Ms. Molly King and the sponsors Alderman Spiker. Ms. King?

Good morning, Madam Chair, committee member. Thanks for having us and placing this file on the agenda today. And I want to thank Alderman Spiker for sponsoring this file also. This file basically is asking you to authorizing us to go out for an RFP for our flexible and our health reimbursement arrangement account. Basically what we're asking for is, so we want to see evaluate what's going on and benchmark our fees and our rates to what's going on in the market currently, identify any potential savings or price efficiencies to be had and more importantly evaluate service quality, claims turnaround time, any mobile tools that are available out there and a better user friendly support system product that is out there.

In addition to that, to see any other new products that are out there that we should be considering for the future. So this contract comes to a halt at the end of this year. So it gives some time to do a more robust evaluation and be possibly in place for open enrollment in the fall.

Okay. And would that be with Ameriflex? That's Ameriflex. Yeah, we've had that one for

a while.

So it's always good to refresh that. Any questions? Pretty straightforward. Questions on going out for the request for proposals on Item two, Alderman Spiker, anything to add to that?

No, just move to recommend adoption of the resolution.

Okay. Thanks for leading on that. Adoption of item two is before us. Any discussion of adoption? Any objections to adoption of item two? Hearing none, so ordered. Item 3,251,764, resolution authorizing the Department of Employee Relations to issue a request for proposal for administration of the city's prescription drug benefits, also sponsored by Alderman Spiker. From Department of Employee Relations, Ms. Molly King.

Yes. Similar to the first item, this is also asking to go out for RFP for our pharmacies administrator. This contract also comes to an end at the end of this year, twelvethirty one. And so this will allow us just do a good comprehensive and competitive review of our pharmacy services currently. Are asking our consultant who is leading this RFP process, Gallagher is our consultant.

And so a couple of things we asking are to do just to we are asking to put more emphasis and greater transparency on PBM fees, rebates and pricing practices, which could also include mandatory disclosure of rebates and fees. And so any kind of rebates that's coming through, any kind of fees, we want to make sure there is full transparency. And this kind of line with the federal reform that's to be had to that pharmacy and PBMs are being more transparent in their free structures.

Okay. Questions on this? The current provider is Optum?

The current provider is Optum with UnitedHealthcare.

Questions or comments? Alderman Spiker, did you want move adoption? Yep. Okey dokey. Thank you. Questions on adoption of item three? Objections to adoption of item three? Hearing none, so ordered. Thank you so much. Okay. Moving along. Item 4250946. Communication from the Department of Employee Relations relating to classification studies or other studies scheduled for Fire and Police Commission action. The sponsor is Alderwoman Moore. We've got a couple people here that I just want to read into the record.

Fire and Police Commission is represented by Leon Todd, who is here? Okay. I'm like, where are you? I had Ms. Miriam Horitz not here today. No. Okay. That's fine. We had Alex, I will say it wrong, Foundos?

That's correct.

Oh, I pronounced it right. Okay. Here as well as our city attorney Evan Goyke from the city attorney's office. So thank you so much. And then I see Ms. Knickerbocker from Department of Employee Relations. Ms. Jackie Carter, don't want miss you. Good morning. Excuse me. On this item, pardon me. But up at the table I see Ms. Knickerbocker, Mr. Todd, and now Mr. Goyke.

So we are all so we've heard this I'm going introduce this. We've heard this item, I think we're at seven times, but I wasn't I lost count. And that's fine. So why I'm saying that is I don't mind to chuckle, but it was more so I'm not interested in really relitigating. With each time that we went forward, we did have new questions. We did ask for more information. We did get an updated legal opinion. We're noticed for closed session to discuss that legal opinion if we want to. So I'm throwing that out there. We don't have to, but I have to put it on there just in case. What I'm going to do now is go to the author, going back to where it all started, Alderman Sharlyn Moore, and we'll see where we go from there. Alderman Sharlyn Moore. Thank you so

much Madam Chair. I am hoping that we do not have to go into closed session. Okay. I think the and again, I'd like when we take time to answer people's questions to not rush things to get it right. So, even though, you know, I didn't think that this was gonna be as complicated as I thought, there are a lot of questions that needed to be answered. No problem. I just wanna thank the city attorney's office for providing additional information, as well as DER. Like, I really appreciate you all for, providing the necessary feedback to move us to today. And I'm hoping that we can move this to a resolution. This is for those that I think we made the opinion public.

I think that was added, if I'm not mistaken, added to the file.

Can I pause on that, Alderman?

Only because I had asked this today because there was an earlier one and it was updated. Is the updated one? Because I talk I to the staff

did forward the updated one to you last week and I believe I sent it to Chris and it should have been placed in the file.

So I received it. I read it. Pardon me. I'm sorry. Ready? No. You're good. But number one, I didn't know if the newer one the attorney wanted in the file.

Well, it should be dated February 20 and we issue opinions. You are the possessor of that opinion and use discretion to place it in Legislature.

I'm being told that is the one. So sorry for that. I want to make sure we all got the same thing.

That's it. Please go Yes. Thank you so much for that clarification because there was an original one. There we go. And that one wasn't made public but wanted everyone to sort of be on the same page here. So if there are individuals that, you know, have questions of our folks that we can answer in open session, if folks feel that we need to go to closed session, we can do that. But I'm just hoping that we can move this to a resolution today. Okay. I'll bring it back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.

Okay. Okay. Discussion on this? Committee members?

Madam Chair.

Yes. Alderman Spyker.

So my original concern with the file before us was that it seemed to cede salary authority to FPC with respect to explicitly the police and then by extension the fire chiefs. Indicated we should not cede our salary authority, but Alder Cogs had raised some questions about what had happened with the stripping of footnotes which some of which is addressed in this memo that probably would be a closed session item. But I don't want to forestall her ability to ask those questions by going into the part that primarily interests me. So if my colleague, Alder Cogs, wants to discuss that in closed session, I have no trouble doing that before we move on to the other stuff.

Alderman Spiker, is this your handout? We were just confused. Oh, is this for this item? Okay. We were just like where did this come from? What is it? I'm sorry. We want to understand it. Okay. Okay. Question post, who would you like to answer that?

I just wondered if Alder Cox wanted to discuss her issue. Last time members will recall she raised the issue that there was a motion with the executive pay plan to strip out the footnotes. There was this footnote one that wasn't stripped and Doctor gave an explanation for that. And I know Alder Cox let her obviously speak for herself, but we want to make sure that there is no miscommunication going forward regarding this. So I didn't know if there were needed to be a discussion of that in closed session before we got into the meat of the other stuff.

Okay. Alder Woman Cox says they're light on. Go ahead, Alder Woman Cox.

Yeah. I think Arnament Spiker summed it up properly. I do want some conclusion about about that,

before moving forward if we can

if that's a matter of a conversation and closed session, I'm more than willing to to have that because

I understand the need to move forward,

and I do appreciate the services of the fire chief. I just really do believe that we need some finality on Okay. Footnote piece.

Okay. I'm not aware of why the footnote discussion would need to be in closed session, but I could be missing something. Attorney Goyke?

I certainly can outline those concerns. That does bleed into the concerns that we have and the exception to the open meetings law that is cited in today's notice, potential litigation. I can outline that, but obviously we'd prefer to do that if there is a motion to do that in closed session. It's not that we can't talk about footnotes in open session. It's that I think there will be follow-up questions that will immediately take us to the area that we have noticed this for.

So if that's your advice, we always consider your advice. And I don't want to have a half conversation. So it appears to me, I mean it's a vote by the body that that conversation could be more fruitful. Maybe we could get some progress on this in closed session.

So

with that Alderman Spiker would you want to make the motion to go into closed session?

Yes.

Okay. So on the motion of Alderman Spiker the finance and personnel committee may convene into closed session pursuant to S nineteen eighty five one gs Wisconsin State Statutes for the purpose of conferring with the city attorney who will render oral or written advice with respect likely to become involved. We then, the committee may reconvene into open session on a motion for the regular agenda. Please call the roll ongoing into closed session.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Woman Cox? Aye. Auditor Member Gallis? Madam Chair?

Aye. Five-zero, the committee will go into closed session on item four. So Question on item 4,250,946, communication from the Department of Employee Relations relating to classification studies or other studies scheduled for Fire and Police Commission action sponsored by Alderman Moore. Any discussion of item four?

Madam Chair.

Okay. Alderman Spiker.

Yes. So I guess there's a couple routes before us to discuss some legal issues and what the ability is of the council to insert itself in this process of deciding on a pay, a salary or a salary range for the Chiefs. There's a bigger discussion here about whether there should be a revisiting of the ranges for the Chiefs in general and for the executives and the executive pay plan, whether there's any indigestion relating to that, which would affect what those ranges might better be moving forward, retroactively, but prospectively. So I guess I'd be curious what the appetite of members were, whether they wanted to nibble at that larger project or not before deciding whether I should make a motion.

Okay. I will add my comments. When adopted the executive pay plan that included many positions, many compromises, all levels of government, we have strayed far away from that. There have been mistakes, inaccuracy, things not implemented correctly, things not the way that we had wanted. I mean clearly there's I could go on and on.

It just hasn't come to fruition the way that I think we intended and I think it needs to be revisited. And this is one item that should certainly be revisited in the larger package package as we go into the 2027 budget. So I feel for you, DER. It's tough. We've been it's been mixed signals, mixed information. But I just think that the whole package has to be rediscussed. It is not even these the changes in front of us today would change the fiscal note of what I voted for years ago. And I just I don't feel comfortable with that. I don't feel like it's transparent. And so it's unfortunate, but this is just one part of hundreds of positions.

And that's just how I feel is that it's confusing. It isn't the package that I thought was in front of me. Larger, We're focused on one item here, but there is many items that have had challenges along the way. The author as well has mentioned that some things have not come out the way that they intended. And that's a perfect time to come back at it and not solve things piece by piece but revisit the larger legislation. This happens to us all the time on other items. So sometimes you just got to go back to the drawing table. Things have changed. Different information, different times, different members, and it needs to be revisited. So that's you were asking for feedback.

That's the feedback that I got. Who else would like to speak on this? Alder Roman Moore, Cox, Regalis?

Madam Chair, the FPC did have a communication file about this proposed amendment at its last meeting and there was a discussion. I'm happy to relay to you the opinion of the FPC commissioners if you like.

FPC commissioners have opined on item four that's before us.

At the last meeting. Okay.

Sure. Go ahead.

But we are asking right now about whether we have the appetite to go back and dig into the executive pay plan which FPC has nothing to do with.

That is true.

I still would like to get it on the I am always open to feedback.

Yes. Sure. So let's get on the record. So

it was the opinion of a majority of the commissioners on the FPC board that they were in support of the amendment that Alderwoman Moore has proposed. There was a number of points raised in support of that. Most prominently was the FPC's role as an independent actor with oversight over public safety institutions which should be separated to an extent from the political process and should have a degree of independence. Part of that is the FPC's independence itself and its authority to one of its core authorities to appoint to select and appoint the chiefs of the police and the fire department. I think that is consistent with the spirit of Wisconsin statute six thousand two and fifty and the commissioners felt that this proposed amendment would be in keeping with that spirit.

It allows the council still to set the range of the salary. It allows the council still has the authority or the power of advice and consent in the selection of FPC commissioners. But beyond that the FPC in my opinion and the commissioners appear a majority of the commissioners feel that their role in independently selecting the chiefs of the public safety departments should be respected and it should be something that we value and I gave the commissioners sort of two examples of something I thought that helped to illustrate that and one is there's been discussions about having this amendment amended to add that the FPC can recruit at any rate in the range but with the approval of the FNP chair and Madam Chair these examples don't apply to you specifically. I don't think that

you

would do anything like this but just as a general matter, you could have an issue where the chair believe or disapproves of a specific selection of the FPC board and doesn't want that person. So they refuse to support any special rate letter. That's sort of an extreme example.

Special rate letter? I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, a proposed rate. There's a less extreme example where the chair believes that hey the FPC Board's proposed rate is say $15,000 too high, 20,000 too high and they're not going to support that. They think it should be slightly lower. That if you take the case of Chief Norman, I know there's many people that feel that the salary rate was too high and they would have liked it to be lower. I can tell you that the FPC Board did take its role very seriously.

They looked at comparables. There was a negotiation and I'll be frank had that been lower, had there been some type of mechanism where the FPC Board needed approval and they could not have gotten approval for that amount, I think there's a very good chance that they wouldn't have been able to come to an agreement with Chief Norman and they would have been thus frustrated in selecting the chief of their choice. So it is true that in doing that the council would retain more authority and could potentially save a relative I know it's in some respects a large amount of money but a relatively small amount of money of a few thousand dollars or even 10,000 or $15,000 But that may come at the expense of that independent oversight and appointment ability that the FPC has, which I think is something that is very good about Milwaukee and Wisconsin that we have that independence of public safety professionals. They don't serve at the pleasure of any specific person. They can do what they feel is right and I think that really encapsulates why myself as a representative of the FPC as an institution but also the current commissioners do support the amendment as written and are interested in having that passed.

That gives them the independence select the chiefs that they want without having the possibility of effectively a veto of another body.

Okay.

I'll leave it at that.

Yeah. Just so I I wanna take your feedback into consideration. When you say amendment, do you mean the like what all the Roman war is doing? Just to amend the footnote? Is that what you mean?

That that is. Yes. Correct.

I I also thought that Before us.

Yes. I thought there was some discussion about possibly an amendment to that amendment to add

And somehow the FPC got a draft of that amendment and opined on it? No. Oh, okay. I just wanna wanna make sure what you're

Yes. I provided them with a draft of the current amendment. They are in support of that. For a majority of the commission.

I'm sorry.

It's The amendment to the salary ordinance. Yes.

That's

correct. Okay. Pardon me. There is a difference. Yes. That's why. And what was the vote of the commission on that?

There was not a vote. Was everybody present? Everyone but but one commissioner. There was eight present and I would say that the clear majority was in favor of this.

Madam Chair.

Madam Chair.

Let me go Alderman Spiker and then President Perez because he's been asking. Alderman Spiker.

Happy to yield to the President if he has questions.

Okay. President Jose Perez. The director Todd emphasized the independence of the FPC. Could you just elaborate a little bit more on that? Meaning independence to negotiate that it should be solely on the FPC to negotiate with either chief is that it?

Well I think there's the council certainly has a role to play or should have a role and I think that the commissioners would agree with me on this in setting the range for which the chief can be paid either chief and obviously the council has advising consent authority in the selection of FPC commissioners But in terms of selecting and hiring the chief that the FPC feels is the best person for the job, the salary negotiation is inextricably linked to that. You can't appoint somebody without an agreement in practical terms you can't appoint somebody without agreement in practical terms as to what the salary is going to

be

and I believe that in order to be consistent with the spirit of that that independence and that that core role of the FPC independently selecting the Chiefs. They need or should have the authority to negotiate within a reasonable range what the salary is for for the person that they want. Okay.

So I just wanna be clear. So the FPC solely negotiated chief Norman salary? No one else got involved?

It was a decision by the FPC board. Yes.

Okay. No. That's not my question. I understand that they made the decision in the end. Mhmm. The FPC solely negotiated with chief Norman his salary. No one else got involved. The mayor's office, the administration, no one else got involved in those negotiations?

Well, there was information and that the FPC received from the mayor's office regarding the matter.

Okay. But they didn't have nothing they didn't negotiate they weren't part of any negotiation just to be clear. This is totally an FPC independent action.

That that's correct. So the mayor's office did provide recommendations and input but ultimately the decision was that of the FPC board.

Okay. And the and the FPC board was the only one that spoke to chief Norman of salary?

I believe there were discussions between Norman and the mayor.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Okay. Alderman Spiker.

Well, what is left of the much vaunted independence of the FPC if the man who appoints them to the role and can dismiss you after this meeting as the executive director of that commission is weighing in on salary. I mean, is it good for the goose but not for the gander? I mean, that does seem to question this whole ideal of hands off, this is an FPC only decision if the mayor's office is coming in and saying, that's a little too high, like, can we do this? Then that that doesn't seem to be keeping with the much vaunted independence of the FPC. But set that to one side as you will.

It was I'm sorry. No, that's okay. But with respect to the council's involvement, what if we set a range and for 15,000 more, you could get the perfect candidate? Aren't we thereby stifling your ability to select the best person for the job? When that reasoning applied there equally well, why cede our authority to do the range and not cede the ability of the chair to say look next year's budget looks really tough.

We think we're going to have to go lower in the range than maybe we ideally would. But I as the finance chair know the budgetary picture. I know the after effects on the rest of the department this will have in a way FPC can't even dream about. So it does seem a little I'm worried there's an argument here that is saying FPC selection process basically requires the council just to give them a blank check and to the extent that you say, well, you can still set the range. Why should we have that authority if for, you know, a small amount more outside the range you could get the perfect candidate?

What business would we have interfering there? And it's a mark of a bad argument that you extend it to its logical conclusion and it crumbles which is what I think is happening here. I would instead say that the council has every bit of the authority as the holder of the purse strings to determine what a reasonable salary is. We typically do it by range but there are provisions throughout the code, the existing code where the FNP chair has the authority and with respect to protective services to have a say in what that salary is. So this theory of the vaunted independent at all costs FPC not just with respect to picking the best candidate but deciding how much you pay.

That seems to be still as I've said from the beginning grossly at odds with the authority of the council to be the controller for the purse strings. So maybe if it's so upsetting that the chair should have as you put it veto power to select a salary within the range then maybe what we should turn our attention to is the question of that salary range itself and re examine that and whether we've given too much of a range to the FPC for these salary positions. And if at that point you say foul, well we have a range now, at what point do we get any power to say, hey, this should be 230,000 max position or something like that. It would seem that we have to it's our whole reason for existing is these purse string matters. And so if we don't like the special rate of route then maybe we just do examine these ranges much more closely than we have thus far and maybe as we didn't do to the fullest extent we should have as part of the executive pay plan.

Maybe I'm warming to that position. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, may I respond? Okay. I do think setting the salary range is different. Certainly, it has an effect the number of candidates that apply and what you can do, but there's a number of important differences with changes to range and setting the maximum. First, you know that going into the hiring process and the negotiations what the maximum range is.

So and candidates know that as well. So that's something that's a known quantity from the beginning. Also it's not exercising veto power or second guessing or things like that whatever the terminology may be on a case by case basis. It's not saying well I don't think this chief or this candidate is worth X. It's setting a general range that applies to any candidate no matter what. So I think it's very different. And I did want to go back to Do you other think it's illegal?

Are you offering a legal opinion here or you're just saying it's not nice?

I'm not offering a legal opinion and I'm not saying that it's not nice. I'm saying that I think that is an important consideration when we're talking about the independence of the FPC as institution and their ability to select the chief that they think is best for the particular position at a particular time. And I did want to go back and just respond to

we your would comment interfering. Follow-up with. Your concern is that we by requiring the FNP chair to sign off would be interfering with the independence of the FPC. You're not claiming it's illegal but you're claiming it's untoward. It's stepping in a realm we don't belong.

I'm saying that that is a possibility that could result from such actions and I did want to go back and just address your comment about what you referred to as the vaunted supposed independence of the FPC. And I do really want to push back on that because I think that this commission is really independent and just because myself or the mayor weighs in and makes recommendations, they don't do things just because I tell them or anyone else tells them these commissioners are independent and they do what they think is right and that's something that I think is I feel very strongly about. So I did want to offer that.

And I found that to be the case in large measure with respect to especially to certain ones.

And with respect to the police chief in particular and that chief selection, I can tell you that they feel even more strongly about their independence regarding that.

Okay. That was a lot. We got a lot of feedback from FPC. Thank you. Okay. We got to move forward on this. We're going on almost hour and a half on this one item in closed session now here. So we've got to move forward. I'm trying to facilitate what is the will of the body. The staff assistant wanted me the committee clerk, excuse me, Mr. Lee wanted us to know that, well, if you want to put it on the record so I can say it right, it is well, this is an item before us. It's also reflected in item 13. So, like, there you know, just as a reminder. So, we were kind of talking about that's why was kind of asking about like amendment, what have you. So it's a

So double a but the actual work is done in

salary Okay. Or end of So I just want to all already who's listening and people voting and whatnot. Because like what is so the proper motion on Item four isn't the actual if this was approved, then we have to also vote on 13 to make a change in the salary ordinance, right? Can you say that better than me?

Yeah. Item four is just a communication file. Right. So the proper motion is to place it on file if you're done with the file or to hold it to the College area if it's to be rescheduled at a later point in time. But item 13 is the actual salary ordinance that will reflect the actual change. So if you wish to act on it, it would be item 13, the salary ordinance that you would have to

Motion to amend.

Yeah. Motion to amend if you wanted to or if you wanted to pass as is or if you want to place it

on file.

Okay.

For this cycle, item 13 does not have any other provisions other than the footnote that's being discussed today.

Okay. So we do not act on four. I mean, the action would be placed on file or hold of the call of the chair. But then you, if you wanted us to, would make you would make an action item on '13. However, there's been informal discussion of an amendment. However, I think that amendment would be best served in 13. Is that right? I'm trying to make sure we're doing the right Sure. Maybe

we take a test vote on holding this item and if enough people want to hold it, that gives the rub to what we want to do in 13. If there is not the will to hold it, they want to be done, then I could submit my amendment as part of 13.

If you didn't want to hold it, what would you do with the communication file? It's a commie right.

It's a communication We could put it place it on file if we think we're done with it, if there's not the will.

Oh, place on file you're perceiving, but let me ask the attorneys because I appreciate your information. Can you help us through that? So the difference is hold to the call of the chair or place on file.

Well, I would defer to the parliamentary and the committee clerk on a communication file. What we can confidently say is Item four in itself does not have an action item to affect any change to the salary ordinance to realize the debate that's been had. That's Item 13.

With that being said and as Chair, it's like I see your point about the test vote, but it's not really a test because it has no implication because of communication.

Right.

We can reconsider and do what depending on what happens with 13, we can do the right thing with four as well. So it does matter really.

So we can place on file number four.

Is It an

seems to me that four provided the venue to receive the information, talk about it openly, communicate on it and then take possible action on 13 if that's what we choose. So unfortunately what I'm saying is I don't know that your, summary of four as a test vote is completely accurate because you could place on file or hold a call to chair and then do something wildly different on 13.

Yeah. It doesn't matter to me.

Madam Chair.

There's not really a test vote provision. Alderman Berglis.

Madam Chair, I'll support Alder Moore's amendment in 13. It's encouraging to hear that FBC, majority of FBC commissioners supported it. And if there's a problem with the executive pay plan, okay, that's fine. But the eleventh hour is not the time to change the executive pay plan or interrupt recruitment or reappointment of the fire chief. At the city, we pay for leadership.

It doesn't matter if you run a department of two people or a department of 2,000. We pay for leadership. And we have two very notable leaders that are reflected in this item before us that are vocal and significant to the well-being of our community. If we have a problem with the salary ordinance, I get it, but then we've had a problem with the salary with the executive pay plan for the past twenty six months. Today is not the time to fix that error from twenty months ago.

We have a a ticking contract, for our fire chief, and I cannot stand here and stand in the way of, the Fire and Police Commission either reappointing or doing their work on that key position in our community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. So on the communication file item four, what is the desire of the body? It looks like the options are hold to the call of the chair, place on file. And just so everybody's clear, neither one of those or either one of those does not prevent action on 13 where if a member chose they could make an amendment or do nothing.

Madam Chair, I make a recommendation to place on file.

Place on file. So just so you know, that means that this will not come up again. So the communication for will not come up again. Right?

We place it on file.

Which I'm okay with, but just want to make sure that you know what you're doing. Seems fine to me. If you if you if your intent No. All the women is to get action or get to a vote on 13 either way doesn't.

Then you Mr. Lee, could they take

the Yeah.

Items out of order? Would that solve the problem?

There's nothing else?

I mean I guess what you're trying to say is like if you don't get what you want out of 13 do you want to keep talking about the communication file? I mean I feel that we have gotten extreme communication on this. I'm just trying to be polite. Like, I don't need any more communication on this. It's been up many times. We've looked at the fiscal notes. But I'm also willing to temp I mean, we could temporarily hold it. Okay. That's fine. So right now, Alder Lemoore has made the motion to place on file.

Okay? Place on file item four. Any discussion of placing item four on file? Any objections to placing it on file, the communication file? Hearing none, so ordered. Okay? I mean, yeah, Chris Lee is talking about, because it's fresh in our minds, go right to item 13. What is the will of the body to go to

Make sense while we

have Yes.

Okay.

I I shall do that. I check-in and try to act accordingly. Item three, excuse me. Let me start over. Item 13, pardon me. 251,761, an ordinance to further amend the twenty twenty six rates of pay of offices and positions in the city service. So normally this would reflect action of earlier files. What is before the body now? Alderman Spiker.

I have an amendment put forth. So for the LRB, this would be the amendment that would establish the amend the footnote one to include not only sign off by FPC but also sign off by the FNP chair and then extend that footnote mutatus mutandus to the fire chief as well. So if we could distribute that, I'd move that that be before us with the understanding that a member at any point can move to hold the whole shebang in which case nothing happens.

Okay. We will get this handed out. So this would be

Actually, Kathy Brangos, Legislative Reference Bureau, I don't have a hard copy. I didn't print copies for everyone. I can go make copies. Motions at committee do not need to be in writing. I

It would be handy to have this one in writing.

Okay. Will put copies and get them to momentarily. All right.

Okay. I guess we'll have to temporarily lay it over and come back to it because we've got other business to handle. So am 13 is temporary, laid over. Maybe it'll be hopefully only a few minutes. Okay. So item

five,

two five one eight zero seven, communication from the office of comptroller relating to a minimum fund based balance policy. Comptroller Bill Christensen.

Did you want

I'm gonna sit here.

Yeah.

Looks like you're sharing already. I mean, I mean, I'm good. Good. Madam chair. Madam chair. Okay.

Hang on a second. Second.

Hey, Harwell. You have an issue with you got a open mic and a a speaker setting that's causing a feedback. Can you please take a look at your settings?

Members board board board of Board Board of the

Chair, Committee members. Bill Christensen, Board City Comptroller. And let's get started. So first slide is the purpose of a fund balance policy. So if you look at what the literature says about why a fund balance policy is recommended, it would say, one, it demonstrates financial security and stability and this would be to current bondholders and potential investors in Citi Bonds.

It aligns with Government Finance Officers Association best practices. It also allows you to maintain adequate reserves to mitigate risks. So this would be something like revenue shortfalls, emergency spending, But we're going to come back to this on a later slide because this is kind of an important factor that I want to discuss later. Insure stable tax rates. Now we have levy limits here, so it's less of a factor for ensuring stable tax rates.

But it could limit spikes, the need to spike other revenue sources or to limit service cuts. If you've got funds on hand that are available to deal with one time type of expenditure needs, then that would limit your need to spike other revenues or cut services elsewhere. And also for meeting the expectations of bond rating agencies. So I'd say having a fund balance policy has a marginal benefit or has a marginal improvement in how bond rating agencies view the city. But abiding by it and building up and maintaining a healthy fund balance is viewed very favorably by bond rating agencies.

And I'll say this that nearly all of our recent ratings reports from bond rating agencies cited increases in fund balance as a factor that could lead to a bond rating upgrade and declines in available fund balances factors that could lead to a bond rating downgrade. So the key elements of a fund balance policy is really just two. So what percentage of general fund revenues or expenses should be in fund balance? So the numerator is what should your target fund balance or what should your fund balance be. The denominator is the last year's general fund revenues.

So it's essentially how much how many months of revenue or how many weeks of revenue do you have on hand to deal with a potential crisis or a shortfall. And the second factor is conditions for withdrawal. So when are planned or budgeted withdrawals permissible under your policy? A little bit of background. So we currently have a withdrawal policy for the Tax Stabilization Fund.

It's not something that I don't think the bond rating agencies would consider a fund balance policy, but it does have restrictions. It so the tax stabilization fund is made up of your unrestricted general fund balance plus advances to other funds. So that amount at the 2024, which is the last audited numbers that we have available was 109800000.0Dollars I'm sorry, which means that the allowable the maximum allowable withdrawal of half of that was $54,900,000 in the 2026 budget. As you can see, only $32,300,000 was actually withdrawn. So for that, I applaud the administration and the council for restraint on use of the Tax Stabilization Fund.

Looking at the chart, you can see that TSF withdrawals, they declined from 2017 through 2022, and this was largely driven by the availability of general fund balance. It was the fund was less able to support large withdrawals. And then in 2023, you had American Rescue Plan Act funding. In 2024, you had ARPA funding as well as the sales tax, which lessened or negated the need for tax stabilization fund withdrawals. So I'm going show you two sample fund balance policies.

And this first one and both of these are in attachments to the file. Proposal A is reflected as this one that you're seeing here. Proposal B is the next one that I'm going to show you. So this is more of a strict by the book fund balance policy. So this would require you to maintain a minimum balance of 16.7% of total general fund revenues as your minimum fund balance.

So using 2024 figures, that would be $147,400,000 So that 16.7 percent is two months' worth of revenues. That's what the Government Finance Officers Association recommends as your target for minimum fund balance. The conditions for withdrawal under this kind of more restrictive scenario are no withdrawals from the TSF until that minimum fund balance is reached. And then once you've reached that minimum balance, withdrawals will only be limited to the amount that's in excess of that minimum fund balance. So if the target is $147,400,000 and you have $150,000,000 in fund balance, your maximum withdrawal would only be $2,600,000 So applying that to the 2026 budget, that would not have allowed for a tax stabilization fund withdrawal.

So we would have needed to come up with $32,300,000 in either expenditure cuts or in revenue increases or a combination of both to make up for not having a TSF withdrawal in 2026. So I do just want to point that out that it's one thing to have this policy, but this is the real world implications of what it means in terms of dealing with budget shortfalls. This next policy is slightly less restrictive. So this one only calls for 10% of general fund revenues as your minimum fund balance, which would be $88,200,000 using 2024 figures. So this provides some more flexibility in terms of the conditions for withdrawal.

So if the fund balance is below the minimum that stated, you'd be able to withdraw up to 50% of fund regeneration from one year to the next. So what that means is the growth that you saw in so using the most recent years as an example, the growth that you saw in fund balance from 2023 to 2024, you'd be able to allocate 50% of that growth in a future budget. So the idea is you're still demonstrating growth, but it does allow for some flexibility in using it before you reach your minimum balance. And then once you have reached the minimum balance, your withdrawal would be the greater of either the fund balance that you have available until you've reached the minimum or 50% of the regeneration from the prior year because you don't want to punish yourself for being just slightly above your minimum fund balance. So that's why it's the greater of those two things.

Now here's the key challenge that I foresee in a fund balance policy and that has to do with our current tax stabilization fund ordinances. So per city ordinance, this is Chapter 304.29, the Tax Stabilization Fund cannot be used for expenditure overruns or revenue shortfalls. Contingent borrowing is the only allowable remedy. And put the quote of the ordinance on the slide here. So essentially what it means is if you can't withdraw below a certain threshold, if you have that floor, you can't withdraw below a certain threshold and you can't use the Tax Stabilization Fund for revenue shortfalls or expenditure overruns, emergency spending that occurs throughout the year, what you've done is essentially lock up that funding and you're not able to use it for anything.

You can't allocate it in the budget and you can't use it for revenue shortfalls or expenditure overruns.

Can I ask an obvious questions question? Then why have a minimum fund balance requirement if it can't be used for an emergency purpose or any other purpose?

That's exactly why I am not recommending that you adopt either of the proposals that I've put in the file. So you're leading me to my next point here, which is until we've worked through the issue of the tax stabilization fund and I've had conversations with a few of you about this. There are the Tax Stabilization Fund is a creation of state statute, but it's defined it's primarily defined in city ordinances. So what we need to do is and we started working with the city attorney's office on this is we need to explore what the implications would be if we were able to unilaterally amend or eliminate the tax stabilization fund and essentially just have fund balance, unrestricted general fund balance as a funding source that we could use to address revenue shortfalls or expenditure overruns. Until we've fully explored all that, I don't have a recommendation for you other than to kind of wait and see what we're able to come up with.

I've just got a few slides that kind of run through some of this. So I talked about the what we're going to do, which is explore eliminating or revising the Tax Stabilization Fund ordinances. Another opportunity would be to eliminate the public debt amortization fund and shift that balance to the general fund. So right now, we've got about $58,800,000 in the public debt amortization fund. If we were able to shift that funding from the public debt amortization fund into unrestricted general fund balance, That would be viewed very favorably by bond rating agencies.

As I mentioned, increases in general fund balance is a factor that could lead to a bond rating upgrade. So that could be a good thing for the city. Because right now, the bond rating agencies, they don't give us credit for that $58,800,000 that we have sitting in the PDAF. They acknowledge it, but they don't take that into account when they're evaluating our available reserves. And I believe it's because of its restricted allowable uses.

This would require action by the state legislature. The public debt amortization fund goes back to the general laws of 1861. It's also cited in state statutes that have been implemented since then. So this is something that I guess would be an item to evaluate potentially including in a future legislative package. So just to wrap this up, I mean, I believe it is beneficial for the city to adopt a fund balance policy, I mean, both for rating agencies and the city's bond rating and for the city's long term financial health.

But I think it's preliminary and premature to adopt something right now until we've explored what we can do to shed some of these limitations and prevent us from painting ourselves into a corner by having a fund balance policy layered on top of the restrictions that we have with the Tax Stabilization Fund. And another key consideration is once we adopt a fund balance policy, it's really important that it's adhered to. What we've heard from the rating agencies is that it's better to not have one at all than it is to have one and immediately not abide by it. So our next steps, we're going to explore the legality and the mechanisms for loosening or eliminating some of the restrictions on the Tax Stabilization Fund and the Public Debt Amortization Fund. We'll kind of weigh the pros and cons of that.

We'll share the findings with the administration and with the council, see what you all have to say about it and determine what the next steps should be from there. And I'm happy to take any questions.

Okay. Thank you. But I guess I was under the impression that our bond rating was pretty good right now.

Yes. So we are investment grade. Fitch has us at A plus right now. Moody's has us at A3. So we're within the upper medium band of investment grade. So I mean there's certainly room for improvement, but we're doing all right.

Okay. I guess I just if I wanted to take a major action, I would want want a major change. And it doesn't really feel like we need a corrective action. So that's that's why I mean, this this stuff is very interesting and that's why I was just trying to look at the bigger picture because I was under the impression that we were doing quite well. But we could always do better is your point. And if we want to do better, here are some things to consider.

Correct.

Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Any other questions on this presentation, Item five?

Madam Chair?

Yes, Alderman Cox.

I want to thank the Comptroller. I'm assuming this file was an answer to the footnote and resolution from budget times, right?

Thank you. Yes.

I would ask that the sponsorship reflects, my sponsorship of this file. Okay. And, and thank you. I, I know at the time, a couple of years ago, when you suggested that we have a foreign policy, that do work with the budget office and everything, you figured out that now might not be the best time for us to adopt it. But I think that this is, good information for us to know, and potentially to work towards sometime in the future. But I would agree with you that, doing it right now probably wouldn't wouldn't be the smartest thing. But but thank you for your work on this. And I do wanna talk to you some more about those changes that could possibly benefit us for the future. Thank you.

Sure. Absolutely.

Thank you, Alderman Cogs. Let's let the record reflect that Item five, the kind of default sponsor was the chair, but we'll now make it Alderman Melele Cogs. That's been noted. Thank you for mentioning that. No problem at all. Any other discussion? Otherwise, the motion by Alderman Berglis is to place on file. That's the proper motion for this communication file on Item five. Madam Chair.

Yes. As the the budget amendment was sponsored by COGS, Bergelis, Dimitri, Mitch, Moore, Stamper, Chambers, Jackson and Westmoreland. So I also asked to be added to the file, please.

Okay. So noted. Those changes have been noted. So we'll now move we'll now Yes, Alderman Spiker?

Just one quick question. So the second to last slide, think it was, third to last slide, second to last substantive slide, say in the second bullet point, it would be premature to adopt a fund balance policy right now. We need to explore removing limitations on the use of fund balance. So could you just give a quick thumbnail of the nature of those limitations? How many are state imposed statutory limitations? How many are things within our ambit to change? And I guess both with respect to the TSF and the PDF?

Sure. So I'll speak to the Tax Stabilization Fund first. The ordinances that govern the tax stabilization fund, I mean, those were imposed by the city when conditions that were placed on revenues that could be raised by property taxes, they had limitations. Essentially, my understanding is that back in the '50s or '60s when this was first put in place that any excess property tax levy that was not used in a given year had to be there was a mechanism by which it was returned to the taxpayers. So what this did is a Tax Utilization Fund allowed for essentially a fund to be built up to limit future property tax increases.

So those were self imposed. For the Tax Stabilization Fund, it's a creation of the state legislature. So what we need to look into is how much unilateral control do we have to extricate ourselves from the restrictions of the Tax Stabilization Fund and make sure that if we do that, that there isn't some other provision that would then kick in that would be either more restrictive restrictive in different ways. We just want to make sure that the full ramifications of what would be proposed and ultimately executed are known ahead of time. So to answer your question, I guess, the TSF, it's not exactly clear whether we have that unilateral control.

It appears that we might, but we just want to make absolutely certain. And on the public debt amortization fund, that would be entirely with the state legislature. I don't know that we have any in the funding sources, the prescribed uses, those are all very clearly laid out in state statutes and these general laws of 1861.

Okay. That's helpful because if we could change it, if the limitations are self imposed then obviously we can change those. But it sounds like definitely with the PDF and possibly with the GSF, there might be state strictures on our freedom with respect to loosening things up. Thank you.

You are welcome.

Okay. Also some of the tax stabilization policy I thought was something that we adopted along I can't remember if it was mandated or self imposed. Let's see, when we adopted the sales tax, it wasn't that like we wanted any possible overages to go into the tax stabilization fund? Am I imagining that? Okay. No. I thought we were just kind of careful about that. Okay. Anything else then from on Item five? Place on file is before us as moved by Alderman Bergelis. Any objections to placing on file? Hearing none, so ordered. We will thank

you so much. We

did hold for anyone just joining us. We held item 17 to next cycle and now we're going back to 13. Thirteen, two hundred fifty one thousand seven hundred sixty one, an ordinance to further amend the twenty twenty six rates of pay of offices offices and positions in the city service. Alderman Spiker had a motion. It's been printed and given to us now to consider. Alderman Spiker, did you want to speak on your motion?

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I move that this item be before us, the simple amendment that's been printed out. So what this would do is currently all that exists is a footnote that says recruitment may be anywhere in the range. It doesn't say who has the authority to pick where in the range.

Alder Moore's amendment to the salary ordinance would add that that authority lies with the Fire and Police Commission and then copies it into the fire chief position as well. What my amendment would do would add another source of authority required to sign off on things before the placement in the range is chosen and that is the touchstone with the or the touch point with the counsel. So under this amendment, in order for a salary for either chief to be selected, it would need the approval of the Fire and Police Commission and in addition the chair of this committee, the Finance and Personnel Committee, thus ensuring that we don't cede entirely our salary or purse string authority to another body but not interfering unduly with their selection process. So that's the intent of the amendment.

Okay. Thank you so much. That is before us now. I didn't hear any objection of it coming before us so we could discuss it. This is I wanted to ask one clarifying question. Was this what you were kind of referring to, Mr. Todd, that FPC had opined on that they didn't seem to like and thought that it could possibly kind of I'm trying to find the right words have the counsel too involved in the independent process?

So they hadn't seen any specific language but the chair of FPC had had one on one discussions with different alders and it was our understanding that there was some interest by alders in something along these lines.

Did I state that position pretty correctly on this?

So I think the position of the FPC commissioners is that the original amendment offered by Alder Woman Moore was their preference. That said, as a backup would be preferable, Alderman Spiker's amendment to that amendment would be preferable to simply doing nothing.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

The legislative history is I had a meeting with the chair of the Fire and Police Commission, Ms. Horowitz and this idea kind of came out of those discussions.

Okay.

I'm saying that she speaks for the commission or anything like that, but that's how I came up with the idea.

Okay. So one of the impacts of this is that the Finance and Personnel Committee Chair would also be able to have a role in the police chief's salary, right? Future.

Future for police and fire.

But I am talking about police in particular.

Yes.

The language of that of the amendment before the committee references both the fire and police chiefs.

Okay. Was there I know you have a pending

question, but

I want to ask mine too. Was there any kind of legal review of this motion?

We did have a chance to review in the while the committee was on a break. And the prior opinion that was issued by our office, which is in the file or was discussed in file four or Item four today does touch on the tension or the I'll stick with tension between Wisconsin State Statute 6,250, which gives appointment authority to the FPC and the council's power in setting the budget and the purse strings as was referenced earlier. So we think that this would be lawful and enforceable. There are other examples in our salary ordinance where the chair of F and P has the same oversight. What we cautioned though and have outlined in the opinion is that this is not unlimited power to the F and P chair that whatever role the council has, it cannot thwart the power of appointment given to the FPC under state statute.

So it isn't kind of unilateral forever veto power. There is a process in place where if the F and P Chair were to say no to the rate request that that then makes its way forward. It couldn't be held in a drawer through, in essence, a constructive denial in perpetuity, there would need to be a decision, there would need to be further action.

What would that timeframe be?

It is not clearly outlined in any statute or case law that we have are able to directly on this point with this scenario of the FTC's approval. So it's hard for me to tell you that it's five weeks or six weeks or seven weeks, but it would likely be determined or would come to a head if the party that was appointed but then no salary was agreed to through this process might seek that type of review.

That seems extremely complicated and very difficult to enforce because if the person who was holding that position as finance chair took their time, looked at information, held it to what seems like a subjective amount of time, then the person could be accused or asked or requested to make the decision to not hold up the FPC process. Like this is very messy. If the finance chair also decided to say no, then I understand that there it is not an ultimate veto, like you said, just like in our legislative process. Not that it could be actually, I think it is a process for it to be technically overridden in that it then would defer to a full committee vote. So we'd be back here talking about the very same thing that we're talking about right now.

We'd literally be talking about the very same thing,

Madam That

is the process that takes place for the positions that currently require the F and P Chair's approval. The amendment language does not specifically set out that policy, but I think

And regarding that F and P Chair approval, which I happen to know a bit about.

You do.

Yes, I've been I've had to discuss that position before, and it's a challenging one. What I'm saying about that, though, is that then it comes back if the chair would say no. Now let me back up. I am aware of that authority. That authority, though, deals with current employees, cabinet members, but never there's no precedent for with a body that has an independent authority to actually negotiate a contract. This is new territory.

Here today in committee, I am not I have not done the research to confirm whether or not that's true across the entire city. I can tell you as the independently elected city attorney, I ask you for permission. I have a little bit more authority to place hires within ranges, but that requires your approval. And so I'm just this is not I'm not a part of this file, but as somebody that has that kind of attest to firsthand how this process

Yes. I can also firsthand attest to how this works or how it doesn't work is many times the cabinet or I'm sorry, the administration at least in my experience it hasn't been this has gone out negotiated for a higher rate. We are not part of that. We have no discussion of that. It's referenced in the attorney opinion. They were referencing Mr. Adam Pursell's situation. It's in the opinion. I had no role as chair. I mean, we would and whoever would be finance chair, you have no role and then you just get a letter and say this is what the person wanted and if you don't approve it, you're going to lose there's not really room for negotiating.

So I just the process you're creating, you should see, you should put a bright light on it whether it's me or someone in the future. You don't have a role in the recruitment. You don't have a role in the negotiation. And then you get a letter saying that, oh, this is what we asked that person for and if you don't participate in it, if you take too long it could cause a problem. And if you haven't participated in it, it has a large fiscal impact and you unilaterally should make the decision.

And now there is an ambiguous timeframe of what would be, as you said, holding it in the drawer. We should ask ourselves if that's the right policy here, which is why I won't be supporting this and why I do think that we should look at the larger issue, as I've said I'm sorry you have to hear it again that this is part of a problem, It's a symptom of a larger issue that the executive pay plan did not take care of. We're talking about a footnote that was may or may not have been implemented correctly. Then we're trying to replicate it. It is messy.

It is not what I intended when I cast that vote two years ago. And I know I had a colleague that said and I'm not advocating. I'm telling you about what my position is. So I had a colleague that said that we've had time to fix it. Not really. In fact, every couple of months there's another flaw that we're being presented with. So it just keeps giving and giving and giving. So I don't want to advocate from chair, but from chair I definitely can say where I stand and that's where I stand. Alderman Gallis? Thank you,

Madam Chair. I will not support this simple amendment. Think you laid out the case pretty clearly. This is an unprecedented change to policy that I think really impacts the independence and authority that the Fire and Police Commission still does have. The governing body's authority remains paramount.

And I hope that we will be able to return to Alderman Moore's amendment that doesn't impede the Fire and Police Commission's responsibility to the public in protecting and having the right leadership in our community, compensating them fairly and ensuring that public safety and the public's health and well-being is maintained in our community. Thank you.

Okay. I want to let the record reflect that Alderman Millay Lake Hoggs has requested to be excused for the remainder of the committee meeting. Who else would like to speak on this matter? Motion, Alderman Spiker.

If we don't have this, which is the most melt toast version of council involvement, then there is no council involvement. Then it really is ceding, which is nigh unprecedented that we would give to another body the ability to set the salary for a position without any input on not just what that salary would be, but what the trickle down effect would be to the rest of the department once the head of it is at a certain point. So I would urge us that this is crossing the Rubicon. This is ceding our primary power as a council and I would urge us to be very careful about ceding that power because you don't get it back. Thanks.

Madam Chair.

Okay. Alderman Moore, we're on the motion by Alderman Spiker.

Thank you so much. I want to just sort of remind folks that the FPC isn't just a random group of people that I mean, they have been they are an independent body. I know a few of them that are on the FPC that isn't about being a rubber stamp. So I I want to make sure that we understand that this is a body that, provided the opportunity. I I feel a little I feel a lot uncomfortable taking that position away from FPC to be able to, at their discretion, manage this sort of process when provided the parameters.

I'm hoping that we can approve there's a range. We give that over to an independent body to make that decision. It's not, you know, it's not just the board chair that's just making the decision in alone, but that it's in conjunction with other FPC members to be able to decide what is like, we we've given this power to them, and I think that taking it away, I feel really uncomfortable, about that because, again, despite who's in this position as, you know, if it it for for what is being proposed right now, I'm just concerned about giving it to the finance chair regardless of who's in the position to sort of make that decision because, again, I'll use the chair's word. It can become really messy. So I would like to stick with my amendment that I would like to stick with my amendment.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

Okay. The motion by Alderman Spiker is now before us. We have it printed out. We discussed it. We went a number of times. Anything else to discuss before we take a vote on the motion by Alderman Spiker? And like I said, Alderman Cogs excused is for the rest of the meeting.

Madam Chair.

Alderman McGillis.

For clarification purposes, should this amendment to the amendment fail, the original amendment would be before us or no?

Oh, yes. So if this motion fails, then we just go on to thirteen.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. But there needs to be an action taken on '13. Otherwise, there's nothing happening on XIII.

Okay. This is just a simple

amendment. Yes. Simple amendment before us. Please call the roll on the motion by Alderman Spiker.

On the motion for a simple amendment, Honorable Member Moore? No. Honorable Spiker? Aye. Honorable Member Gallis? No. Madam

Chair?

No. Fails? One, two, three, and one excused.

Okay. One, two, three, one

motion to refer this very important matter to the full council without a recommendation.

Okay. The only question I have on that isn't are we essentially referring like an empty file? This is kind of like a strange so I have no problem referring it without recommendation, but what are we Referring Moore's amendment. What amendment do you have? I don't see it.

It's the original. I'm sorry.

Not to

the file as is. That's this is the confusing thing. Yeah. There's actually nothing. We didn't do anything in four but

talk. Mhmm.

And four just because you talked in four, it didn't actually do anything for item 13. We need an action.

13 does have a sub-one.

It does. There is text in 13 now and I believe it to reflect.

You that. Okay.

I didn't add anything.

Hold on one second.

The team flexed for it as is.

Okay. So hold on. Let's look here in the letter. So legislation text.

Yes.

Essentially because I I was like, actually, we should have Yeah. In a way, could have used these together, but that's okay. Or the majority of the discussion could have been on this one, but I think it works out. Was noticed correctly. So let's make sure everybody's looking in the Legislature file then, yes, there is legislation text. So I think okay. I just want make sure everybody has it. It has part one, two, three, and four, the substitute ordinance to further amend. Part one, section four of the ordinance, pay range for ZX, so raise that following along designation. Let just read it.

One to the title of fire chief and amend footnote one to read recruitment recruitment may be at any rate in the pay range with the approval of the Fire and Police Commission. And there's more after that. I want to sure everybody's viewing it. So that is what is before us. That is what Alderman Vergailis has moved to refer this without recommendation to the full common counsel.

Madam Chair.

Okay. And remember we just have us four here. Yeah. So Alderman Spyker.

I'll support the motion so that we don't get stuck with a bunch of two-two votes.

That's why I just had a polite reminder this is what we have here. Okay. For those watching and I know that this is an important item, I'll refer without recommendation should that prevail, send it to the common council on March 3. And for it to go forward, there would need, I believe, just a regular majority Okay. So the motion to refer item 13, the substitute ordinance that is in front of us, is to refer without recommendation to the full common counsel.

Are there any discussion about referring it without recommendation? Is there any objection to the refer without recommendation? Hearing none, so ordered. Item 13 has been referred to the common council. Now I do want to note for anybody new, I believe a member has to still rise and take an action on it. So it will be there to be discussed but it doesn't just happen organically. Someone would have to rise and make a motion.

Okay.

Okay. Alright. Just want everyone to have all the information. Thank you everybody. We are now on item six.

251,757 communication from the Department of Administration, Budget and Management Analysis Division regarding vacancy requests, fund transfers and equipment requests. We are joined by our Budget Director, Nick Kobach.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

All right. We'll start property tax levy supported positions. Please call out anything that you have a question on. Department of Administration, purchasing, procurement Specialist. City Clerk, Legislative and Fiscal Service Specialist Lead Executive Administrative Assistant.

City Treasurer, Customer Service Representative III. Department of Emergency Communications, Management Accountant Senior. Fire and Police Commission Fire and Police Commission Investigator. Library. Library security guard, library reference assistant, custodial worker two. Department of Neighborhood Services. Office assistant two, elevator inspector three. Police department. Crime Analyst one, two positions. Electronic Technician one, two positions.

Custodial Worker one, Police Service Specialist, Police Service Specialist, Investigator Crime Analyst one, HVAC Maintenance Tech three, two positions. Wait, one second. Does this not reflect the area that we had a question? Looks like they amended it.

For police?

Yeah. Remember when we had the question about why there was a different like detective there?

That line is deleted from the That's why. Okay.

I just want to make I'm like, am I not seeing it?

That was correct.

Okay. Thank you. That's why I was asking. Thank you.

I mean, that that column, you show we showed it to you in the pre meeting,

not in the Okay. Okay. But that's not before us right now. What? It's not before us.

No. You can ask the question. Wait. Oh. Wait. Well, let me make sure.

Am I looking at the right one? I'm talking now. Yeah. Right? Okay. Okay. Well, if there's no questions, it's fine.

Why? I mean, I let the police department know you might You wanted to ask about police and what's going on with

Yeah. But I don't see that line here. Did they just delete it because they weren't prepared to talk about it?

I think we normally delete that in the public document. Oh, okay. But it's not a secret.

You can ask about it.

Just give me one second here. Okay. Don't have any further questions on this. Department of Public Works Infrastructure Division, traffic sign worker, painter for two positions, traffic sign worker. Any outstanding questions on property tax supported property tax levy supported positions?

We will move on to non property tax levy supported positions. Health Department, Home Environmental Health Inspector IV, Bio Threat Coordinator, Department of Public Works Transportation, Transportation Financial Analyst, Parking Meter technician, DPW Water Works, program assistant, water microbiologist, anything on non property tax levy supported positions or property tax levy supported positions. We're now on the just one fund transfer, Schedule B, health department $29,000 Take a look here from operating MHD facility special fund $29,000 due to 2025 grant implementation. It leaves the fund balances available to cover higher than expected costs for facilities and utilities. Any other outstanding questions on Item six, the communication from Department of Administration, budget management regarding vacancy request fund transfers and equipment requests.

On the motion of Alderman Moore for approval, discussion of approval, objections? Hearing none, so ordered. Item seven, two hundred fifty one thousand seven hundred fifty eight, communication from the Department of Administration relating to approval of changes to certain single or sole source contracts or contract amendments. From purchasing, we have Ms. Rhonda Kelsey, Item seven. Oh, hi. Hello. Please introduce yourself.

Hi. I'm Don Glover, purchasing agent for the city.

Okay. Welcome.

Thanks

for your patience.

No problem. I'll be presenting a contract for the common council city clerk's office with Pivot Consulting seeking your approval for amending the contract to increase the contract total in the amount of 45,000 to 90,000 and as well as extend the contract term for an additional year to 12/31/2026. And that's to continue work that Bevan Christie established with the Emerging Youth Achievement Advisory Council, which was formerly known as the Black Male Achievement Advisory Council.

Mhmm.

Okay. I'm just pulling this up here.

Who's I'm sorry. Who's Ben? Ben Christie.

And that is the program leader for Pivot Consulting for the vendor. Okay.

That is our only item here I'm looking, going from $45,000 to $90,000

Correct.

Essentially extending it one more year.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions on Item seven? I just saw there's only one. Right. Okay. Sometimes I make mistakes on that. Okay. And hearing no further discussion, then I guess Alderman Spiker moves approval of item seven. Any objections to approval? Hearing none, so ordered. Item 8,251,597. Communication relating to submission of a report related to the purchase of commodities made under Milwaukee Code of Ordinances Chapter three ten eighteen point nine purchase of Milwaukee made Milwaukee County made and American made goods purchasing Rhonda Kelsey.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman and committee members. Rhonda Kelsey, City Purchasing Director. The file before you is in regard required to submit a report relative to the purchase of Milwaukee made, Milwaukee County made and American made goods. So for purposes of this presentation, I will refer to this as the Buy American Bid Incentive Program. So I have a brief presentation for the committee this afternoon.

So as a way of background, Chapter three ten, the Buy American Bid Incentive Program, was adopted in February 2013, and it was effective in June 2034. The purpose of this particular legislation was to create a preference for local and American businesses. This particular ordinance requires the city to purchase American made goods if the purchase does not increase the cost of the good by 12% or in this instance in terms of dollar amount by roughly $2,728,000 dollars. And so that was the effective rate as of October 2025. This is important to point out that this only applies to commodity purchases whereby we are issuing a formal competitive bid.

So this does not apply to exception of bid contracts. So the contracts that Don Glover of my staff presented would not apply, request for proposals, piggyback contracts, and other cooperative types of contracts. Next slide. According to Chapter three ten, the American made good is a product that is manufactured, mined or produced in The United States provided that 51% of the components of that particular product are in fact made in America. It is also important to point out that there are some exclusions.

So this particular ordinance does not apply to large ticket commodity purchases. And these are more often than not raw materials that we purchase such as rock salt, gravel, And And we city's water so we

exclusion is to

minimize do with the overall fiscal impact of the Buy American bid incentive program. There are some additional exclusions. If the good is not produced in The United States in a sufficient and reasonably available quantity or the low in inventory, we reserve the right to purchase a nondomestic product or a product that does not meet that particular definition as set forth in the ordinance. If it's an emergency purchase or if it is impractical or impossible for our department to develop specifications to procure the product that we are seeking to purchase. And then lastly, if it will be in the city's best interest to utilize a competitive excuse me, a cooperative contract through either a third party source well or piggybacking off of contract for a particular purchase.

The requirements of the ordinance are such that an award will be made to the lowest compliant and responsible bidder provided that again their bid does not exceed the lowest bidder's bid by 12% or $28,000 roughly. Annually, effective March 1 of each year, per the code, this incentive amount is increased by 1%. So effective March 1, that amount will increase to $28,171 In terms of compliance, the bidder, if they are seeking to qualify for this bid preference, are required to submit a notarized affidavit of compliance affirming that their products meet the requirements that I specified earlier. It is also important to point out that that the bid preference is three tiered, meaning if there are three vendors in each category seeking to qualify for the bid preference, if there is a bidder that is claiming that their product manufactured in Milwaukee, they receive first preference, Milwaukee County second, and then across The United States would be the third preference. In regard to contracting activity over this period, and again, we're looking at the years '22 through 2024, there was only one contract awarded based on this Buy American bid incentive.

So again, it is elective. It's based on the number of bidders that are in the pool and based on the submission of the affidavit. It is not a requirement. It is an elective bid incentive that they can take advantage of. What this slide illustrates is that over this three year period, again, focused on formal competitive bids that are issued and contracts that are awarded as a result of that particular procurement method.

On average, over the three year period, there were 53 contracts that were executed as a result of the Buy American bid incentive being included in the bid solicitation. Overall, we execute around 700 or so contracts on an annual basis. The total number of formal bids issued on average over the three year period is approximately 73 bids and contracts. So in terms of eligible bids, roughly on average 72% of the formal bids that we issue for commodity purchases, the Buy American bid incentive would apply. The next slide reflects the bidder pool, if you will, over this particular period.

So the table to the left just illustrates the number of Buy American bidders in comparison to the number of non Buy American bidders. So you can see, again, it's roughly a fifty-fifty split, if you will, between the number of Buy American bidders versus non American bidders if you look at the history of the Buy American bid submissions over the twenty twenty two to twenty twenty four period. It is also important to point out, you can see here in this particular chart, there are a few Milwaukee firms that have been that oftentimes will submit the Buy American BIN incentive affidavit to apply for this particular incentive. And they are also SBE firms. And so Price and Sons is a regular bidder that seeks to qualify for the bid incentive and often historically has received a contract based on the Buy American bid incentive program.

The next slide just simply illustrates the contract award. This was a contract that we awarded on behalf of the Department of Public Works for delineators, which are traffic, vertical traffic, calming equipment apparatus that they use to calm traffic, provide direction, etcetera. So you'll see here the contract was awarded again to Price and Sons, which is a local certified SPE firm. Actually, Diamond Disc International is also a local SPE firm, but because they applied for Buy American Bid Incentive Program, they were awarded the particular contract. And over this three year period, based on the award term, the cost of that was approximately $46,000

So

roughly excuse me, dollars 15,000 or so on an annual basis over that three year period. One of the other things that we track as a result of administering this program

is

job creation and retention. That is also one of the reasons why this legislation was adopted and implemented over ten years ago. So what this particular slide illustrates is that during the 2022 through 2024 period, the current amount of employee the number of employees that these contractors were able that they had on staff was roughly four seventy five employees. And as a result of awarding these contracts, they were able to retain two thirty six jobs. The table also just simply illustrates the overall incentive costs associated with the Buy American program, which is roughly $89,000 The average being roughly $30,000 And again, the table below illustrates what those purchases were, what those contracts are for, again, primarily the Department of Public Works, the the water works division, and the police department, again, for public works equipment as well as some vehicle upfitting equipment for police vehicles for the police department.

So in conclusion, which is the final slide, I know you have had a long morning, the Buy American Bid Incentive Program's fiscal impact from a contract award standpoint since inception is approximately $158,000 roughly $15,000 per year. Although 15 bids were awarded based on the BADI program from 2014 to 2024, there does appear to be notable interest in the program by the vendor community just based on the fiftyfifty split that I mentioned before in terms of bid submissions to seek or qualify for the bid incentive. Conversely, it's important to point out the realities of a complex global supply chain undergird the challenges associated with directly impacting the number of Buy American awards. And again, what we say via this particular program is that 51% of the products must be mined or produced in The United States. So we all understand the global realities and complexities of supply chain issues.

In spite of this reality, the Buy American Bid Incentive Program appears to have a positive impact on job retention. Since the legislation has been enacted, two sixty jobs have been retained, two fifty eight of those are full time, and two of those jobs are part time in nature. So to that end, I will conclude by saying that I think the program maintains relevance in light of the realities of the current global climate that we live in for the vendor community and we will continue to push it as much as we can. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay. Thank you so much for the presentation. The only part that I didn't quite understand and I'd be really jogging my memory if I think I feel like it was my predecessor that helped put this forward, Alderman Zelensky. Yes. Okay.

Yes. He was the champion and leader of this particular legislation.

Okay. I remember him talking to me about this. Yes. So the part that I'm not understanding is how can I say it? It's not like automatic in when you review the proposals. It's that the proposer has to suggest you use this requirement?

It applies to formal competitive bids over 50,000 for commodity purchases only. So we will include language regarding the bid incentive program in the bid solicitation document. So we push it

for

them to apply.

And then if you had a response that was you know, non American and cheaper or American and more expensive, how was that decision made?

So provided that the Buy Americans bidder bid amount does not exceed the non American bidders bid amount by 12% or roughly 27,000, 28,000, the contract will be awarded to the buy American bidder. If it is higher than that, then we would award the contract to the non Buy American responsible compliant bidder. Keeping in mind there is an increase coming

up in Right.

1%.

1%.

So we might be able to buy German built fire trucks if they fit our needs better?

Possibly. And again, remember, the legislation states that 51% of the product must include American components. So with that, and again, because of the realities of a global supply chain market, the product may have a component that's manufactured in Germany, China, wherever. So we know that policies have been enacted to turn the tide. We have not yet seen the results of that at the federal level. I think we have a long way to go. But that's how that would work.

Okay.

Alder Mamor, we're on item number eight.

Thank you so much. Just really quick, thank you the presentation, Ms. Kelsey. Who decides about the 1% increase? Is that codified in policy? That's codified in the code. That's codified in the code. And so annually, the city clerk's office will push out a letter relative regarding the 1% increase. That's what the code states. Thank you. You are welcome.

Okay. I don't see any further discussion on this. That was a great presentation. Thank you for your work. Aldrin Berglis moves to place it on file. Discussion of placing it on file. Objections to placing it on file. Hearing none so ordered. Item nine and ten are communication files and they are not ready. So it's been requested to the hold to the call of the chair. So grouping the other nine and ten and holding both to the call of the chair. Discussion of holding them to the call of chair. Objections? Hearing none so ordered. We're on 11251827. Communication from the Department of Public Works. Waterworks amending the positions ordinance to add one position of water laboratory technician. Oh, there you are. Ms. Hi.

I never know if I say it right. Is it Islow or Islow? Islow. Islow. Okay. Should have went my first instinct. Pretty straightforward. Let me just, if you don't mind, for the sake of time, ask if there's any questions on this. Okay. Any questions for the waterworks? Hearing none, then alder Woman Moore moves to place it on file. Discussion of placing it on file. Objections. Hearing none so ordered. Thank you. Okay. Easy peasy. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It comes

to being last.

Item 12. Thank you. Yep. Item twelve, two five one six six zero, substitute resolution authorizing attendance at conventions, seminars, other travel. Are there any questions on this matter? Otherwise, Alderwoman Moore makes the motion to adopt 12. Questions on 12. Discussion on adoption. Objections on adoption. Hearing none so ordered. 13, we took care of. Fourteen and two fourteen, two five one seven six two, an ordinance to further amend the twenty twenty six offices and positions in city service. This would reflect any action we took in earlier files. Passage is moved by Alderman Berghelis. Discussion of passage of item 14.

Objections? Hearing none, so ordered. Item fifteen, two five zero seven nine four, an ordinance relating to the confirmation of the head of environmental collaboration office and the chief equity officer. It's my understanding that this this item

Not necessary.

Oh, not necessarily. Okay. So Alderman Spiker, item 15, you are the author. It may be placed on file as it may or may not be necessary, but we'll go to you to see what you think.

Place on file.

Okay. Alderman Spiker has moved to place item 15 on file. Discussion of placing it on file. Objections? Hearing none, ordered. Item sixteen, two five one three one zero, resolution relating to the scheduling of cybersecurity training by the Department of Administration, Inter Information Technology Management Division. Alderman Spiker.

Do you

want to place that on file?

One is this?

Item 16. Scheduling of cybersecurity training.

Oh,

yeah. That one oh, yeah. That one's placed on file too.

Okay. Yeah. Hold on. It's like it moves to place it on file. Any discussion of placing it on file? Any objections? Hearing none so ordered. We're on our last item because Okay. Sorry. 17 was held to the next cycle. We're so we're now on 18251686 communication from the office of controller relating to the audit of Milwaukee Fire Department information technology general control. And we county. Have a of of about that immediately? Or Yes. Oh, please. Okey dokey.

I'm gonna

pass out the And then when we come out of closed session to place it on file? No.

We could place it on file.

Just state that

Okay.

Let me make those statements. So we're gonna head into closed session. Third time today. The finance and personnel committee may convene into closed session pursuant to s 19.851 d Wisconsin stat utes except as provided in S three zero four point zero six one EG and by rule promulgated under S three zero four point zero six one EM for the purpose of considering strategy for crime crime detection or prevention. Okay.

That motion was made by Alderman Spiker. And we will do a roll call placing it on file likely in closed session. For anyone listening, that's our last order of business. So with that, please call the roll in closed session.

And a motion to go

into closed session. Honorable Memoir? Aye. Audeman Spiker?

Aye. Audemember Gelles? Aye. Madam Chair? Aye.

Prevails.

Okay. We'll now go into closed session for item 18, which is our last item. We'll remain in closed session to place it on file, and that'll be

Similar to what happened to

the