Steering & Rules Committee - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome you to the steering and rules committee. I am Alderman Jose Perez chair. Alderman Marina Dimitrevich is excused. Joining us here today is Alderman Robert Baumann, Alderman Russell Stamper the second is on the board, Alderman Jo Casa Samaripa, Alderman Scott Spiker, Alderman DeAndre Jackson, and also Alderman Taylor is on the board. It is Monday, 02/17/2025 at approximately 09:05AM and would like to go into item number one, two four one six four three communication from various city departments relating to funds owed to the city of Milwaukee by the housing authority And I just wanna just start by this statement is in the file also, but scheduled these two items before this committee today because we have some serious challenges before us as a city.

I believe we must face these challenges head on with complete transparency, no hidden letters, no open record requests needed. Let's model the behavior we want to see and put forth and put truth and transparency first. Specific to HACM and seeking to gain clarity and ultimately move towards getting a complete understanding of their financial picture, which is inextricably tied to the city of Milwaukee in so many ways that I lost count. I asked the comptroller to the best of his ability to determine two things. First, given that their CFO recently and bravely went on record describing how HACM previously routinely commingled and mis misused funds, I sought clarity on if any of the ARPA funds allocated to them by the city were misappropriate.

The second question I asked, which was only an ancillary and simple probing question was what if any outstanding funds might Hakim owe to the city of Milwaukee other than the amounts disclosed by their CFO? To my surprise and utter amazement, he responded that over $4,000,000 was additionally owed to the city of Milwaukee by HACA. So that's what brings us here today. The urgency of this moment. An agency charged with providing for some of the neediest among us has fallen and while it attempts to stand stand back up, it's been hit with another leg crippling blow.

So while we discuss to remedy these operational failures and assist HACM to meet its mission and obligations, which is the purpose of the first agenda item, new HACM leadership has agreed to meet on a biannual basis to discuss its past, current status and future plans, which is the purpose and point of the second agenda item. So today, it is about discussing the new revelation of the $4,000,000 being owed to the city by HACM without anyone raising a concern publicly until I asked. And secondly, to set the table for the discussions to take place on March 14, which will be the first of two presentations by status of their organization. So before we get started, I'd like to thank the Comptroller for his due diligence and responsiveness to my questions. He is proving on a daily basis that his pleased very team.

Team. Expressed to me that you're clear that HACM success is tied to the city and that although you may have numerous autonomy spelled out in state statute, that ultimately we are one unit that will succeed or fail together in providing quality housing for thousands of residents. With that, I'd ask the controller to discuss the nature of its research and findings relative to this matter.

Thank you. Good morning, President Perez, committee members for the record, Bill Christiansen, city comptroller. So as President Perez mentioned, he had requested some information from my office related to the financial relationship between Hackham and the city of Milwaukee. And I broke down that request into four questions. And those questions were as follows: one, did Hakim appropriately spend the ARPA allocation it received from the City of Milwaukee?

So in other words, were the funds used for the stated purpose, which was for construction activities at Westlawn? Two, is HACM delinquent on payments to the Employee Retirement System, ERS? Three, is HACM delinquent on any payment in lieu taxes, also known as pilot payments, to the city? And four, are there any other outstanding amounts due from Hackham to the city? Now, first, let me just start off by saying that I don't have any special insight into the current financial condition or the financial operations of Hackham itself.

My focus is on the city side of the city Hackham financial relationship. And the city controller's office doesn't have any oversight role when it comes to HACM. But I will address each of the questions that I mentioned earlier. But first, I just want to say that the answers to the first three questions are relatively simple and straightforward. But the final question about other amounts due from Hackham to the city is a little bit more complex.

So when I get to that question, I'll have to do a little bit of table setting to give the background and context that I think are necessary in order to really understand what these amounts mean. And it's also worth noting that the relationship between Hakim and the city, as President Perez mentioned, has a long and complicated history, but I think it could be described as a gradual decoupling over time. There's still a few connections that do remain in place and one in particular that I'll get into in response to the question about amounts owed by Hakim to the city. But the overall trend appears to have been one of severing those remaining connections between Hackham and the city. And one of the challenges we encountered when looking into this was that there wasn't a whole lot of documentation left behind, at least that we were able to find.

They clearly identified the changes that took place in the city Hakim relationship, when they took place, and why things were set up the way that they were. We did find several agreements between the city and Hackham, some dating from as far back as the 1960s, with the most recent one being signed in 2004. And it was difficult for us to tell which of those provisions were still in effect and the extent to which some of the more recent agreements overrode or superseded some of the previous agreements. And also we really weren't able to find any authoritative documentation since 2004 that would really help us better understand the financial relationship between HACM and the city and changes that may have taken place since 2004. After I respond to the four questions from President Perez, I do have a couple of recommendations, if the committee would indulge me, for us as city leadership to consider from a problem solving or a solutions oriented perspective, one of which addresses that sort of lack of clarity on the Hackam City relationship.

So getting into the questions that were posed to me. So one, did HACM appropriately spend the ARPA funds allocated to it by the city? For background, in April 2022, the city awarded HACM $9,000,000 from the city's ARPA allocation for construction activities at Westlawn. And based on both our initial review, which took place when Hakim originally submitted cost reports to our office for reimbursement and then a further level of scrutiny, much more recently when we were asked to kind of shine a spotlight on the ARPA expenditures from HACM. Our office did not our review, I should say, did not encounter any evidence that these funds were used for anything but the authorized purpose of construction activities at Westlawn.

Further, our review did not find any evidence that salary or staff time for HACM positions was charged to the ARPA grant. Our team is still working with HACM to complete a more thorough review, including reconciling bank statements with invoices. So that process is ongoing. But so far, we haven't identified any red flags. So with that, I'll pause for any questions about the ARPA issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Comptroller. I did want to ask then, so have they spent the full allocation of ARPA funding that they received to do that work?

I will double check. I believe that most, if not all of it, has been Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. If there are no other questions, I'll move on to the second question, which was, is HACM delinquent on payments to the employee retirement system? The short simple answer is no. Hakim's payment to ERS for fiscal year twenty twenty four is actually due at the 2025. So that payment is not currently delinquent.

I would say that the amount due from HACM to ERS, it does increase over the course of the year in line with the discount rate of ERS. In other words, the rate of investment earnings, which is 6.8%. I speak did with Jerry Allen, the Executive Director of ERS, and he told me that in December, he spoke with Hakim's CFO at the time, who has since moved on, but who indicated that Hakim intended on making quarterly payments in 2025 until the fiscal year twenty twenty four amount was satisfied. I think follow-up conversations are warranted between ERS and HACM given the change in financial leadership to ensure that that still is the plan. And I'll pause there again for questions on I ERS

have a question. Is it pretty regular for payment plans to take place with ERS?

I don't know that it's regular, but I think it's probably in the interest of the entity that's paying to pay sooner as opposed to later, just given the interest charges that I'm talking about. So if you have the cash, it would be wise to pay it earlier as opposed to later.

And normally everyone wants to do that within that before you have to start paying interest, correct? Make those payments and be paid in full for that reason?

That would be the wise financial move,

yes. Would you happen to know what they owe now that they have to pay?

I believe it's about $1,800,000 but I can get you the exact number.

And so then paying that quarterly, then there's interest on that amount moving forward in 2025. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Mister chair.

Hold on, miss Amaripa.

Thank you. I just wanted to ask mister comptroller around the WRS system. Any new employees are in the state retirement system. Is that right?

You know, did not have a chance to look into that. I think that is the case, but I can't confirm that. Others here might be able to speak more knowledgeably on that. But I don't want to mislead on that.

Very good. Thank you.

And I don't know how you want to cover this question because I believe in the outstanding, your last point that you're going to make about DCD, I believe, paying for HACM employees. How does that get commingled with the whole ERS payment? Who was making those payments on behalf of those employees that so whether you want to answer that now or later, it's a question

I've got some statements kind of prepared on that. And if that question is not answered to your satisfaction, then maybe just follow-up with Irene.

Mister chair, all regarding the the employee retirement system. Are there there are there's other entities that are under this arrangement, correct? Wisconsin Center District, they're under our program. Correct? Correct. And anybody else? That that

external that way?

Yeah. I I I MPS? Yeah. MPS, non teaching.

Oh, non teaching. Okay.

So but I I I

back to And we'll next that's

I

I rated on a day by day basis question. Or if it only kicks in So that's interest for accrues immediately. There's no not interest sure free on that. If it's quarterly or if it's you would take the day in which the payment is made and base the calculation off of that. That's a fair question. Just don't know the answer to.

But technically not delinquent until the 2020?

Correct. And just for clarity, what is the due date that you have to be paid in full not to accrue interest?

That would be January 1.

Okay. Okay.

That's what I was getting at. Okay. And in past years, have they been have they always taken the full year or some period of time? In other words, their 2023 payment was due at the 2024. When was that paid? Know?

I don't have the history on that related to ERS.

I'm trying to get a handle on what the pattern has been. Has the pattern been to make the contribution on January 1 of each year for the preceding year or have they

to

the right

And too, if there's been a pattern of pain because any extra money that you're paying in interest, someone may say or assume that that could be money spent somewhere else on maintenance or other things. Right. Okay.

Okay. The third question was, is Hakim delinquent on any pilot payments to the city? As of right now, Hakim has not paid its 2024 pilot payment to the city, but no, the payment is not technically delinquent. If the city receives the 2024 pilot payment from HACM on or before March 1, can still be accrued or attributed back to fiscal year 2024, and that's the sixty day revenue recognition rule. It's government accounting standards board or GASB provision.

If it's received after March 1, it would leave 2024 revenue short but would be considered a 2025 revenue. Hackens pilot payment to the city in the 2024 budget was $1,000,000 It was budgeted at $1,000,000 in the 2024 budget. And I think it's worth noting the 1969 cooperation agreement between the city and Hackham states that no lien shall be attached to any Hackham asset and no interest or penalties accrued for nonpayment of the pilot. But again, given the subsequent additions and amendments to those agreements, it's not clear to me whether those provisions are still in place. So I'm not able to close that door firmly.

There any other remedy that we have to get our

pilot? I suppose some type of a negotiated agreement. I'm not aware of any stick that the city might have.

No foreclosure. No force. No force selling of property.

I'm probably the last person to to talk to you about those by others that are a lot more knowledgeable about that.

Okay, sir. And they're current with all previous pilot obligations?

Yes. So and actually speaking to your your timing question about ERS. So last year for the 2023 pilot payment, they made their pilot payment in February 2024. So they paid it in the following year. Prior to that, they've been paying, I think, in December. So there was a pattern of two months later than it typically was last year, and then this year we have not received it as of today.

Okay. And that $1,000,000 pilot, when was that number established? Was that in the sixties?

So there's a calculation and it's somewhat complicated and I'm not exactly sure what it's based on, but it's not a set flat amount. It's based on it's it's it's variable.

Ah. Okay. When was that formula established?

Good question. I think that might go back to one of these older agreements. I mean, we we looked at about five different agreements between 1969 and 2004. I think it's stated in one of those, or it might be stated in a letter that we found. But I can share that detail with you if you'd like.

Okay. It seems rather loose, but that's okay.

Yeah. I agree.

Okay. No further questions?

And the fourth question, and this is the one that, like I said, I'm going have to do a little bit of table setting, so bear with me. Are there any other outstanding amounts due from Hackam to the city? And the answer is yes. According to a report that we ran on Friday, excluding the pilot payment, there's currently $4,100,000 owed to the city by HACM. And this amount breaks down into two general categories. There's $531,000 of the pandemic.

We're

we're the of around. And in fact, And the number impact was closer of to $1,000,000 at the 2024. And it's not necessarily unusual to have uncollected amounts in our accounts receivable. It's actually quite typical. But when it becomes concerning is when these amounts go unpaid after a certain amount of time.

And we typically flag invoices that are ninety days past their issue date as items to follow-up on with the responsible department. Now the other much larger category where we efforts last week in response to these questions is unreimbursed reimbursables, which total $3,600,000 due from Hacken to the city. And you might ask what are unreimbursed reimbursables? And that's a very good question. So when department provides a service to another city department or in some instances to an external agency such as HACM, sometimes the cost of that service is charged to the reimbursable fund instead of the department's operating budget.

So the department or the external agency that receives that service then would make the reimbursable fund whole for the cost of that service. And the charges are essentially settled up and the reimbursable fund should, at the end of the day, zero out. The revenues should match expenses. However, on occasion, external agencies and in this instance HACM do not reimburse in full all the charges that are due which leaves the reimbursable fund in a deficit. Now this deficit can be carried forward from one year to the next with the expectation that payment will eventually be made.

But it is worth noting that it is ultimately the city's general fund that is on the hook for making up any shortfall for amounts in the reimbursable fund that are not reimbursed. So when we talk about the general fund, think about the tax stabilization fund or unrestricted fund balance. And I think it's obvious but also pointed out that it's unfavorable for the city to indirectly subsidize external agencies by funding these unreimbursed reimbursables out of the general fund. So getting back to the situation of $3,600,000 in unpaid reimbursables from HACM, based on what we've learned since we started looking into this is it appears to stem from an arrangement that was made back in the early 2000s when HACM took steps to split away from Development, which is where HACM had been housed since the 1960s. When this split occurred, there was an arrangement made in which staff who were employed in DCD prior to the split were essentially grandfathered in and allowed to technically remain within DCD in the public housing programs decision unit, a division within DCD.

However, these positions were DCD in name only. They were functionally HACM employees. And all costs associated with these positions were to be reimbursed by HACM. And to me, it's not exactly clear why these positions were allowed to remain in the city budget. Others might be able to shed some light on that, but we didn't find any documentation as to what the purpose of keeping these positions on the city budget was.

As these HACM employees who were only on paper housed in DCD retired or left their jobs, those positions in DCD would be eliminated and would be replaced in HACM instead of DCD. And this had been occurring. So as I understand it, there were at one time as many as 150 of these HACM employees who were in DCD when this arrangement was first put in place. But as of today, I think that number is down to just four individual employees. So again, the deal was for HACM to fully reimburse the costs for the salary, the fringe benefit, the indirect costs for these positions that were on paper housed in DCD.

At some point, the payments from HACM to the city for these positions began falling short of the amount that was owed. And it's difficult to tell exactly when this divergence began, but we've identified underpayments going as far back as 2015. And in fact, we have not been able identify any payments from Hackett to the city for these for the cost of these positions since 2021. That's the last record we have of a payment being made was in 2021. So totaling up the underpayments and the nonpayments from our records as of last week Friday, February 14, a total of $3,600,000 was owed to the city by HACM for costs that appear to be related to these positions.

Now, when we run our reports for these unreimbursed charges due from HACM, the department ID that shows up on these reports as having generated these charges is DCD. It's that public housing programs decision division of DCD. However, when we inquired with DCD, we learned that they don't bill HACM, they don't get involved in the financial oversight or any oversight of these positions that are really functionally HACM employees. They just happen to reside in DCD on paper. And when we reviewed the latest agreement, that agreement from 2004, the agreement between HACM and the city, we didn't that any city department was actually named as responsible for ensuring that HACM was fully reimbursing these charges.

And there wasn't really anybody tasked with oversight for this. So we did actually find a provision in the agreement which granted HACM access to the city's financial management system. So as best I can tell and this is speculation because they didn't put the why in there but as best I can tell, the intent of the agreement was to allow Hackham to access the city's financial management system so that they could kind of self-service determine the amount that they owed to the city and then make the payments themselves. This arrangement may have worked when it was first put in place, but clearly over the years something in that process broke down. So as I see it, there's two issues for you as a council and all of us in city government to consider.

One is the amounts currently owed by HACM to the city for the pilot payment, for the accounts receivable and for these unreimbursed reimbursables, which altogether total $5,100,000 And I think a robust discussion on that is certainly warranted. But the other issue is what we can do constructively from a solutions oriented perspective to solve this ongoing issue moving forward. So if I may to that second issue before I finish my remarks, would just like to share a few recommendations for the council and for the administration to consider that would help us kind of focus on how we can move forward and get to a better place. One, I think it would be beneficial for the city attorney's office to prepare a summary of the current agreements between the city and Hackham. I think there's been a lot of turnover on the council and on the city in general since these agreements were put in place, and there's been a lot of changes that appear to have taken place since that last agreement in 2004 and there's not a lot of authoritative documentation on it.

So I think the legal minds in the city attorney's office could probably look at this and summarize it in a way that would be beneficial for you and I know would certainly be beneficial for me. Two, until all of the HACM employees that are technically housed in DCD have retired or left their positions, I think the city should designate a department to be responsible for the financial oversight of this arrangement and ensuring that HACM does make payments for what is owed related to these positions. Three, related to this issue but also related to that larger issue that we discussed at Judiciary and Legislation Committee about outstanding receivables. I think the city should consider bringing on a citywide collections manager to take a more centralized and proactive role in collections. It's currently the responsibility of each department to collect on outstanding receivables, but I think a specialist who is dedicated to the aggressive pursuit of amounts owed to the city could really boost the city's collections rate.

And fourth, I think the city should consider reducing or eliminating the use of external reimbursables. Internal reimbursables where one department is charging another city department for services seems to be less of a problem. But using the reimbursable fund for external agencies, it can be problematic as we've seen and I would recommend moving away from using external reimbursables. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Mr.

Chairman? Regarding the date it was executed. The copy I have indicates the agreement was entered into on March 30. It originally read 2000 and somebody crossed out '2 and put '4, 2004, and that the agreement would be retroactively effective to 01/01/2000. Then you go to the signature page and the agreement is signed by the city attorney's office as to form and content dated 03/29/2004, signed off by the city attorney's office again on 03/30/2004.

And then interestingly enough, it's executed on behalf of the city by John Norquist who wasn't in office on 03/30/2004. He had left office in January 2004. Marvin Pratt was the acting mayor on 03/30/2004. And, of course, within two days after this, there was a new mayor because this was literally two or three days before the April in which Tom Barrett became the mayor. So do you have any explanation as to how John Norquist signed a document on 03/30/2004 when he was not actually the mayor?

He was gone 01/01/2004.

I I I do not.

There may be an innocent explanation but it is a curiosity to say the least. And that is the agreement under which this reimbursable business was approved and basically engineered. Correct?

Again, it's hard to tell. I would really want the city attorney to weigh in on The most recent that we've been able to

Okay. And this access to the financial management system, what's the significance of that? I mean that seems odd that we would allow a external entity to basically mess around in our books. It's like Musk getting in charge of the treasury or the federal payment system. I mean, it seems to be a similar thing, correct?

I would say from an internal controls perspective, it's certainly not advisable to have external parties having access to your financial management system.

Because it's the equivalent of what we hear at the federal level is this treasury payment system, the federal payment system.

Right. I mean, FMIS, it's the platform on which all of our all of the city's financial transactions take place.

So how do we know that they were accurately using the system in terms of computing the reimbursable amounts?

Well, that's a fair question. I don't know if the issue with the underpayments and the nonpayments was an issue of reading the information incorrectly out of the financial system or if it was something else.

That would require, I suspect, a huge almost forensic audit if if that it was used it was even possible?

Yeah. I mean or even talking to whatever individuals were doing that job at that time.

It's Do they still have that access

as a

As as far as I know, yes. I I I believe ITMD controls access to our financial management system.

And is that a decision the head of IMTD can make or is that a legislative action or I mean how to

have Yes, a Come up. He can answer it. Alright.

Mean, I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. I'm curious what's the mechanics of throwing somebody off our system if we choose to do so and who

does the choosing. Morning. David Henke, chief information officer, part of the department administration information and technology management division. So we're responsible for operating and maintaining FMIS financial platform within my department. The security administrator position is housed.

And what we'll typically do is if a staff member leaves the organization, we get notice of that, the account gets disabled, all of their rights and everything else stay in place. So if a successor takes place, we can use those rights to replace them with what they need. But once I guess to answer your question, once someone leaves city service is when we will disable their rights or when the appropriate manager from that department asks for those rights to be removed.

Okay. But that's internal. What about an external entity having this right?

That's a pretty rare event. I'd have to look back at our policies. The same would But you the

authority to pull the

to unplug them. I I could do that. I would I would want to do that with, you know, the appropriate due diligence and and and counsel for site to do that. That would be helpful. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

I I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing but it it sounds unusual. Our controller is telling us it's unusual and not advisable. Right?

I think. That's what I'm hearing right now and so I'd like to work with the controller and counsel on what the appropriate

And actions who exactly at HACM has this access? Is there a single person or is there a team of individuals? Is there a who exactly has that access?

Since I was first noticed for the meeting late on Friday, I had asked staff to date and come up with, I think, four individuals within HACM that have access. I would note having access to the system has many security levels. I have access myself for like approving procurement of IT contracts in FMIS. So I have access to that system but that's the only access I have. I can't change or access or read most anything else. So I believe from from from what I've I've investigated to date is that the access for within HACM would solely be HACM's accounts or staff members or these accounts that have been referenced today.

We know that for a fact.

I need to verify that.

Mr. Chair? Alder, one more.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Kushirsen, thank you so much for your report and you and your team sort of going through all of this. I want to be very transparent that I am also a board member that was recently appointed back in December for HACM. But today I'm wearing my Aldermanic hat. Quick question. Did HACM and I know you touched on this. Did HACM ever receive any invoices referencing the or not including the ERS payment? Did they receive invoices for the other outstanding amounts?

I'm not in a position to give the full history, presumably if there was a department that would have been billing them, it would have been DCD because that's kind of the common practice is for the department which is incurring those charges to bill the agency that would be paying those charges. But DCD, these positions are, I guess, just housed in DCD on paper and they're not functionally in DCD. They don't functionally work for DCD. So I can't say that there was never any billing that took place, but at least recently there does not appear to have been any billing that took place.

Thank you so much. And based on your recommendations and thank you, Sumit, completely, completely makes sense, could there have been just based on the lack of oversight that there wasn't really a department that was connected to that sort of oversight for HACM which could have played a reason to the, you know, perhaps not getting billed or, you know, the city not collecting the necessary funds, past due funds?

Yeah, I think

gap, there was a void in that oversight role. There should have been probably another layer that was made very explicit that identified who on the city side was responsible for that oversight function.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Following up on some of those questions. So you're saying today there's four employees that are still on paper. Prior to that, last year was 20 or the year before it was 20?

In the budget for 2024, there were 23 positions that were listed.

Okay. And so you keep saying on paper, right? Yes. I want to be clear, that is hard money that DCD has in their budget, correct? That they're paying for HACM employees that weren't getting reimbursed.

I mean, dollars are going out the door.

Dollars are going out the door. And these dollars going out the door are part of DCD's budget. So

this is the reimbursable fund. So it's it's technically not coming out of their operating budget. If, you know, per the recommendation that I'm making, if it was if we didn't have this external reimbursable process, then it would have been a part of their budget. And there would have been a general fund revenue that would have been offset that amount. And we would have every year been very it would have been very apparent that this underpayment or nonpayment was taking place.

Okay. So where's the money coming from that's tax levy dollars?

So the reimbursable fund, it's basically an on paper fund that's intended to be zeroed out year after year. So it's

But it hasn't been.

The cash is essentially our cash flow. It's cash that we have on hand with the expectation of reimbursement for charges that are incurred.

Okay. But when you have a deficit, where is the money?

So if there is a reimbursable charge that it's determined that it's never going to be reimbursed, then it's ultimately the general fund that's on the hook for that. So that would be the

So at the end of the year, the general fund fills in this gap of money.

So if we're able to carry forward this deficit in the reimbursable fund with the expectation that payment is ultimately coming. Now if it was determined at some point that it's never going to be collected, then it would be essentially written off to the general fund. So the general fund, the tax stabilization fund, unrestricted fund balance would have to offset those.

And so when you get to an amount as high as this, at $3,600,000 does it raise a red flag for anyone? Who's responsible for the reimbursable fund?

So we monitor the reimbursable fund and we follow-up with the departments who are identified as incurring those charges, who would typically be the ones who would be following up with those that department or that agency who the services were provided to ensure that the payment is made. So our interest is in we love to see zero balance. That's what we want to see at the end of the year. So we work with the departments who are responsible for that to try to get to that place.

And so have there been communications with DCD about this amount?

There were. And I think as I mentioned in my statement, DCD was essentially saying that they don't have a financial oversight role for these positions. They were just, again, the term that was used in The U. They're just on paper in DCD and that they're not functionally DCD employees.

I mean, we able we'll we'll that. And And system 're and we're going paying for their employees or have been to the tune of $3,600,000

I mean that's accurate. I I guess you could say the $3,600,000 we are temporarily paid for them with the expectation of reimbursement. Now the prospects of that reimbursement, I think that's an open question.

Mr. Chair? Alderman Baumann. Getting back to the account receivable portion of this, the 531,000, it appears most of those receivables are in Department of Public Works including 393,000 Department of Administration, DPW Administration, 31,000 DPW Administration, 21,000 DPW administration. I'm just curious what was that for?

That's a good question. Think well, that there's one line that says Department of AdministrationDPW admin. So that's one that we've got to look into. Like I said, I kind of focused on this unreimbursed reimbursable issue. We've got to do a little more digging on the AR side. But I would just note that just because something shows up as accounts receivable doesn't necessarily mean that it's late or delinquent. There's a lot of current charges on here.

So this includes this potentially includes current Correct.

Yes. Yeah. This is comprehensive. This is everything.

Okay.

And these various codes on here, there is the account number. If one goes to that account number, will that indicate what the receivable

over I'll the should results. Give us insight into what exactly that charge was for. And then there's also a receivable relative

to the city attorney. What is the relationship between Hackett and the city attorney? I mean, is that a reimbursable? Is that a do we bill them and then collect me? How does that what is that? Because I understand where do we represent them sometimes, not all the time. Right? Because I recently saw where they had outside counsel in one particular matter.

Good morning, Alderman and members of the Steering and Rules Committee, Evan Goyke, City Attorney. We do represent the housing authority. As Bill was just mentioning, we have just under 37,000 accounted for in this accounts receivable. We have produced and processed that invoice on January 22. It's for the 2024. It is not late. And it is in essence two different forms of representation. One is as general counsel. So we have two attorneys in our office that provide legal advice kind of broadly. And then we handle eviction cases that stem from tenants of Hackham properties.

And do we charge an hourly rate? I mean how is that time? We do. Really? Well, I'm curious.

And so those attorneys log their hours and are accountable for their billing. I'm not sure what the hourly rate is, but it's

And is negotiated with the housing authority or is that unilaterally set by you?

That's a great question, Alderman. I don't know. I certainly since I have gotten in as city attorney, I haven't reviewed. We do not have any more recent functional service agreement than the 2004 document that you've referenced earlier. As I

have the non mayor, John Norquist.

Do you have any comment on that on the signature at all since you're here?

Well, no. I wasn't around in thousand

and no, '2 or 2000 no. Had it just to review it does it make it valid? Is it something that says it isn't valid because?

It's been in effect for twenty two years.

That just makes it automatically valid? Curiosity more than anything.

The final two whereas clauses from 2002 those final two whereas clauses are referencing actions taken by the city council in 2002 and kind of in reading them, and again, I've only had a couple of days to digest this and review it, seem to suggest in 2004 that they're trying to bring and reference that prior action in 2002. But your timeline is not wrong, Alderman Baumann, and we certainly have talked to Mr. Christensen and agree and we'll work with him and his office to summarize these various agreements over time and get a better understanding for you all in the city broadly of what is enforceable, what's on the books now.

So when you say that, that means you are going to look at all these agreements and figure out do they overlap each other? Is one more recent than the other that makes sense?

That right? And again, the 2004 agreement is the most recent that we have. In the initial review, it does not I find no language in it that says this supersedes all prior agreements. It does reference that there may be additional agreements that what they call the authority in the city may enter into. So I think we need to be mindful before we say definitively that this is the most recent agreement that we have a little bit more fact checking to do.

Do you provide service Go

ahead. I just had just in regards to this, just really quick, Attorney Goyke, would we have to come to a point where this has to be re updated?

Well, it's a policy consideration that you all this was adopted via action of the city council and the mayor. It is, in its own language, amendable and can be terminated by either party with certain provisions. So it's a policy consideration that the council could undertake.

Thank you.

Do you bill any other external entities?

We do not external. We do not bill Milwaukee Public Schools. We provide that's the only other external. We do account for time with ERS and other entities, I think Rackham as well. But again, as Mr. Christensen was saying, that's all a different process because they are internal.

Okay. So what is the relation with MPS? I am just curious.

It's statutory. So in Chapter 119, we are assigned to be their general counsel and we For free? Do not get compensated by MPS for our representation.

So Milwaukee taxpayers are essentially paying for MPS' legal services?

For the portion that we represent, we're not their exclusive lawyer. At times, they have outside counsel. Just like as you mentioned, HACM as a separate entity sometimes elects to make that. There are times where there are conflicts of interest where outside counsel is necessary.

Okay. But following up on that, with MPS, you have to do it as you shall represent them, correct?

I believe that's what the statutory With

HACM, it's a May. You don't have to do it if you don't want to.

My understanding is that we are part or have been folded into this 2,004 agreement and have been doing that for some time.

Mean in this agreement there is also the termination for convenience which sounds like it's pretty easy to get out of. Correct. Okay. So I know that I am going to talk to my colleagues about just doing something from scratch and eliminating all this external.

I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing that you represent them for

$150 an

hour or whatever the hourly rate is. I mean, that is but we should know. We should have our eyes wide open that we are giving them a huge discount on

And the I will follow-up with you on the actual hourly rate.

Okay.

In regards to all the monies owed, Comptroller, I mean, there are some amounts here that are relatively high. Do you know how long they're been outstanding, whether it's the Department of Administration for March or the Department of Employee Relations at 3 and $34,000 Do these get paid up every year?

So I did send an update to that list that I think it went out to everybody on Friday.

That's what I'm looking at. It's DER is not in there on this.

Correct. Yes. So that's why when I mentioned that this is a the accounts receivable is a moving target, more charges are incurred, payments are made. So the one that I'm looking at now, this is fresh as of Friday, the fourteenth. So the one from DER that has been satisfied.

Do you know what that service is for?

I believe that has to do with employee benefits, but I would want to verify that.

Okay.

So as far as the recent versus

Department of Administration?

Past due. The Department of Administration that what I'm showing in mine is $393,000 About $206,000 of that is over one hundred and twenty days old. So that's the way our report identifies things. Once it's over a 120 old it doesn't say well now it's three hundred sixty five days old it just identifies if it's more or less than a

100 These are services rendered to hack up?

Presumably yes.

You know what those are for?

I do not. Like I said, I focus more on the unreimbursed reimbursables and it's something that we can certainly work with the department to dig into.

If I may, President Perez. Sure. In terms of ITMD as a division of DOA and we have some of those charges approximately let me grab my notes here, dollars 189 of those are related to ITMD and ITMD related charges. Those are associated with three things, provision of telephony services, telephones, the provision of data service, Internet and data connectivity and they're also part of our Microsoft tenant for like email and office and so the licensing for HACM employees for that.

And then while you are here, how many external contracts or connections do we have related similar to HACM with ITMD?

We also we provide phone services to the PAPS Theater. That's a legacy of going back to the many years when the city owned the PAPS theater and we provided telephony services. We brought the wires and lines in there. So that's a very small nominal thing. That's the only outside agency. We support ERS, I would consider that. I don't know if for the purpose of this conversation considering that part of the city, they're part of the city's budget. We also support ERS. We do some reimbursable accounting for other city agencies that are not on the property tax rolls, some enterprise funds related to like water works, for instance. But those would all be city entities.

Okay. And then you recommended some kind of collector position that you thought was needed. Is this that you can get more deeper into this reimbursable fund?

Well, mean, if we follow through on the other recommendation of getting rid of external reimbursables, then it would become a part of accounts receivable, which would fall under the purview of a citywide collections manager. So right now it's the responsibility of each department to follow-up with individuals or businesses or external parties that we have invoiced that have not paid. And after ninety days per some guidelines that we had sent out to departments last year, after ninety days, we asked departments to follow-up with us and let us know if they have sent it to Cohen Collections Agency or if they intend on writing it off or if there's some kind of dispute in billing. We identify ninety days as kind of the breakpoint. But after it goes to collections, Cohen Law Firm, they take a cut.

So they whatever amount they're able to recover, they take a cut of that. So I think whatever we as a city are able to proactively recover ourselves, I think that's a big benefit for us prior to it ever getting to collections. So I think the intent of this position, if it's approved by the administration and the council, would be for the city to take a more aggressive posture. I think we would want to really scope out what we would want this position to focus on. I think there's a lot of potential opportunity out there. But really taking a good, thorough, thoughtful look at what this position would actually be tasked with, I think that would be a first step prior to just hiring somebody.

Is there anything that's in this reimbursable fund or any outstanding money sold to the city that isn't in your annual outstanding receivable report?

So what's in the receivables report? You wouldn't find unreimbursed reimbursables in the receivables report.

Why not?

Because it's technically not a receivable in the same way as the accounts receivable.

Can you put it in here and categorize it as something else? So that this is a so the public can see that?

Right. It's something that I've asked my staff to look into. I think we are working with a dated financial system. It dates from the 1990s and it does have some limitations, particularly when it comes to the reimbursable fund and amounts that are due to the city as a reimbursable. It's something that we can possibly spend time and resources on correcting in our current financial system, which is PeopleSoft, or it's something that we can try to address in the new financial system workday, which is scheduled to go live in July 2026.

So it's sort of a decision on whether we try to do something about it now, spend time and resources on something that will only have a limited window of benefit, or do we focus on how can we make the next system that will have for, what do you think, ten, twenty, thirty years more implemented with that system.

Mr. Chair? Alderman Baumann?

Who would you if we were to decide that we need a new cooperation agreement, Who would you see taking the lead in negotiating that? I mean, is that something your office would undertake? It's something the city attorney's office would undertake? Department of I mean, who do you see leading that effort in terms of reaching out to PACM, what's left of it, to reach a new agreement regarding to replace this twenty two thousand and four agreement, for example?

I certainly don't see the comptroller's office in a lead role. I mean, we'd certainly be happy to advise on anything, I and I can't say who, but I don't think that the controller's office would be best positioned

to Do you

think we should have a new agreement in place?

Well, I think, like city attorney Goyke had mentioned, I think having a better understanding of what the current agreement is, what all the provisions of the current agreement actually are might give us a better starting place. We might find that, hey, maybe with a few tweaks, this can make sense for us. Or maybe we look at it and say, well, this no longer makes sense for the city. We need to revisit it. So, I think gathering that information and kind of level setting first might be a good first step.

Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Jackson's been in the queue.

My bad. No problem. Actually ran some of the questions anyway. The reimbursable fund. So who managed it? Like, I need to know who, where, when, why. Like, who manages it? When the last time it was audited? How many outside entities access to it? And what's the plans for?

Sure. So the reimbursable fund, I would say that our office monitors the reimbursable fund. It's less of something that one department has ownership of. I mean, really, it's the responsibility the of every department that charges to the reimbursable fund to follow-up and make sure that charges that are charged to the reimbursable fund are actually made whole. As far as the number of external parties that charge to the reimbursable or that have amounts due to the reimbursable fund, I'll have to follow-up with you on that.

I can provide a list to the best extent that we can. I do know there are some issues again, is a financial system limitation where the information that we're able to pull from the system is only as good as the information that was originally put into the system. So there are some limitations that we face there. But I think the working with the departments that that incur those charges in the first place, we might be able to get a better handle on that.

So for instance, like APS, it's a city entity but they're their own silo. They got access to the reimbursable funding bank?

It's the only, I guess, access to the reimbursable fund. It might not be the right way to put it. I would say if the city chooses to charge something to the reimbursable fund, then the agency or the external party that received those services would I mean, they'd be paying the city, but they wouldn't care or know whether it's to the reimbursable fund or to the general fund. That's more of a an Us thing than a than a them thing.

Looks like our miscellaneous type deal.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean I mean, really, it's just it's something that's intended to to balance out to zero at the end of the day.

I have to let you know that me and Bob, after our meeting, after our last meeting, you raised a lot of questions, a lot of doors as far as as you mentioned a new accounts receivable person. I got I have received a list of all the outside entities that we're paying, the total to the amount of $392,000,000. So like Cohn Law Firm, 12,000,000 that we paid to them as outside entity. I'm not saying that's one year. It's probably like over the course of the contract, maybe five or six years. But I know personally that or people that have called my office, when they go to Cohn Law Firm, they get a receipt. Cohn Law charges $25. Now that has nothing to do with us. That's just them charging what they charge. And when your tax are paid off, it's not an automatic update to our system.

You have to get the receipt, have to take it to the courthouse to get all these things. You know I mean? So bring us on this stuff back in house. I think it'll stop the gouging towards our citizens and bring some of that money back internally.

Yeah. And I think there's there's still a role for a collections agency. I think they have access to tools and they have the expertise that perhaps somebody in house might not have. But I think that's good to still have that as a backstop, as an option after our collections manager would make efforts to to collect.

But yeah. But how do I explain to miss g because it's paying our taxes? And she called me like they charged me $25 for receipt. Like, well, that has nothing to do with us at all. That's just the entity that we hire that's gouging the citizens. That's all.

Yeah. I mean, that might be something

And and

that's not even for this. That's just something to look into.

That's Right. Yeah. Something in the if that is something that's in our current current agreement with Cohen Law Firm, I suppose that would be something to look into.

Just one quick question. Who decides at one point this money is owed and we're going to write it off? So not gonna get it. We're we've decided we're never gonna collect this amount of money. We're gonna write it off. Who makes that decision?

So write offs are intended to flow through the judiciary and legislation committee if they're above a certain threshold, and I think that threshold is is $5,000. But I I I have double to check with you on that but there are instances of write offs where it was something that was not supposed to be billed in the first place so if there was an error in billing then those are written off administratively. But if it's something that is was intended to be collected, that should flow through the judiciary and legislation committee.

And just and maybe the city attorney can answer that. Is there a time limit on that? Or is it it doesn't matter if it's ten years old? The judicial legislature committee can decide we want our mine.

And there is a general statute of limitations for collecting certain debts on general contracts at six years. I think parties can build into a contract different terms. Reading the 2004 agreement, we don't have anything more specific that directs exactly what happens in this circumstance. So to the best review we've been able to do before today would be that six year timeframe that's in state statute. And I'm listening to the comptroller, we certainly will help to get to the bottom of this.

As far as I as long as I've been in office, we've not seen any files come before the Judiciary and Legislation Committee regarding relieving or not collecting on old debts.

Yes. Was going to Mr. Sheriff, I was going to mention that. I have never seen a file regarding the write off of debt come before the committee ever.

I think

that's So who who does the the writing off debt? So is that your decision, your offices, is it the department?

No. And I think that's part of the reason why that outstanding receivables report is, you know, the amounts that you see are are large because they're not they're just they're out there. Sitting out there. Not They're not

just not collected. Now It could be defunct entities. It could be nonexistent people.

Sure. Now, I do a company is not very is And we're And do past. A couple questions.

Of massive hit to our fund balance. We have been reserving for it. Now

we if we collect on those amounts, then that could move out of the reserved and into the unrestricted. So we have kind of a safeguard in place for that.

Okay. And then can since it's on paper with DCD, can DCD decide we're going to stop payment, we're going to lay off these positions, we're not getting reimbursed for them? Does DCD have any authority?

I'm assuming that if they don't have oversight, they don't have authority, but I probably wouldn't be the best person to answer that question.

And how would you know offhand how many departments have this pass through of we're paying and the general stabilization fund at the end of the year will try to make us whole or these amounts just keep going up or there's departments that have anything on paper that come through their departments?

There are other departments that have external reimbursables for positions within their departments. Now I don't know of any others where there's this same type of arrangement where they're technically on paper within a department but they don't have oversight over those positions. But there's departments where positions will do work for an external agency and will charge salary to the reimbursable fund with the expectation that but I don't have a comprehensive list of those

Because you only monitor it, right? Correct. Mr. Chair. Okay. Elder, one more.

I just wanted to just provide some clarity just for folks that are watching and that, you know, I don't have a lot of reporters calling me. So, you know, for the for the report that you put together, mister Christiansen, it's called the outstanding receivables report and this is available online, correct? Is this inform was this uploaded to today's meeting?

I believe so. It's not on file. No. We'll make it part of the file. Okay. The agreement's part of the file but not this.

But not okay.

So We'll make it we'll make it part of the file.

That that would be fantastic if we can because I just wanted to provide some clarity that, you know, I I know Hakam was under a lot of scrutiny for the total of $5,100,000. However, you know, just looking at page three of of the report, just even just again, it goes from 2019 to 2023 but if I look at 2023, it says like parking citation, 41300000.0 that's outstanding. Municipal court, dollars 20,300,000.0. Current delinquent taxes, 19.2, etcetera, etcetera. So just for clarity, Hakim isn't the only entity that owes the city money.

Right. I think that's fair to say.

That's all I wanted to share. Thank you so much.

Sure. Yeah. And those larger amounts are probably individual residents in our city that add up to that.

No. Absolutely. I just just want to provide some context because our 5.1 compared to the over the course of the last, you know, five years, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are still owed. Yes, Hakam definitely has responsibility for its obligation but I just wanted to put it in context with the the receivables that have been past due for other entities.

Yeah. And even and I agree with you all the more and and even more importantly, the fact that we didn't know about the money's owed. I mean, your CFO who's done an awesome job these last couple of months has really brought the everything to bear, put it on the table and commingling of the Section eight funds. Yet, he didn't know about this amount of money because I think it's on our end on the city that we're not being transparent about the money so with this reimbursable account.

Yeah. And I think it's probably deeper than that with just Probably. You know, leadership. Within HACCUM, we've gotten a completely almost new board except one individual. We're hoping to get two more individuals onto the board to have a full functioning board.

Leadership matters. I tell that to people all the time from the top down and the bottom up. It it really really matters and so, you know, we're we're fixing a lot of the you know, inadequacies that have been a part of Hackam for decades. And so those are the things that we'll continue to work on and, you know, I appreciate the control of city attorney and the support from city staff to to support us in getting us where we need to be. Thank so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oliver Spiker.

Shifting back just very briefly on the idea of, each having each department conduct its own collections versus, having a collection czar as it were at the city who's kind of overseeing that. I think it might be useful to look at an old recommendation from the outstanding debt task force. It might be seven to ten years old now. It's an old one. But there was a live discussion around that point and how we compare with other cities.

So it might be useful to have your staff take a look at that. Just wrapping my head around this, one thing you said earlier caught my ear and when I came into this meeting I thought, has the city been indirectly subsidizing HACM out of the general fund? And it sounds like given your explanation in terms of unreimbursed reimbursables, not exactly is the answer to that?

Not yet. I guess if these amounts are ultimately uncollectible, then the answer would be yes. If the amounts are eventually satisfied, then the city would not be.

Right. But if we think of it in terms of the city's exposure of Hackamore to go to Ballyup tomorrow, then we'd have $3,600,000 in uncollectible

debt. Right.

And furthermore, the fact that we haven't received a payment on this debt since 2021, is it fair to say then we've been basically floating HACM in interest free loan for the services of these employees during that time?

Arguably, yes.

Okay. Just trying to get my head around how to characterize this for the general public. So thank you.

Any further questions? Okay. Hearing none, thank you. Well, I think this body and lots of council members have a follow-up to do with some legislation moving forward. So I appreciate your suggestions or recommendations on that.

With that said, Alderman Spiker moves to the hold to the call of the chair, item number 1241643. Hearing no objection so ordered. Moving on to item number two, file two four one five nine zero, resolution relating to the status of housing authority of the city of Milwaukee and this is a resolution just codifying the communication between our leadership and the HACM leadership to come biannually and talk about the status of affairs at HACM, which include public safety and the finances and the recovery plan. And we just wanted to get this in a resolution. We look forward to the March meeting.

I think this helps set the table a little bit for that March meeting and I look forward to that communication. And I want to thank Chairwoman Haslett for her communication and her openness and willing to tie in together the city and Hakim as we move forward together and look forward to the March meeting and the report. And with that said, Alderman Baumann moves adoption of item number 2,241,590. Hearing no objections so ordered, the following and funded position citywide and the value value of of these these positions. All the room is Samaripa moves to place that on file.

We'll do them all together.

You can do like that.

Just read the file numbers. Alright. I'll just read the file numbers. Item number four, file two three zero two five eight communication relating to the permitting fees charged by the board of zoning appeals. Item number five, file 230260 communication from the department administration, budget, and management system relating to the city's current budget shortfall and the sufficiency of a recently proposed increase in shared revenue and the proposed sales tax to cover this shortfall.

And item number six, file two three one three four two, communication from office of African American Affairs and the office of early childhood initiatives relating to their work and collaboration. All the owners on Maripa moves to put these to place these on file as no longer needed. Hearing no objections to order, then there'd be no further Nope.

I think she wants to.

Stop. I

move to reconsider item two.

Thank you.

Good morning. Hold a second.

The motion by Alderman is to reconsider item number two. There being no objections so ordered.

Thank you. Good morning. Commissioner with the Department of Neighborhood Services. We just reviewed the file. We have not a lot of questions.

We have been doing biannual reports on HACM and our special assignment of inspections. Our department do have questions in regard the statement that the development, the Department of Neighborhood Services shall establish a quality index for each property controlled by Hecam and report on the performance of Hecam properties in this index. We're doing some research most of this time. I would just like to have a better definition of what equality index the common council is looking for. From my own experience in public housing, this is more like a hot index.

There are different type of index and it's based on units, the amount of properties, and it's a calculation that is done. So before we pass this, I just really wanted a little bit of clarification on this one side and what DNS is supposed to be doing as a role.

Okay. Right now, all the orders you have written up for Hakim properties in the land management system? Correct. And then the quality index for each do you have a report on each of the properties as you have or or do you just write those up and put em into the.

So, we have different ways of doing our quality assessments for the properties. We don't have don't have an index role right now, but what we do is our life safety inspections annually. We can definitely do a really robust report on the orders and the type of orders and anything else, the quality index is a little bit harder in regards of like the calculations and the ratios. Again, this is a very hot to inspire. Usually, HACAN should be receiving this kind of reports. We're here to collaborate but I really want a little bit of guidance on the expectation from D and S perspective.

Okay, can maybe we could talk offline and tweak that before council day.

I would love that.

Okay. Alderman Jackson. Hello. Hi. Real quick. So, when you do operations as far as the hacking properties or somebody complain, we send it over to you. You guys show up and went realize the hacking property. So, do we still pay for that as a city or do you have a special billing to act?

I do not have a billing to hack em.

Oh, okay. That's all.

Okay. Any other questions?

Police department wants to weigh in too.

Okay. Thank

you for your time this morning. Heather Huff, chief of staff Milwaukee Police Department noted that there is a piece, within this resolution for the Milwaukee Police Department to also provide a report. It's very broad. It says for Hackham properties and would like a little more information about what this means for the Police Department as well. Again, we obviously want to collaborate with the council, but one of the issues we have is if this is a requirement for us to pull something every six months for all Hakim properties which is over 4,000, it may be a It's 4,000 what? Properties.

Their units are not 4,000.

Correct. But for our purposes, the data are attached to the address

and at one address it could be several calls for service. Correct?

Correct. But the issue for us is getting every six months from HACC a full report out of their portfolio. We then our own map analysts will have to make the addresses formatted in a way to be able to do a poll and then understanding from the council what type of data you're looking for because CADs altogether is one thing, nuisance CADs are another. There are some nuances and distinctions. Would like to have some information from the council on what they're seeking from the police department as well to determine whether or not we can do that or if we can work together to figure out a better way to report that our team could accommodate.

So for instance, we've had MPD pull up calls for service at Hakim properties. We've seen those reports. Have you seen those in the ones that have been pulled up for?

We have not had a request for a pull for all Hakim properties.

Okay. Then, all in rebuttal?

Yes. I think she raises a good point but it's a theoretical point. I think what we are looking for are the multiunit buildings which narrows it down to maybe 15 addresses. We really I don't think we are interested in scatter site Heckem properties, Section 8 recipient properties. I think we are looking at the big high rise buildings and then the big sprawling at least as to the high rise building.

Now there it may be complicated when you get into West Long where there are individual addresses in a big complex. For my purposes, I'm I would be interested in three properties. College Court, Condon Hill, and Highland Gardens. And they have addresses. So that would be easy.

If they ask is, we will provide a specific number of addresses for your team to pull data, absolutely. We do that all of The the issue for us is in seeing this file, it didn't specify that and the 4,000 was just a monumental task for data analysts.

Mister Is that what you thought we were going to do, 4,000?

It says to Hackham Properties, so just wanted the clarity.

Okay. I'll let her know more.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Quick question, Heather. When because I know Hackham also has its own public safety division. And so can you just explain to us real briefly if a call is made into our, you know, data system, you know, our 911 system? Is it then forwarded depending on the type of call it is? Is it then forwarded to the Public Safety Division of HACAM or how does that work?

Sure. So they have their own security and management of that. If there is a crime that occurs or victimization or a need for police services, we always say to every resident of the city, contact the Milwaukee Police Department across the board. Hakim also, I believe, has a policy and they could speak to it more, but they request that their security team also be notified if an incident does occur. We meet regularly with HACM Security at the public safety reviews which occur every week.

They're part of that team of individuals who meet and discuss issues. But, you know, for all incidents, we say contact the Milwaukee Police Department and I can't speak intelligently as to the protocol that HACM has in place for triggering the use of their security.

Thank you so much.

So considering you meet with them how often? Through the public safety?

Well, we meet regularly. So they are part of the entities that come to the table for the public safety review, which happens on an annual basis for critical incidents that happen in the city. If a HACM property is involved, they send a representative from their security team to discuss what occurred, next steps, etcetera, for those weekly meetings. We encourage council members to participate in those conversations and attend those meetings as well. But it's not every week that they come. It's dependent on what incident we're discussing.

So the last year how many times have they been in the table to discuss this incident?

I don't have an accounting of how many incidents were discussed that occurred at Hakim properties.

Okay. You want us to know that they are at the table, but the only participation is when something happens at a Hakim property that rises to that level?

Well, the public safety review is something that the police department participates in on a weekly basis and it's not limited to HACM properties. It's all critical incidents that may occur across the city that there could be next steps involved in terms of abating any ongoing issues that could stem from that incident. So, you know, there are a lot of different people that may come to the table on a weekly basis.

I'm trying to figure out why you mentioned this weekly meeting and HACM if you're not really sure how often they participate in?

Question was posed, Alderman, how we work with their security. So I was just giving an example of one of the ways that we do have these conversations with their security.

Have there been any recommendations made to HACM based on your communication or collaboration with them?

I am happy to go back and ask the team what occurred and what next steps were based on those public safety reviews that they were involved in, but I don't have that information at the ready today.

So we worked with the police department and got a legal opinion saying that it was possible to nuisance Hackham for excessive calls. Correct?

For substantiated calls for service related to nuisance activity, yes.

Have you done that? Have you nuisance them at all?

To date, we have not. Our involvement with HACM properties generally results in a conversation where their security team works with us to abate the nuisance. The Milwaukee Police Department doesn't utilize the nuisance ordinance as a punitive measure. Our ultimate goal is to get problem properties and issues at problem properties abated. So if we have landlords or management companies that come to the table and take steps necessary to abate nuisance, generally we don't activate the nuisance designation or ordinance to get to those punitive levels.

But is the police department obligated to put a nuisance status or requirement on a property if several calls are substantiated within a certain time period?

There is no obligation. And particularly if a landlord is working with the police department to put things in place to abate nuisance, we certainly wouldn't trigger that nuisance designation. It's the ultimate responsibility of each district captain to make those determinations on those properties within their districts.

So it depends how bad of a situation it is or if the public believes it is or citizens believe it or is on all the person believes it is?

It depends on how responsive a property owner is to abate nuisance activity.

Okay. So just to be clear, if the police department is doesn't have a relationship or working with a landlord, then there's enough calls for service, then the nuisance abatement automatically kicks in?

No. We generally try to have that conversation before a nuisance designation is made. And if we don't have a relationship with a landlord, the nuisance ordinance itself, the first step, is only a letter alerting a property owner that there are issues at the property and there are a particular set of steps that can be taken to abate that nuisance before it ever becomes punitive.

Okay. Any other questions by committee members?

Mr. Chair.

Aldo Hossema Aliba.

So I just wanted a clarification from the author. Are we going to revise this to just pertain to the high rises then?

Yeah. I think got to fine tune the multiunit buildings, not the scattered sites.

Okay. That will happen.

And Mitchell Court is in my district so that would satisfy me anyway.

Yeah. It's a repeat board in my district.

Right. But I did want to follow-up just with a couple of questions for MPS, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, for MPD. I understand about not wanting to put even more on the plate of MPD that is already stretched thin. But what about the Hakim's own public safety division? Can they do that work for you guys, pull those calls for service?

Not the police calls for service. They could certainly perhaps provide that I don't know what records they keep about incidents that are reported to them. But in terms of the calls for service that come in with a need for police services, that would be our we would be the custodian of those records.

Okay. But limiting it to those high rise buildings, does it seem more doable? Yes. And just the last comment I want to make, you know, Mitchell Court in my own district, we've had a lot of disappointing interactions with Hakim's own public safety division. So I really am looking forward to seeing this. Not much on MPD's end, but I want to make sure that HACM's own public safety division is holding up their end of the deal here in serving our constituents that live in these HACM properties. So I hope that we can move forward on this. Thank you.

Okay. With that said, I'll be in communication with both departments to figure out the correct amendment to the file by council time. So, that's my goal to get it done.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Any other communication, any other? Yes. With that said, Alderman Jackson moves adoption of item number two, file two four one five nine zero. Understanding we will tweak this by council time. Any objections that? Hearing none so ordered. We've already gone through the other files, and there being no further business before this committee, we are adjourned.