Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

2026. Thank you for being here. We have a full quorum, which is wonderful. And we are joined by the Vice Chairperson Alderman Peter Bergelis, Alderman Scott Spiker, Alderman Melele Coggs, and Alderman Charlyn Moore. That provides us the quorum to do the people's business today. Let's start out with item number one, which will be replaced by item number due to a request. We'll take five first and then go to item number one. Number five is 252161, reappointment of Ms. Molly King to the deferred compensation plan board by the mayor. Ms.

King, come on up and let us know why you'd like to continue serving on the deferred compensation plan board.

Well, first, thank you Madam Chair and committee member for taking up this reappointment and out of order. For the record, I'm Molly King, the city's benefit Director. And I have been I have had the honor to serve on this Board since 2018. Yes, I was only 15 when I started serving. But I've had the honor to serve on this Board since 2018 and it's the work that this Board has done from a time I've been the analyst in the budget office to the fiscal policy director in the mayor's office to now the benefits director, seeing the work and evolution throughout this plan has been an honor to be a part of it.

It went from, I remember, about 600,000 to over $1,000,000,000 today. So our employees are doing what financial well is that's important to our employees. So in my current terms, I've had the honor and privilege of serving as both the Executive Vice Chair for the Executive Finance Committee and the Executive Board with an amazing amount of partners within on that Board, a very smart group. I can't imagine serving with to keep you challenging and all the story stimulating. So I've had the privilege of serving with think, Mr.

Mahan, who is also up for reappointment today, have the honor to serve with him also on his Board. We've had some great work ahead of us. We were able to make decision on current programs that we're doing, current design and also the future strategic goal and plans for this deferred compensation plan that impact our members. Again, we want to make sure our member serve and work and retire with dignity, right? And so that is what this plan is all about.

And professionally, it's my role as again, as mentioned in the Mayor's office, budget office and now the Benefits Director has given me a strong foundation as a fiscal stewardship as an employee benefits and responsible governance. And I take right? Because I want to focus on making sure that this plan is well managed and working in best interest for the employees and the retirees. So with that, Madam Chair and committee member, I respectfully ask for your opportunity to continue serving on this deferred compensation board to better our employees and our retirees.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for taking up this extra work really. I mean, we all have many things that we do and don't have to sign up for these and it complements your work. Any discussions of this confirmation? So I'll move. Okay.

Quick question.

Alderman Moore moves confirmation of Ms.

King

and Alderman Spiker has a question.

Thank you for your service. Just wondering when did you start serving on the board?

Since 2018. Mayor Barrett has appointed me at that time.

And then for the mayor's office, guess the attendance record is based on since the last confirmation or?

The attendance record, I believe, is based on the last confirmation, which I think Ms. Beth is online. She was going to be here, but just for the record, I did ask what my attendance was in the last and I had one absent for the entire term.

Saw 1920 or something exemplary like that.

Yes. Okay.

No. Happy to support. Thanks.

Great. Thank you for your service. Confirmation has been moved by Alderman Moore. Discussion of the confirmation item five. Objections to confirmation. Hearing none, ordered. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move back to item one. We took for those listening in, took five out of order. Item 125195O. Communication from the office of the comptroller relating to the fraud, waste, and abuse hotline report for the for the year ended in 12/31/2025. We're trying something new. Were you surprised to see? Yes, we are. We put you at the beginning instead of the end. Very exciting. Is everybody excited? We're excited. All right.

Good. Got to do a vibe check. So with that, we will ask you to be succinct though as usual. And please begin and please introduce all these wonderful people you have with you here.

I'm Adriana Molina, Internal Audit Manager. And this is Liz Amahi. She is one of our auditors.

Nice to see you. Thank you.

Also works the hotline as well.

Oh, hotline. Great. Okay. We're ready

for it.

We'll just quick agenda. We're going to go over the executive summary, some background, where constituents can find the hotline or residence, total complaints, complaint types, actions taken and substantiated complaints.

Let's take over this first slide. So, yeah, the fraud hotline focuses on investigating fraud, waste, and or abuse of city resources. And so, just overall glance at 2025. The hotline received 83 complaints, which is up actually compared with 79 in twenty twenty four. And actually 14 of those complaints fell within the the hotline scope and were investigated and three were substantiated.

And we've noticed that abuse remains the common type of actionable complaint. And then just to give an overall background of the fraud, waste, and abuse hotline, It's basically to ensure, like, the integrity, accountability and public trust through timely investigation and resolution activities. And that's followed by, you know, appropriate steps in order implement preventative measures in response to the different allegations received. So and that's the far away from abuse hotline is actually regulated by the ordinance three hundred dash two four seven. And so just just the overall high level view of the different definitions or within what falls under this within scope of the hotline would be fraud, waste, and abuse.

And then continued would be some items that we do receive in the hotline that actually are not in scope, and that would include like service requests, you know, where people request for like sanitation collection or snow removal or they need to be referred to like UCC. It could be non city complaints that we need to refer to either government or external agency. And then some complaints we receive insufficient information, which means that they lack enough information to categorize the complaint and investigate. So we sometimes don't even get enough contact information to risk to follow back on those communications. Mister chair?

Alright. Yeah, let's I'll

take a

question from. Just just really just really quick. So, you all regardless of where these buckets fall in, you all log every complaint that comes into the hotline.

Correct. Except where there are times where it's like if there's a voicemail that we can't make out Sure. The conversation, then we wouldn't log those. But anything else aside from that, yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

Okay. And then we can move on to where to find the fraud hotline information. You can actually find it on Google. You can Google in city of Milwaukee fraud hotline, and we're listed along with the actual extension of the fraud hotline. And then it gives people, residents, a way to call or email.

We are also located in the official website of the city of Milwaukee in the Find It Fast section. And also lastly, we're also the fraud hotline information is available on the actually in the controller's webpage. So those are different areas where we're located and we can be found for people to submit. Awesome.

So now we're going to go through some statistics from 2021 to 2025. Total complaints, as mentioned before, was 83 for 2025 with 14 actionable ones. Web was the most common form of contact. So as Liz mentioned, residents can contact via email, web form, phone. There are times that we'll get an actual paper copy but those are very few and far between.

Next, the complaint types. These are the definitions that Liz just touched on. You can see that twenty one percent of the total complaints fall within abuse related to either personal use of property as well as employee conduct. There's also non city issues that would not fall to within the city of Milwaukee. Examples would be anything that we would refer to NPS or maybe the state.

Service requests would be ones that we can refer to either DPW, potentially DNS, depending on the department that the complaint is related to. And then finally, there, like mentioned before, there are some where there isn't sufficient information for us to follow-up on.

Madam chair? Alderman Moore? Can you talk a

little bit about just giving me an ex when you say the term employee conduct. Are we talking about there's a supervisor that's treating someone indifferently? Like what do you mean? What does this mean when you say employee conduct?

It's the whole gambit. So we there's been the most probably common is where residents would know if there was a DPW employee possibly sitting in their DPW issued vehicle. So they're trying to figure out why they're sitting there. And there are those get referred in investigation. Sometimes it's warranted. Sometimes it's not employees are they can take breaks. There are other times that we'll get internal employee requests where maybe an employee feels like somebody's getting treated differently. Those types we typically defer to DER and then they perform an investigation.

Got it. Thank you. Okay.

Complaint types by year from twenty one twenty twenty one to 2025. Again, the most common type of complaint is abuse, misuse, and misappropriation of assets. There were 17 abuse two fraud and four waste and inefficiency. You could see that there was a spike in 2023. In May 2022, the fraud hotline reporting link was added to the click for action page.

So that's where we're attributing a spike that drove the complaints high higher. And then in September 2023, that link was removed from that website due to the significant amount of service requests that were just not related to the hotline. Then you could see a drop off in '24 but then all were just more consistent. So to us it's the complaints that are coming in are truly within the scope of the hotline. Investigation referrals by department.

Again, DPW used to be the highest one and then after '24, you could see the different referrals that we have just level off. DPW investigation referrals by complaint type. From 2018 to 2025, you could see the different kinds, abuse, fraud, waste and inefficiency. We are attributing to several factors being the effectiveness of click for action which is helping DPW resolve some of the issues and preemptive preempting residents to complaints to the hotline as well as DPW management has sustained their success in addressing employee behaviors that may lead to complaints. Substantiated complaints.

In 2025, DPW had two substantiated complaints and MHD had one substantiated complaint. Substantiated by type, abuse, as mentioned before, continues to be the most common type of substantiated complaint and there were no cases of waste or fraud. Looking ahead, in 2026, we plan to continue expanding collaboration with local and regional partners to strengthen referral pathways and improve coordination. Examples of this is we have had conversations with the county, the Milwaukee County hotline where they've reached out to us or we've reached out to them to see they've had upticks in specific type of fraud or waste and abuse that they've seen. So we continue to have keep those communication lines open.

We also continue fraud training within the team to take to stay current on what is going on in the fraud world. And then we continue to ask the alders to show or let residents know where they can reach the hotline whenever they they feel like there's a need to to file a complaint with us. And that is all. Any questions?

Thank you for that. Any questions from committee members?

Mr. Chair? Alderman Spiker. So sometimes complaints come in through the separate city clerk inspector general's office. Do you have any way of collecting those or reflecting those in the report as well?

So we had a conversation with the inspector general earlier this year just to understand the process that they have for the hotline. Right now, we don't there's no I guess we don't we're not privy to what she puts out. She did mention that there's reporting or that she does on her own but right now there's no connection of those. What we that's another communication line that we're trying to keep open of things that she sees or maybe she would refer to us. But right now we don't see any of her reporting and we, at least since I've been here, we haven't gotten any referrals from her to us.

Okay. So there's in this report there's not a reflection of that work being done. It's completely fragmented at this Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any more questions? Sorry for going in and out. I had a little technical issue. Any other questions then on Item one, the communication from Office of Controller? Madam Chair? Yes. Alderman Moore.

And we typically put this out once a year as far as the numbers.

Yep. On our website, within the controller's office, there's a fraud website and our internal audit. You'll see all the reports dating back to like 2018, 2017.

And then and folks can remain anonymous?

Yes. Yep. So that is part of our the ordinance that we have a way to help folks stay anonymous and we do track that as well and we try to the best of our ability to keep that. Okay.

Yeah and I would just add on to that that folks can choose to remain anonymous and and we'd certainly, know, encourage somebody that does want to remain anonymous to report things, but it does sometimes make it a little bit more challenging to do follow-up when they don't leave contact information. So we can have them remain anonymous while still collecting contact information. So we do maintain that confidentiality. It's just they can feel free to share their contact info with us and still remain anonymous. I think that's something important to for people to know.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay.

Any other questions on item one? Okay. Seeing, hearing none. Well, we had confirmed here but just receive and place on file,

right? Yep.

Okay. So Alderman Berglis moves to receive and place on file this communication file and hearing no objections so ordered. Thank you. You. Thank you.

We

can't promise it every time but it was a good feeling. I have to mix it sometimes, you know? Take it. All right. Okay, item two, two hundred sixty thousand and four. Appointment of Mr. Jerry Allen to the employees retirement system annuity and pension board committee by the common Council President. Come on up. How are you doing?

Well, good morning, manager.

Doing okay? Yeah. Good for you.

Good to see you. Good morning.

So what brings you to continue what has been many years service now on the ERS annuity and pension board. Please let us know why you'd like to continue to serve. Sure.

As most of you may know, I did retire at the beginning of this year and I wanted to continue to serve both for personal and community service reasons. On the personal side, I would like to stay engaged. The pensions seem like adult subject to lay people but it's actually very compelling. They're different. It's people, money and ideas in a different order every single day.

So that's on the personal side. On the community service side, I don't think I have to tell anybody here that we live in perilous times, both economic and political and geopolitical for that matter. Our city and our plan face a lot of challenges. I spent eighteen years as executive director and in that time, what I tried to do is harmonize the interests of the city and its taxpayers and our members. Now as a plan officer and as certainly as a trustee, we were sworn to look out solely for the interest of the members and beneficiaries.

We have to look out part of that is making sure that our plan sponsor continues to be healthy. As my old boss, Wally Moore used to say, the former long serving comptroller, long run, the interests of the city and the members are the same. They don't diverge. In the short term, however, they can diverge. I'm sure you're all aware of that anytime

you come

to a budget discussion. And so I spent a lot of time trying to harmonize those interests, working with the council, working with the administration, working with the budget director. And these are tough times and I want to help look out for everybody, including myself because I'm a beneficiary of this plan now. But I have a lot of friends and this is an important city. It's really an incredible city. And so I want to do my best to help make this continue to be a great success. And those are my principal reasons.

Okay. Well, I said it before and I'll say it again. I mean, the great service of people willing to serve during their tenure and after is a gift to the city. So we really appreciate it. You probably could be doing a million other things. So thank you for doing that and your expertise Thank an you. Yes, your expertise is invaluable. Confirmation is before us. Alderman Speicher, do you want to move confirmation?

Yes, Senator.

Okay. President Perez, you made the appointment.

Yes. I just wanted to thank Jerry considering he could do a million things that he decided to give of his time and talent. Rudy did retire who is a long standing member of the board and when this opportunity made itself available and Jerry was willing to serve, like was mentioned before, we really appreciate his service to the pension board and the expertise he gets to provide to all of us. Just want to say thank you and appreciate you serving.

Thank you for your kind Thank

Thank you Mr. Allen. Confirmation has been moved by Alderman Spiker. Additional comments or questions? Any objections to confirmation? Hearing none, so ordered. Thank you for your service.

Thank you.

We now move to item 3,260,005, reappointment of Deborah Ford to the Employees Retirement System and Annuity and Pension Board Committee again by the Common Council President. Ms. Ford, good morning.

Yeah, good morning.

Do you want to let us know briefly?

Okay. And I'm actually gonna be gone next Monday and Tuesday. And this week,

we'll be there for a months. Excuse me.

Tuesday. So we're

approaching that. Oh, okay.

Happens. I tried to do it before someone inadvertently said something. Okay. So which is always a fear, right? Part of that interruption, Ms. Ford, please let us know. Welcome, good morning, and why you'd like to serve on the Pension Board here.

I've been on the Pension Board since 2016. Yes. I came to the board after twenty plus years as the labor negotiator for the Milwaukee Public Schools and four as the labor negotiator for the city of Milwaukee. I'll admit I came with the personal interest of ensuring that some of the things we had negotiated stayed. Know?

But since I've been on the Board, I didn't know much about pensions, but I have really enjoyed the work, appreciated the work, understood the importance of the work. Yeah. As a beneficiary I'm retired. So as a beneficiary of a fulfilled promise Mhmm. From the WRS, I think it's really important that for people who spend their careers working for the city, taxpayers of the City Of Milwaukee, there's a promise out there that we are obligated to oversee and fulfill and protect the best way we can. I am also a City Of Milwaukee resident and taxpayer.

Thank you. So that

is not that always not that far from my mind because I want the city to continue to be a place people wanna live. So I've enjoyed the work. I continue to enjoy the work, and I like to continue serving.

Yeah. Just beautifully said. Thank you. Warms my heart. We love to we love people who love Milwaukee, so thank you for that so much. Elder Woman more will move confirmation then. President Perez, did you have anything to offer?

Yeah. Just wanted to thank her for her service. She's been invaluable, especially her experience in Doctor, employee relations, and especially with just being a labor negotiator at one time. Just you bring it all to the table and just thank you for your service appreciate you willing to serve again.

Yes. Thank you. Confirmation has been moved by Alderman Moore. Discussion of confirmation? Any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. Thank you so much. Thanks for your continued service item four two five two one six zero reappointment of Steve Mahan to the deferred compensation plan board by the mayor okay your reappointments before us. Mr. Mahan, got a lot going on. The new some new duties in in the recent year or so. So, what would what would you be interested in you know reappointment and serving in the reappointment?

Thank you, Chairman.

I'd say that perfectly well.

This has been, as many of the folks who have you've seen before come out, this is a labor of love and it's also a labor and a duty to the all the workers that are in this plan, which at this point in time is 91% participation rate in our deferred compensation plan, which of course is a voluntary four fifty seven b plan for our for our employees. I've I've been kind of blessed to have been part of this plan for if we take it from today, twenty two years, seven months. I was appointed by then mayor John Norquist. And this is not a this is one of those plans that, you know, even a committee or that is not is not paid. It is really making sure you do due diligence and have compliance and so that's what I've always been with the city of Milwaukee is working with compliance but also making sure in this plan that we're represented well.

So, since when I first started, this plan had a balance of $400,000,000 It's now at 1,300,000,000. We have one of the best plans in the in the nation. Wow. We have great leadership and a great board, and I just strive to continue to make it better because it's one of the fallbacks for our people. Mhmm. One of the last fallbacks. Mhmm. And we're blessed to have Yeah. Not just this plan, but also a pension. So

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Just would like to stay in in the steed and make sure we move forward.

I love it. Well stated about it being a fallback. I know recently it was offered to folks if they had any need during the floods that they could tap into that too. I know it's not always the first choice but it's good to know that there's something there. So, yeah, Alderman Moore?

Oh, no. I I, you know, these sorts of opportunities, particularly for our employees, are so crucial. I'm new to the city. So, you know, when I see all these little add ons, I'm just like, oh my gosh. I work for a really great place. And so thank you so much for your service. And, Steve, you can't be that old to to be been part of Northwest. Oh my gosh. Yeah. I was. You were a baby. It's alright,

you know.

At one point.

Okay. Thank you. Alderman Berglis.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'll move confirmation and ask to be recorded in the affirmative for the previous item.

Okay. No problem with that. Alderman Spiker.

Yeah. Just a quick question. So I did notice six meetings held since last reappointment. Ms.

King

had 20 meetings held since last reappointment. So why the discrepancy was the appointment that period time that much different?

Those are two different boards. Two different boards though.

Yes. Oh, we're still talking.

The Executive Exactly. Finance

She's a member of the Executive Finance Committee.

Oh, same board, two committees, yes.

Oh, these are different committees on the same board. Okay. Gotcha. That would be the explanation then. Thanks.

No, good question. Got to do our due diligence. Great. Confirmation has been moved by Alderman Burg Ellis. Any other discussion on confirmation of Mr. Mahan which is item four? Any objections? Hearing none so ordered. Thank you for your continued Thank you. Five, we did move up in order.

So we are now on to item six, two hundred fifty two thousand one hundred eighty eight, resolution authorizing the review enhancement and expansion of the Department of Employee Relations Mental EAP Health and Wellness Benefit program and I received I want to just get into the record that it was not ready to be filled and therefore hold to the call of the chair would be an appropriate motion. That's moved by Alderman Spiker. Discussion on hold to the call of the chair? Objections to hold the call of the chair. Hearing none so ordered.

That brings us to item number seven, two hundred fifty two thousand and forty seven, substitute resolution relative to the reallocation and expenditure of up to $617,215 of American Rescue Plan Act funds. So what we'll do here is I want to first kind of get our house in order. We have a number of substitutes. We'll first hear from the department and then per my email and per how we generally handle budget items when there's multiple substitutes, we'll do in the order of finance, meaning chair, vice chair, senior seniority. We will go through each substitute, happy to deliberate everything.

We have some people from different groups that would like to speak and we'll do the very best we can to get through each item. I do want to notify anybody that substitute B, I'm no longer offering. So we have substitute A, got some alphabet stuff. B is no longer being offered. I had C, I'm not offering that one. And we have D. So we have A and D. They have been provided in writing. I think that's really important. I would ask anyone speaking on these items to take a look. And we will go through them.

And just a note, sub D will be substituted with E momentarily.

Okay. So they'll no longer be D

is dead. Oh, okay. But you most of it will be resurrected in E.

Okay. And it will be written?

It is in the works right now.

Okay. Right. It must be written because we're dealing with money here. So that's fine. We've got time. We've got people to talk.

Madam chair?

Yes. Alder Woman Cox.

Before we begin, I just have a question just for my own clarity. Previously, myself and I know Alderman Chambers, who may be with us on the board, a sponsor with the support of the council legislation that said something to the effect of if there were ARPA dollars that were unencumbered left or became available after June, that that would be made known to the council for us to decide and deliberate on, you know, where it goes. Is I understand the file before us today and the substitutes and amendments people have for it. I guess I'm looking for the thought process between behind it coming to us in a file with suggested allocations already as opposed to as I I think I would have expected from the legislation just letting us know this is the amount and it is now available.

Oh, yes. Madam chair?

Madam chair, on that before we go further?

I don't even know who that is.

That is Alderman Chamberlain.

Oh, I'm sorry. Don't even see. Oh, there you are. Okay. I didn't see the Alderman Mark Chambers. You want to add to all the women cogs point

yes okay thank you good morning

I'm so sorry I see that

no you're fine and so all the women cogs point I actually codified after you know several moves that was made on that file. I actually codified it within the budget. I think the 2025 budget or the 2026 budget at the footnote. It could be 2526 budget as far as proper notification on any any overtures could be over to the council. Mhmm.

All the women Cox Point, I just want to I just want to add that that little piece to that. I'll looking forward to hearing it. Why we're at where we're at and why wasn't the full council made aware of the said funds where we can work at the collective.

Okay. Thank you for both of your questions that's a good way to kind of get us centered here before we go through possibly spending it. How did we get here? And you heard the request. Unfortunately, we've been here before and this kind of seems like a last minute and members felt like they had a policy of how we would be communicated with. So I'll give the floor to you, mister Higgins.

Thank you, madam chair, members of committee. The the last reprogramming that went through for ARPA and I I think that was right before the the deadline of the 2024 deadline. I I I would have to admit I was unaware that there was a a subsequent act by the council so that it would have to come everything would have to come to the council because the first reallocation of funds did get was supplied by the administration, but obviously subsequently changed and amended by by the committee and the common council. So I I think I was just unaware that the funding would have to come to the council in order for you to make those decisions without a request from the administration.

Okay. I'll go back to Alderman Coggs, but what I'm hearing is that I think members wanted to hear that there was money available before there was a simultaneous spending plan.

Understood.

And now we even have one up on that. Money is available. Administration has a spending plan and we've got three versions here. So

Two versions.

Right. Well, I'm opening up for whatever else might come. But Alder Romaine Cox, you still have the floor. I don't want to summarize, but I don't feel like we got well, the answer was basically there was no communication prior to the reallocation plan.

For the budget office, is that what was your answer?

I mean, it's been a while since I've reread the exact language in the ordinances, but don't think it explicitly said nor I'm not sure you could tell the mayor he's not allowed to have an idea. You're allowed to change his idea. You're allowed to say we don't like your idea. We'll spend it this way. That's what the subs are gonna do, but I I don't know if the mayor would be doing his job if he didn't have his own ideas.

I think much of the confusion as to

the

intent, the first go round was debated, discussed, and outlined in committee meetings and closed session and all of those things. So I just I'm a little disappointed that this wasn't handled in a way more consistent with what was what was discussed. Having said that, I think what we're gonna witness here today is a little bit of back and forth that I think had it been presented to us differently, could have been prevented, and and and maybe the timing of such could have also resulted in some different suggestions as well. I know that we're at the end of this ARPA thing. So I guess my next question is, besides this tranche today, is there any anticipation in a need to redirect any other funds before the end before 2026 is over?

Yeah. Alderman Cox, thank you for that question. I truly appreciate the other comments about that. Again, I I wasn't as involved in ARPA when those discussions were happening, so I truly apologize for not having that taking that path. So we are we will be continuing to look at how programs continue to progress for the year and we anticipate making some other or possibly making another recommendation towards the August, September timeline just to try to make sure that we can try to spend as many as much of the funds as we can.

We don't see that right now. All of the programs have given us pretty good indicators that they will be able to be on track. So but we will continue to look and see if anyone falls a little short to make sure we can try to get funds spent.

Thank you. And and, Mario, my apologies to you because I know we had some conversations a couple of days ago, but I really didn't think about the totality of all of this until the last twenty four hours.

Understood.

But I appreciate that you weren't as involved before or whatever. So alright. Thank you.

I really appreciate that clarifying, and it it's been a it's been a constant issue. Before I go to other questions because again, before we can even deliberate what's in front of us, we kind of want to understand. So every project that we may consider, all are righteous in their own way. A lot of work to be done in the city Milwaukee. Yeah. And clearly not enough funds. Must every dollar of it must be spent before the 2026, not encumbered but spent. Correct. And then I thought I understood. I'm not sure if this is a rule or a preference and chime in city attorney if you need to. That we would prefer to have projects that have been formally funded with ARPA dollars so you don't have to start the process over.

Correct.

Yeah. Like doesn't because if it wasn't, it'd be very hard to get this money out the door, if you will, by the end of the year. And if we don't get it out the door, you will lose it.

No, they need to be existing programs.

There we go. Okay. Okay. So I just want to make sure so everyone's got the same information. And that was understanding that I had. Alderman Scott Spiker.

Yes, kind of along the score that line of thinking. So in the requirement was the funds had to be encumbered by '24, right, and spent by '26. So then for a program to count, it has to be one of the ones that was encumbered by 24?

Correct. And the scope should also has to remain substantially the same as the language.

Okay. So I assume if we bring something Oh, I'm sorry.

Military arpetractor.

Thank you. If we bring something forward at the table then you all will flag it if it doesn't so qualify.

We will try.

And then for the $6.17 that got free wasn't being spent, were there particular programs where that was not spent down? So when you say you're going to take another look in August, are there certain programs that are kind of sticking out as, hey, we thought we were going to spend down a lot quicker and now it looks like we're not and that's why we're recommending reallocation? Not

yet. Some of the bigger accounts that are still open like health department but they've given us a monthly reconciliation Have they have a really good expenditure plan? So we feel pretty comfortable and confident that actually their the target goal is actually to spend down by October. So we don't come up against too close against the deadline.

I see. So the 06/17 then was aggregated a little here, a little there.

Yeah. Yeah. There's a bunch of projects who had most of them had closed out already completely and just had funds

on Gotcha. The

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. What I'd like to do now is get started. And we've got the background. From what I understand, there's currently two written substitutes, A, and then now there is an E that is being So I'd like to go in the order of A and E and we'll hear it out, we'll deliberate and go from there. I would like a friendly reminder for those viewing, for those deliberating that there's technically three proposals. There's the administration's proposal.

Correct.

Then there's substitute A and now there's substitute E. If any of these succeed or not, they'll likely be forwarded to the May 12, the common council where we can further deliberate. I just want to say time is of the essence because for us to have impact, know, there's only a couple months. We will now start with A. Alderman Spiker will offer substitute A. I'm the sponsor, but he's putting it in front of us. Is there any objections to this being before us? Hearing none, so ordered. So A is before us to consider. Because I'm chair, I will not advocate from chair, but I will just explain.

It's myself, Alderman Baumann, Aldersperson Samaripa. It's in the file. It is to have the full expenditure of $617,215 and it basically splits it in a way between two projects that were previously ARPA funded and two projects that I believe reach every part of the city of Milwaukee. They also have incredible data and return on investment. As you can see, it is $300,000 for the Bridge Project of which Zilber Foundation is a fiscal agent and they'll speak. And then we have 317,214 for Legal Aid Society for eviction free. So, at

this

time, briefly, those two groups, please come up. Miss Bishop, miss Foley, just if you want to speak briefly. So, eviction free Milwaukee was in the mayor's original plan and there would be a slight decrease in order to fund these two. We'll go the same process for substitute E as well. So let's go to Ms. Bishop and then Ms. Briefly, there is a memo in the file on the bridge project and if you can just explain to us, I know you had a testimony to share, now would be the time. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. I just do want to clarify the Zilber Family Foundation is not a fiscal agent. We are a funder and so the bridge project is its own five zero one c three. ARPA dollars initially went right to the bridge project. So I'm speaking on behalf of that program that we have funded. And I'm honored to share a statement from one of the participants this morning, Natasha. So I'll read that for you and then just offer a few comments. My name is Natasha.

I'm a mom of five with the oldest being 14 and the youngest being one. I'm grateful for the opportunity to share how the bridge project has impacted my life and the lives of my children. After the loss of my oldest children's father to gun violence in 2020, my life as I knew it took a sudden and devastating turn. I was left to care for my children, then ages eight, four, and 10 old while grieving and trying to rebuild. Overnight, my support system disappeared.

In the midst of that loss, I made a promise to myself that I would do whatever was necessary to create a stable, healthy future for my children and for myself. Although it was not an easy task, I mentally knew at times I had to try. At the time I was accepted to the Bridge Project, I was already enrolled in college working toward my bachelor's degree in public health with a focus on health sciences. Even with that determination, the weight of financial stress made it incredibly difficult to stay focused. I'm constantly faced with difficult choices between paying for rent, groceries, childcare, or allowing myself and my family to experience small moments of joy that bring comfort and connection.

The Bridge Project changed that in ways that go far beyond financial support. Receiving consistent monthly income gave me stability for the first time in a long time. Was able to pay my bills on time, keep food on the table without anxiety, and plan ahead instead of living day to day. Because of that stability, was able to continue pursuing my degree without the fear of falling behind or having to drop out. I stayed enrolled, remained focused, and began to truly invest in my future.

Beyond education, the Bridge Project created a sense of community and care that I did not expect but deeply needed. The impact of the program has been deeply felt in my home. It gave me the tools, support and confidence to rebuild after loss, continue education and step into spaces I once thought were out of reach. It reminded me that stability is possible and with the right support, families like mine can truly thrive. I share my story in hopes that more families will have access to this type of opportunity.

Investing in programs like the Bridge Project is not just about short term assistance, it's about long term impact, stronger families, and healthier communities. So I offer that as a testimony of some of the impact that this program has had. But the Bridge Project has made real impactful change for families in Milwaukee. As you saw in the memo, there's measurable impact in data to back that up with a 67% decrease in housing instability, really acting as eviction prevention, housing stability and, a safety net. And we know that the need isn't slowing slowing down.

We had over 1,000

applications And for the program's initial 122 spots. So we see this investment and the potential investment by the city as preventative spending that advances the city's goals directly specifically with the mayor's year of housing really working to prevent versus undo.

And I'm

just gonna grab a Kleenex. Thank you. And I just also wanna highlight that this is a rare opportunity to invest in a program with zero administrative overhead, or burden. There is a national funder who covers all overhead and administrative costs so that all dollars go directly to Milwaukee families, really maximizing return on investment. So when the city adds its voice to that dollars, it signals to other funders that the community that to the community that bridge is a serious and durable program.

I would also just offer that Milwaukee is a leader and you all were part of that, making this a true public private partnership. Other cities have followed suit in New York City, Cook County, Richmond, and Saint Paul, all adding public dollars to unconditional cash programs. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your past investment. The impact is truly felt and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner? Yes. I just want to ask one question so it's clear is this is a new cohort of 200 Milwaukee moms that Zilber will be contributing $3,000,000 to. Yes. Is that

The goal is 200. Zilber has committed 150 to 150 of that So we're working to fill the gap because we know that the need is there. Okay. And 100%

Milwaukee residents. Yes. Alderman Meely Cox. You

said 150 of that? What do you mean?

So the initial program served 122 moms. We're coming up on the second year of the program and so planning for the next cohort of 200 moms. The Zilber Family Foundation has committed funding to 150 of those. So there's a 50 participant gap that we're working to fill because we know that the need is there.

And this money could help fill that? Yes. And it would be expended?

By the '26.

Okay. How many funders is it of the bridge program?

Nationally,

I would

say I don't I would have to check with the Bridge project, but every city, there's a local sort of anchor sponsor and other funders. The Monarch Foundation is the foundation that funds sort of the back office and administration. In Milwaukee, after the city's investment, an anonymous donor also contributed. We are working with other donors this time to potentially contribute. So I would say there's 10 cities. Each city probably has about three, so at least 30 other donors and other municipalities as well.

So for Milwaukee, though, is the national donor taking care of the administrative stuff? Is Zilber is the city and an anonymous donor? For the first

yes. For the first cohort.

And you said for the second cohort, is Zilber if we do this, it'll be the city. And you're looking for more?

Yes. Yep. We're in active conversations.

Alright. Thank you.

Great questions. I'll just add that I I struggle knowing that there was thousands of moms that applied and qualified. Milwaukee moms that made under $35,000.39, yes. That were actively pregnant at So that it's a lot to think about. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

So for the 50, how much is it per?

It's about 20,000 per mom over three years.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Alderman Alderman Chambers, I see you. I'm still in committee but I will come to you. So hold on one moment. After we conclude on Zilber, we'll go to eviction which is evict free which is also in other amendments. So we'll just kind of go through it like that. Alderman Spiker.

Thank you. Thanks for the testimony. So with the last cohort, it was 122 spots for a three year period. Yes. Correct? And can you remind me of the city's contribution towards that?

350,000.

350,000. So this new cohort would be separate individuals, obviously pregnant mothers from Milwaukee. Zilber has committed $3,000,000 to get $150,000,000 Ideally, it would get up to 200,000,000 in the second cohort. So there's, by my math, dollars 1,000,000 that would be required to that. And the city would be contributing 300,000,000 of that $1,000,000 And the idea would be, one, it would show well, it would do good.

But moreover, it might spur local donors or give some sort of impact and surety to would be donors that, look, there's the city putting their money behind that. So is that accurate? Yes,

that's accurate. Okay. It's for and catalyze additional investment.

And then, you know, problem won't go away when the ARPA dollars do. So do we have any concerns given that this is a one time tranche of money that this will just be something for the next cohort but it's not a durable plan from the city's perspective at least?

Is there concern about that?

Yeah.

I think there is always opportunity to revisit in the future and we have models from other cities in terms of how to structure that potentially from the general budget or if there was continued interest. But I think I would be you know, we'd be open to those continued conversations.

Okay.

And just responding to the opportunity that is in front of us now.

Yes. And I mean, Chair Dmitryovich has been a strong advocate, but the administration, I don't think has put forth proposed ARPA allocation for this. So if we're looking to future budgets, there hasn't been that commitment to that on the administration side. It sounds like it's been council driven.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I just want to see if there's any other committee questions on bridge project then I'll go to Alderman Chambers and then we'll go to Vic Free. Alderman Chambers was your question on the bridge project?

Yes madam chair

and thank Yes

please. So I just want to get clarification when when this came up in 2024 the original pilot program of the bridge project was from zero to two years old correct.

I can make the so when the Zilber Family Foundation initially funded the program, we funded the first two years with the hope that we would, you know, find funding for the third year. And so with the city's investment and the additional anonymous donor, the program was fully funded for three years.

Correct. So, because because the driver at that time in 2024 was the city's contribution was to fund year three of said program. And members may recall that that was a gushing at that time. The inception of 2024, once you receive the the $350,000 until the recent report which was I think July 2025. At that time, you spent roughly $57,000 of sale ARPA dollars.

Now, I think you spent I think mister director Higgins, can you confirm the amount are spent from that program?

Thank you, Alderman Chambers. It looks like they've drawn down $207,000 today.

Okay. And then this this one will and this will give an additional 300 should this amendment pass. So, I guess the question is going off what was said in 2024 that the initial investment was to fund year three of this half

think

very that's

The

city that's that's funds one. Were positioned a to point. Go first. And so the bridge project with the city's funding plus the addition of the anonymous donor expanded it to 122 moms. It was initially 100 and so they are on track to fully expand that initial funding plus this initial or this proposal. Right and the new 300,000 is for a new group of 200 moms and I think

the Alderman wants to know that can we support those 200 moms in these next couple months and when you have cash stipends going out to that many people you're saying the answer is yes yes yeah

Well, not just that, madam chair. I guess where I'm confused is that when we first had these conversations in 2024, it was under the expectation that our that the private donation will be used first and there are funds will cover year three. And now it seems that as if that this has changed and that now the city dollars have been used because that one was that one was brought to me when we had this first discussion, and I think that's what was testified at the table, the first tranche that we gave to the bridge program. So the bridge project. So I I just trying to I guess what I'm just trying to get clarification on is what would change.

And now we're active. Now we're trying to do a new cohort of of individuals, and we got six months to these funds. I I I just I'm just trying to understand the the logic of of doing it. I understand the importance but I'm just trying to understand the logic because it seemed like we completely veered off from what was initially stated to this council back in 2024 to draw up a new plan and this is the first time of us hearing a new plan that we know, oh, we're using these dollars first as opposed of what was brought to it back in 2024.

Because of the timeline of those dollars, that was the requirement to be able to expend them by 2026. And so it expand it allowed expansion of the program to three years. Without that, you know, those dollars, you know, would end at year two. So I, you know, I appreciate your question and we'll need to clarify sort of what that initial conversation looked like, but the city's investment allowed the expansion to year three but needed to get those dollars out the door by the 2020

I'm sure. Okay.

I think I have one question. Have to finish up. Thank you, madam chair for giving me the revenue. What was the initial plan in 2024? Zero to two from zero to two prior to- the city's contribution and the- anonymous donor what was. The amount of families that were looking to be served- under the initial bridge project with no other- contribution from the server project because they were foundation.

100.

So we so with the $350,000 we only added 22?

We added 22 in a year of the program.

I guess where I'm at, why we just didn't keep it to zero to two and to add more families with the dollars?

The Bridge Projects program is a three year program. And so that's not something that we would change. Their model is three years because of the data that supports zero to three and child maternal health. So we followed the model, the vetted and researched model that the Bridge Project proposes.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you,

Thank Madam you.

Great questions. Great questions. Mr. Higgins wanted to add since they are handling the administration of this funding.

Yes, manager. So, yeah, I recall some of the discussion around actual or in theory funding a year three. I do not recall saying that or anyone saying that we could only fund it in year three because obviously that would have been outside of the ARPA timeline. So when we paid out would be irrelevant, so to speak, up until the obviously the expiration of ARPA. So, we have been paying out. It's really just formula based. I mean, we can use our dollars first, last. We didn't make a distinction.

Right. Yeah. Before I go, we have another question by Alderman Bergelis. Just please, if you haven't looked at the memo, the heat map of the the moms who received the funding and again, I think the most outstanding is the last attachment of the moms that not only applied but actually qualified, but we didn't have the funding on this upstream solution to eradicating childhood poverty. That's what I'm drawn to here. I think it will make our work easier as the city. Alderman Bergelas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And should is the bridge project only able to accept 300 for the expansion before the end of the year or would a different dollar amount still be available and put to good use?

A different dollar amount would absolutely still be put to good use. I think working to fill that gap, that million dollar gap, but every dollar, goes directly towards the program. Per participant is about $20,000 over three years, is sort of the formula that the program supports. For every $20,000 that's an additional participant. All

Thank you. Other questions on Zilber Bridge project before we head to the second part of this substitute? There may be more so let's just hang out. My concluding brief remark is I do think this is about family stability. It's about family stability. You heard it from the testimony. You can see it from the data, and I believe that is what our city, one of the things that our city needs right now more than anything. We'll now move on to 307 for Zilber?

One more quick question.

Oh, sure. So before we go to the Evick Free Milwaukee, we'll go still questions for Zilbern Bridge. You can also still ask any of those during Item A. Aldrin Spiker?

So following up on some of the previous questions. So I guess the last one with Alder Berglis, if there were more investment by the city? Do you think the end result would be fewer participants in the cohort or just you'd fill in the dollars with private means anyway? What would be the end result if say 100 or 50 or something were in the investment instead of 300?

I don't know yet. I think we're going to continue to talk to other interested parties and work get to that to fill those additional 50 spots with funding, but we're not there yet. So the end we'll see, but again we're working sort of on every dollar counts and those contributions are valuable.

And to our earlier discussion of leveraging is you have more leverage with three hundred to say, look, the city is really invested here, they really believe in that as opposed to it being a much smaller amount that was invested?

Yes, absolutely. I think a continuation of that funding as there was two years ago signals commitment, leadership, investment absolutely.

And then the Elder Chambers raised the question kind of like why not do more people with a shorter timeline two years instead of three and then more people in the cohort and it sounded like your response to that was, well, the data suggests the Bridge project is three years for a reason. It's not just arbitrary. It's our data shows that's the best bang for your buck as it were in making a difference in stability and such. And then to the question of, well, was it the deal that we fund year three instead of year I mean, we can pay for year one given that the money runs out, whether we pay for year three in that or year one for a three year section, it would make sense the money that has to be expended first goes first.

Yes. Yes, that investment would allow expansion to additional moms.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for

the clarifications.

Okay. Any other questions on Zilber Bridge project? We'll go to Evick Free because you're also noted in the other substitute if we move on to that one. So again, we were at $300,000 for the bridge project, now 317,214 Legal Aid Society for eviction free MKE. Please, if you'll give us a brief summary of how you'll use these funds.

Yes. Thank you, Colleen Foley, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee. And on behalf of Legal Aid and the eviction free MKE attorneys, I just want to say thank you. We're grateful to be under consideration. And also thank you for your longstanding support of this program along with the common counsel as a whole and the mayor's office.

It has truly been a public private partnership. It was anticipated to be a three year pilot. We're now in year five. And that's because we tried to be really smart and strategic about these precious dollars, and we have extended them and pared down by attrition. But just to tell you in a nutshell, and the phrase that keeps coming to mind to me is it's a lot of bang for your buck.

We impact a lot of households in the city. In just the first three months of 2026, we've already helped five thirty four City Of Milwaukee residents. That's with eviction defense for three twenty eight people. We help 20 people with conditions issues, 94 people with termination issues and 92 people in those first three months with eviction ceilings, which is we have a clinic every month. We get on average 30 people who come in and we help people to get the eviction off their record.

So we're not just about defense work. We also do a lot of prevention and education because we don't want people to come back to us. We want everyone to understand their rights and obligations and that's landlords and tenants alike. In 2025, we served over 2,000 city residents, 2,088 to be exact. So there's a large impact for the city for these dollars in the lifespan of this program.

We've served over 31,000 individuals. When we started in September 2021, 3% of tenants had representation. That number at the 2025 was 17%. And the default rates dropped by 40%, which is a percentage not seen elsewhere in the state or the only city in the state with an eviction free right to counsel program. And what that means generally is people believe in the system that it's working as it should. And overall

So you said default rates, default judgments?

Meaning people show up for court. They believe that they have rights and that it's worthwhile to show up in court. We have twice a week. We have that courthouse clinic. So in case we haven't been able if people still aren't aware of us before they go into their court hearing, we can either take their case or provide advice and counsel on the spot. So that's twice a week in addition to our regular intake program. And we notify people about this program through a daily mailing and it is sent out to everyone in the eviction pipeline. So we're trying to we do our best to get the word out about our services. We're housed in the Community Advocates Building. We have a great partnership with Community Advocates.

Yes, I could go on and on, but we are impacting literally thousands of residents in the city. I talked to the Milwaukee Rotary Club in February because I wanted them to understand the importance of a project like this to the whole the city's vitality and well-being, obviously, the households that are impacted, but also recruiting people into the city to live here and work here and why it's a good investment in Milwaukee. So thank you.

Thank you. Yes, want to note too this is why these decisions are tough because everyone sitting here has a record of supporting both of these programs. And I want to acknowledge they're both upstream preventative programs. That's what I think is important is getting to our roots. Alderman Cox.

Thank you. You're confident that if provided with these funds, they would be expended before the 2026?

Absolutely.

Historically, if I'm not mistaken, at least one of the times when we gave some funds to this, it was matched by the county? Correct. Okay.

Yes. Yes. I should give the company credit while I'm up here too because there's been a great dynamic between the city and the county matching funds. And I've been touch with the county already about their budget in the fall.

I guess to the sponsor, is that the intent here to assist in trying to get the county to match whatever we put in?

Yes. I'm I'm currently having those conversations as well. They are a partner but you know recently we've been putting some pretty major this will be the third time for evict if I'm not it was the CLTF are again our joint budget amendment. We've been unified on this as a council and now this. So also, Alderman and colleagues, this has been at the front page of the papers. I mean, there's a whole series right now on the terrible treatment of tenants and the imbalance of justice. So yes, I'm going to continue both of these I think have the power to draw down more private and public funds. And yes, I'm having those conversations.

Thank you. That's

all. Thank you.

Anything else on the Victory? Alderman So

similarly when we were talking with Zilber, we're talking about the city's contribution versus others that was kind of raised here about whether in the past I worked with Supervisor Akblad and some others on the accounting investment. What if you don't get the $317,000,000 say from the city proposed in this sub, what are your other funding sources to continue your work? When would it have to conclude? What difference would it make?

It would certainly these funds would certainly relieve some of the pressure. And trust me when I say I'm hustling to obtain additional funding, but we have a lot of support from local philanthropy that includes Silber, that includes the Greater Milwaukee Foundation, United Way, a new foundation called the Trillium Foundation, Hertzfeld Foundation in town. We used to get funding from Rocket Community Fund that will end in June unfortunately because they are focusing Milwaukee, more in Detroit and more on homeownership, which of course is super important, but that we won't continue to get their funding. So it's a constant. I've certainly spoken to my own Board about this is a critical program and the importance of the legal community.

We

have

a big annual luncheon every year. Last year, the entire focus was eviction free MKE. Some of you were there. And our speaker was from the National Coalition for Right to Counsel. So I'm constantly banging the drum. So if we if we're if it doesn't come to pass that we get this funding, I will continue to move heaven and earth to get funding for this program.

And I know you said it's about more than just eviction defense, but how successful are you being in eviction defense when you get counsel there? We have any stats on the success rate, whether it's making a substantial difference? I mean, you're not having the default cases as much because people have representation. Think there's Right.

Yes. I have another statistic, which is there has been a 13% reduction in eviction filings in Milwaukee Circuit Court between 2022 and 2025. So that reflects both that the system is working better and it's not rubber stamping evictions and landlords are better understanding how an eviction is supposed to be legally filed. And there's a lot of prevention work that's built into this program that I think is reflected by those reduction numbers. And we can't take credit for everything.

There's a lot since Matthew Desmond's book came out, which it's the tenth year anniversary this year, if you can believe it. It was in 2016 that book was published and it really lit a fire under the city of Milwaukee and all the players about we need to do better. This is a rightfully shameful black eye on the city about how our families are treated when they face an eviction. So there's been a lot of positive movement. And here we are now. The eviction court looks very different than it did when this program started. People are treated with a lot more dignity. And we have exit strategies for people if they can't get caught up on their rent in a way that their precious belongings aren't put curbside. So it's a lot of moving pieces.

And the last question and similar to when I asked Silber, if there was substantially diminished investments, what impact would that have on the work you could do? Does it scale linearly? So if you get like onefive of investments, you're just going to be able to hire that fewer number of lawyers or

For sure. It will impact the size of our team and we have I've worked very hard to pare down by attrition. We have a very experienced team. Most everyone on our legal group has done with the program since the get go, that's because it's such terrific work and everyone is very invested in it. But we'll serve less people. I will have to pare the program down further.

Each I'm guessing given the size of the team and how lean and mean it is that for each lawyer you lose that's scores of cases.

It's probably easily 200 cases a year that so you it we ratchet down as we lose staff because we just can't serve as many people.

Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Anything else on a Vic Free? Anything from the administration? We have a member of public, mister Clancy, that wanted to speak. Do you wanna come on up?

Before we

Yes. I'm gonna just have him start walking up.

Madam chair?

Yes. Gonna sit in the front row and then I'll I'll give you a call.

Okay. Yes. Mister Higgins. Original

proposed resolution did have and there were 397,000 for a victory. So the mayor was being very conscious of trying to keep the funds towards housing programs. But as a proposed substitute a's is before us, the administration supports this because it did at least fund eviction free to a level that we thought was appropriate.

Okay. So support substitute A. Sure. Thank you for that. Okay. Questions? Thank you. Thank you. Mister Higgins. Oh. All member Gallas.

What is your total budget and how much of that is city support or city or county support?

The total budget is approximately $750,000 annually. The percent that's historically.

So the city was 100,000 this year?

Correct. And as was the county.

So a third, give or take?

Give or take.

Give or take.

And this would increase the city's commitment to your organization by 400% and be more than half of your budget for the year. It's just it's it's a big lift, right?

For sure. Yes.

$300,000

makes a big difference. It makes a big difference in sustaining the program.

Right. But you believe you have capacity to expend the funds before the end of the year?

Definitely. We our accountant spent forty years of running her own firm with her husband that exclusively serve nonprofits and she is very talented and she can help.

I mean it's easy to spend the money, but it's important to ensure that the impact also has proportional change, change.

Right?

Yes. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Yes.

Thank you. Well, I'd like to add that the amount of money that we end up spending when someone loses housing and that chain of events that happens that I see in my community with people in tents is so devastating morally and financially, the money we spend. I mean, you had that point, the ROI. What was the ROI?

It's according to Stout, the independent evaluator, for every dollar spent, there's a $4.66 return.

So it's very impressive. Okay. Other questions otherwise I'll go to the public. We can still have questions after that. Ms. Foley would you allow Mr. Clancy to come up to the microphone? And you do have two My constituent state representative, Ryan Clancy. Welcome to City Hall.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And I wanted to provide well, first, I wanted to point out how transformative both the Bridge project and the right to counsel, which in Milwaukee is eviction free MKE have been for families. I addressed a little bit informally today, but I think very appropriately. One of the reasons I love wearing my right to counsel hoodie is folks from the community will tell you how much it means to them to have participated in this program, to have been served by this program.

And I have tearful hugs and I have mothers and fathers telling me that this program kept them in their existing safe supportive housing or helped them get more time or even help their landlords to get direct rent assistance. I wanted to provide a little bit more context to how we got here and to look at going from $100,000 investment to something higher is perhaps not accurate in the grand scheme of things. Originally, in 2021, when we passed the right to counsel, it was the first use of ARPA dollars at the county. It was unanimously passed and it was significantly more. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It was incredibly effective as a program. It was also incredibly efficient. We just heard that for every dollar that the county and the city and at the time of the name of the charity is escaping me now, I'm terribly sorry. But it was a three way collaboration. For every dollar invested, we saw a $4.66 return on that.

And more to the point, we kept people's lives from being decimated by eviction. The effect of an eviction on a family especially is equivalent to losing a parent. And having those things reversed really doesn't have a fiscal price on it. But we have to spend a lot of money to reverse those things when they happen. So it was a collaboration between the city, the county and private charity.

And for three years, it was great. In the last two budgets, both the mayor and the county executive have put $0 in the budget. You, to your great credit on the common counsel and at the county board, have come up with a small amount of money to help keep legal aid going. And Colleen Foley is being incredibly modest and is really hustling. But that program was much better funded.

My back of the envelope math says that the difference between the allocation here with Substitute Amendment A and Substitute Amendment D, which also has great ideas, good ideas but not transformative ways of spending it, would be 1,000 people served by this program, 1,000 people given more time to leave their homes or kept in their homes, 1,000 families really impacted transformative way that although a lot of the items in Substitute Amendment E or D would be good, they would not help in the same way and on the same level. I would really urge you folks to double down on two really proven strategies. They have independent reports now, both of which are making real differences in families. Certainly, efficiency is great. I wouldn't sit up here and say that, that was nothing.

But there's a difference between making somebody's home marginally more efficient and making sure that they have a home in the first place, that they have the money to put food on the table in home. Very happy to yield for questions. I know that the Right to Counsel program has been a mainstay for many folks. Many folks in the city don't know about it. And I'm grateful for that because if you don't know about the right to counsel, it means that you may not have been facing eviction or facing a bad faith landlord doing bad faith things.

Okay. Thank you so much, Representative Clancy. Thank you. Okay. We don't normally I think we're not like I say we don't question people that testify. We generally don't do that. But if people add anything, we appreciate the public being here.

Madam Chair.

Is that who is that now? Alderman Chambers. Oh, Alderman Chambers. Oh, my gosh. Okay. Alderman Chambers, please.

Absolutely, madam chair. Thank you. So, thank you, Representative Classy for your testimony. I guess the question I ask for you is have you as a as in your role as state representative put any put any amendments during budget time or talk to leadership for these two projects to have state contributions or or some variation of it?

Yes. And thank you for the question. So in this last session, Republicans actually tried to attack the ability for Milwaukee and other municipalities to provide funds directly to folks through the Bridge Project and other similar things. We were able to push that back and defeat that. I think it was actually it died on the vine in committee.

In the last two sessions, we've put forward legislation that would provide the right to counsel, so the equivalent of eviction free MKE to every resident of Wisconsin and fund it that way. The right to counsel should not be something that is having to be battled for in every budget, in in committee meetings. It is tested. It is incredibly impactful, it's incredibly efficient. So unsurprisingly, given Republican control of both chambers of the state, the state level right to counsel bills that I put forward have not received hearings yet.

I am very confident that changes next year. That really speaks to the urgency here of Milwaukee putting forward these funds. The significant improvements in investments between 100,000 and the slightly over $300,000 that would be here would set the base level for the state to start funding that moving forward. It would still be far less than legal aid's budget for this that was in 2021 and 2022 when it was getting started. So upping those levels marginally means very likely more funding from the state when we're able to make this a statewide right to counsel.

Furthermore, I would encourage folks at the Common Council here to put forward legislation in support of this being a statewide right to council if only because it would take some of the fiscal pressure off of the city and the county to fund it.

I appreciate that. And as you know, budget and money is tight all around you know, and there's a lot of deserving organizations and groups and and causes that are worthy including those for kids. So, I think, you know, some to your point, some

of the

amendments you know, I I think, you know, madam chair, just adding my two piece. I think it's best to spread the the love around and not just focus on, you know, just two things while we support everything. We can't fund everything to its full potential. So I think if we give a little to a lot of these groups and try to, know, make our impact, you know, moving forward throughout the entire city for different causes, I think is best use. So thank you for your testimony, Representative Clancy, and thank you for your hard work. And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the revenue.

Thank you, Alderman and I apologize. We have like 30 or 40 squares on the TV and I didn't see you at first. I apologize for that. I do respectfully disagree slightly. I think that this two larger amounts for previously ARPA funded organizations that reach the entire city with a couple months left of the year that do promote stability at home, their upstream, their root causes, their prevention.

I think that is an investment that I'd like to see. So we've had a lot of discussion. We had public testimony. I want to open it up one more time to committee members or anyone else that needs to speak on substitute A. I also want to recognize good morning to Alderman Andrea Pratt. Any other questions or comments by committee members or alder persons?

Madam

Chair. Alderman Bergalas.

Thank you Madam Chair and colleague from the second really touched on something that I think is significant that we need to realize. We have substitute A in front of us. We also have a drafted substitute E from myself and older woman more, which we cannot speak to now because it is not in front of us. But I think there are significant opportunities in existing ARPA projects to make a meaningful impact across the board and broader reach than these two very needed and meaningful and impactful programs. So I unfortunately will not be able to support substitute A and should that fail, I will move to put sub E before us.

Okay. So that objection is noted and we will do a roll call.

Madam Chair.

Again for members, so you just know what you're getting into. We have this one, we have E, if none of those succeed, we go back to the Mayor's proposal opportunities. Alderman Spyker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess contrary to my respected colleagues, Chambers and Burgauss, I do one thing I guess I do like about A and the mayor's original proposal versus something that would split things up more finely as we want to have a strong impact on whatever we do. So there's a strong temptation when you legislate by a committee everybody and then you touch them less impactfully. So I guess I would favor whatever the final allocation is, and I don't think it will be decided until council that it would be we pick our priorities and we go in on those priorities as opposed to trying to impact a bunch of folks and then finding out that impact is much less substantial and makes less of a difference. Maybe it makes a better headline, but it makes less of a difference on the ground.

So with that, given that I have a feeling where the sponsors of the other amendment are going but I don't know where the whole committee is going, I guess I would ask for separate action on these two items within proposed sub eight.

Okay. So separate action is by right. So it's now before us. You have to just usually have to suggest how you want it separate though. Let me get Jim's coming in. Let's go ahead.

Yeah. So one and two. One proposes 300 for Zilber Bridge. Two proposes 317214Dot37 for Legal Aid Society for eviction free MKE. So I'd ask that those voted on separately as they're separate matters.

Okay. Madam Chair.

Jim O is here because I suspected that this could happen.

Yeah.

One second, Alder Roman Moore. This, I believe, is by right and he did state how he would like it separated. So then that would be two separate votes. Is that correct?

Madam Church, was our city clerk. That is correct. The only thing I would have observed in addition to something we discussed and that miss Berengus is aware of. It's the obvious statement we always make in budget that you're not allowed to spend any dollars twice. And so whichever way these things go, you're going to be presumably adding things or subtracting things from the proposal. And so we'll be keeping a track of how much money is available in this file.

So if just to summarize, if the whole $6.17 goes on these votes, there's no money left. If half of it goes ish, then half of it ish is left.

Okay. That is correct. Mhmm.

Alderman Moore, I want make sure everyone's got the information before they cast any votes here.

Yeah. Thank you so much.

So the two separate votes, Alderman Moore.

Yep. Thank you so much. Just I think just a point of of clarity, we would have to vote on these two separate items first before the sub the sub E can be introduced. Is that typically how it?

Oh, yes. Sub sub A is before us. Sub A has been divided. So we'll go through each part of sub A wherever those land us. If there's not a majority, we go to sub E. Sub E could be divided too, but I got you. Yeah. We cannot talk about sub E per the city clerk until we've disposed or approved of sub A. Even though it's in parts. Isn't. Got it.

Okay.

Anything to add on that, Spiker?

One thing which is that my vote here is a recommendation to the full council. What I vote on full council may depend on what happens in between.

So thank you.

And then do this is a little unprecedented. Is there an order of the divide? Do we go? I guess I would just go one and two like the so I would do one is the 300,002 is the $3.17. Okay. So I just want to try to do everything by the book here. So first there was an objection noted on the original substitute A which therefore prompts a roll call. Then there was a motion to divide which is what we call by right. It's an automatic allowance if you will. We'll take up one and two.

One is 300,000 for city participation in the bridge project. Two is the $3.17 for Legal Aid Society for Eviction Free Milwaukee. So the first roll call will be on one. One which is 300,000 Zilber Foundation Bridge Project. Further questions or comments?

I'll make a concluding remark last time that I believe this is stabilizing families and it truly is in prevention and it is helping our youth at home before we have any other challenges outside of the home. So I feel strongly about it. I thank everybody for their past support. Mr. Clerk, we're on substitute A item one, Zilber Foundation Bridge Project. Please call the roll.

Honorwoman Moore? No. Auderman Spiker?

Lip stain.

Audrowman Cox?

No.

Honor member Gillis? No. Madam Chair?

Aye.

Fails, one eye, three noes and one abstention.

Okay. And of course this can come before the council if needed. We're now on Item two, part of substitute A, three seventeen-two 14, Legal Aid Society Eviction Free Milwaukee. Questions or comments on part two? Mr. Clerk, call the roll on part two to eviction free Milwaukee.

Honorable Member

Honorable Member Gellis. No. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Fails, two eyes, two nos, one abstention.

Madam Chair, I move that sub E be before us.

Okay. Sub A is not moving forward at this time. I will let everybody know I'm going to be reintroducing it on the common council floor. But we're now on substitute E. So just a reminder, I removed b. I was author of it. I had c. I removed that. We are now on e and I will go to oh, there. I'm sorry. D was removed. We're now on e. So the sponsor is Alderman Bergalis.

Alderman Bergalis and Alder

I'm sorry.

And Moore.

Pardon And we can call this a Frankenstein or an omnibus if you like, but there are a lot of needs that the city has. There are a lot of great programs that ARPA give the city an opportunity and frankly municipalities and local governments across the country an opportunity to have a transformative change in their communities. These are a few that are fundable, extendable before the end of the year and will make a difference and still include both of the items from sub A certainly in different amounts. So this includes 150,000 for Legal Aid Society for Eviction Free Milwaukee. It adds $150,000 to employ Milwaukee for the summer earn and learn program that Elder Moore will likely speak to here shortly.

It adds $55,000 for the earn and learn summer youth intern program at the Department of City Development. And I saw someone from the department here earlier who would speak to that. A $120,000 which was in the original allocation or suggestion from the mayor's office for the Department of Administration, ECO, for energy efficient upgrades and habitat for humanity. It adds up to $75.00 for down payment assistance which is something that this council has taken a strong priority for our community in this last budget and the previous budget No matter what the mayor has proposed, this council has always prioritized down payment assistance to ensure more homeownership in the city and a balance of $67,000 for the Zulper Foundation Bridge project. And I'd ask if the other co sponsor would like to speak to item number two.

While she's doing that, is there anyone we have the two groups here, anyone from employ, earn and learn, I see ECO, DPA. Just I want to give the same equal opportunity to everybody. And while that's happening

Sam might be coming back.

Yeah. Well, that's I just I don't want to only have people for the one that I was working on. While we're making those moves, Alder Woman Moore.

Thank you so much, Madam chair, and thank you to my colleague for allowing me to support this particular amendment. One of the things that so, you know, eviction free MKE, the bridge project, again, all really great opportunities. One of the things for me that was also more compelling because there's so many great opportunities that we can support and support it at a level where, you know, where my colleague talked about making an impact. One of the things that came to mind for me was just some of the immediate things that I would love to bring attention to that are that are plaguing our city. I had the opportunity yesterday to attend the health department.

They had their roadshow to talk about the 2025, their 2025 health report. And one of the things that were startling for me was, when they gave the statistics around, population. And 60% of our population here in the city of Milwaukee are young people. And I was really taken aback like, wow, 60%. With all the things that we're trying to figure out how to dress with street takeovers and how to support young people, I wanted to figure out immediately how these dollars could address that.

And youth employment was one of them. And so even though support is being provided for summer earn and learn on the mayor's on the, you know, city side, on the mayor's side. I also didn't wanna forget the young people, particularly those young adults that we call opportunity youth. These are young people that are out of school, out of work. They sort of just fell through the cracks.

I wanted to also figure out how we can immediately address higher wages for those young adults and young people as well that could present any this is dollars that could immediately go into that program. Just some really quick numbers currently right now as far as just numbers for summer earn and learn. Currently, there is about twenty seven two thousand seven hundred and eighty four applications to date for summer opportunities. We typically don't even touch the bucket of even, you know, getting half of those numbers yearly. Currently, right now, there's based on current funding, there's about eight fifty eight slots for summer earn and learn, roughly is about $1,700,000.

We should be attributing at least at least fifteen hundred fifteen hundred slots per year for summer employment and having staggering wages for some of the older young people. So this the what we're what's being proposed is opportunity to have more young people more older young people at a slightly higher rage rage wage, excuse me, to be part of summer earn and learn and again immediate dollars that can be used for summer opportunities. We have to figure out how to support more young people for for the summer. And I am, you know, honored to support a lot of the other areas, including, you know, having funding for eviction free MKE, eco as well as DPA as in in addition to the Zilber project. I know it's not where people, you know, were were expecting, but for me, I really wanted it to be, an opportunity to really focus on how we can support young people this summer and have some immediate things that young people can be engaged in.

And summer jobs are just one of those things that we can go into funding. Thank you so much Madam Chair.

Thank you. Are the representatives here from the SYIP and earn and learn?

Sam's here.

Okay. So $150,000 for employee Milwaukee Earn And Learn, what will that get us in these couple months?

That's what Charlotte

I thought

you were talking about SYIP. No. SYIP receives to close their budget gap. We're we're supporting them with 55,000. So that goes that's for city. City opportunities. So those young people that are Interning here. Interning here within the city. Their budget gap was 55 and so we're supporting that. The other one fifty is for the broader community.

That's also the citywide initiative for summer earn and learn. And specifically targeting older young people, be that 18 to 21 18 to 22 age range to get more of the older hard to reach young people applications are still open by the way for summer earn and learn and I've also spoken with the executive director to make to ensure that we can use these dollars to support.

Member, a quick a quick question about items.

Wait. I had a question that didn't get answered. I wanted to know, are there spots for like are there the actual spots? So, you have the For

the additional 150,000

or Replacements.

Yes. Well, let me Okay.

Sam Lykling, Department of City Development. And I want to make clear, I'm here to speak so Department of City Development administers the city's summer youth internship program through DCD. I can only speak to the, how the funds for that particular line item would be used. And obviously, we're not expressing a preference on the various items, but I can speak to how we would use those funds. If the council does elect to fund the 55,000 extra in SYIP, it would allow us to provide placements this summer for all the departments that have requested placements in city government.

So the last few years has been about 65. We did get 80 requests for placements this year. And so the added 55 ks would allow us to fully place all those youth and there are sufficient applicants. We're doing interviews last night and tonight and there would be sufficient applicants certainly to fill those positions if the council ultimately likes to provide that funding.

Okay.

Who can speak on the 150? This is where I have

Can I ask on the SYIP as long as we have

Yeah, I'm sorry if I had to mix them up? Sure, go ahead and then I do want to ask about the 150,000 for employee. Who is not here? I'm looking in the crowd. Don't know who is Is taking

the there anything in the file from employee? Because it's highly unusual for us to just trust. We normally have the representative here or something in the file saying this will be the impact. But as long as we have SYIP here. So what I'm hearing is 65 positions were budgeted for summer youth interns and with the extra 55, the impact would be 15 more positions would be funded?

Approximately fifteen, sixteen or 17 to be exact. That's that would the difference represents how many departments, including the Clerk's Office, have offered to host interns this year.

Yes. Okay. But the number of folks the number of kids impacted would be sixteen, seventeen?

Yes, an extra 16 or 17.

Okay. For those how many months?

I think it's now an eight week program approximately.

Just shy of two calendar months, eight weeks. Okay. So fifteen sixteen, 17 kids for two months.

Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

To the Department of Administration, every project one through six here has previously received ARPA funding?

Yes, we have. Yes.

Okay. I'm still wanting information on the 150,000 for employee by employee.

Madam Chair? Yes. Thank you so much. So, I I've been in connection with the executive director but didn't know that someone from employee needed to be there. They're getting somebody right now to to be on but to be clear, I just want to remind people that there are currently app as far as applicants for summer earn and learn, there are over 2,700 applications.

We do not have slots for 2,700 people because we don't have the funding. So and also just real quick for clarity there's a total of about 80 work sites with around a thousand placements. So we have the need but do not have the resources to tie into that need. And what would the 150,000 be used for employed Milwaukee? It would be used to add additional slots. They're currently 800 for the current funding not do

going

to do And And so on some of the older young people.

How many how many will we get for a $150,000.

I don't know that exact number because they haven't they haven't could know correct they haven't so they haven't confirmed the number per hour because this is new they they can't you know attribute. Or make decisions on you know funding that they don't have so this is completely new they could perhaps get that in they can get that information if

you don't know that how do we know that they'll use it by the end of the year.

It they'll be using it for the summer. Yes ma'am.

I'm talking about employee Milwaukee. That's why I. I. That is very clear.

Employ yes. So and I also

want to. Line items you got

a two and a three. They it will be used for summer programming and- summer earn and learn is a seven week program twenty hours a week. This and so again a lot of the older young people have this job as well as another job because it doesn't it doesn't meet their needs and that's why a lot of those older young people. Don't opt into summer earn and learn. This is an opportunity to really engage.

The older young people at a higher rate verse currently right now it's I will I want to say it's about $12.12 for- is the salary or the wage per hour. For the young people these additional dollars will be used to add. You know maybe it's $15 an hour they it hasn't been decided yet. But these dollars will be used to add to the salary or the wage, the hourly wage so that we can target some of those older young people. These are the folks that might be on Water Street. These are the folks that are not doing anything. This will entice them to better yet at a at an additional wage. But this is dollars that would be used for the

summer. Okay. On item five, has down payment assistance used the funds that the council helped allocate which was hundreds of thousands of dollars in the budget process? Do we have any inkling that they have run out funds in this second quarter?

They they they did spend the ARPA dollars actually a while ago.

Sorry. Not the ARPA. The this council, these people here, these great people here, help put, it was Samuel's, I wanna, I'm going off memory, 800,000? 1.4. Yeah. But when we put it all together and we're in June we're almost I'm sorry we're in May 6.

Madam Chair, I can answer that directly. I spoke with Teague Willie Smith yesterday. Their reporting is not quarterly but at the six month mark. But he indicated that if there's additional funding available, they will be able to expand their reach and spend it before the end of the year.

Mr. Eichten?

The council through two different funding sources allocated 1.4 for DPA in 2026. It was non ARPA funding. Whoever said it was corrected in the past there had been ARPA funding If for new ARPA funding was allocated, obviously, probably would be a demand. It will be close at the end of the year. We're not sure, as you heard. The agencies report quarterly. So I don't want to predict whether we'll run out of funds or not. We could certainly carry local funds into next year if needed if we did receive ARPA funds. Yes, sorry. Thank you.

It's been the ARPA first. The one thing we're still working on confirming and we can we're trying to do this in real time is given that the current contracts didn't include federal requirements because the source was local funding, would need to triple check that we could amend them to use ARPA for this year. I'm working to get an answer on

that originally that were these ARPA funded. That DPA did get

ARPA funded in the past. So it was ARPA funded. The question is like the current twenty twenty six contracts. Think that's a technical issue I'd like us to say we can work through, but I don't want to triple confirm that until

I remember this clearly like it was yesterday because when we did our own budgetary amendment, we even had talk about, oh, we hope they don't come back and ask for more. And it's in the same funding year where there's more and I don't see it demonstrated. I could anecdotally, I know there's housing needs, but I don't see the designated numbers that we're talking about.

Madam Chair? Yes. As previously stated, the nearest priorities were obviously housing programs and things that affect housing. We did originally have the down payment assistance program listed or allocated from our our purview only because it would require a change at least into the target audience that DCD has for the levy dollars because it's ARPA was like 40%, I think. And so the targeting would have to be different. That's why we just didn't have it included. They had already spent their ARPA dollars, so we didn't include that as a program that we were gonna fund.

Okay. I think next in line, know I had Alderman Vergales. We also had ECO that wanted to speak on their item that we haven't heard from yet, which is item four in here. Hold on. I'm sure. Hold on. We're in committee first. Hold on Alderman Chambers. I had a committee member that asked the question. Alderman Bergelis.

Co sponsor Moore already answered my question.

You got yours answered? Okay.

She has ESPN or something.

Okay. Nice. Let me do Alderman Chambers and then we'll go to I still want to hear from Eco since they're a number four on here. Alderman Chambers?

To Director Higgins or or to Deputy Commissioner Likely, did we give eviction free MKE money during this budget as well?

Yes, I can answer that because I sponsored the amendment. You know, I I. Yeah. And I'm sorry if have question. We did. Yes.

Okay. So, I I guess I guess where I'm I'm a little confused as, you know, regardless of whether they spend whether they spend money, all the money for down payment assistance or eviction and we're trying to double down and add more money to support this. So, I I guess I'm just I'm not understanding the line of question in regards to down payment assistance.

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

I mean, I'm not going to answer a question about my question, but I'm going to pursue information just like everybody else is about every dollar spent, every slot that's available. We don't have employee yet. We went through the same rigorous questioning for every dollar on letter A, and we're going to go through it on E and whatever other letters are before us. We're trying to find out where the need is, who's ready. The two things at the beginning of this meeting that I asked for on this item where I was told by the administration it needs to be previously ARPA funded and that it needed to be spent in this year. So we're trying to sift through this and figure out how we can have the highest impact. So I'm trying to ask the same questions that were asked and get to the answers so I can make the best decision. Alderman Spiker.

Just sticking to down payment assistance, I'm not sure I understood Mr. Higgins' point, although sensed it was extremely important. So if there if something like this amendment or a portion of it passed in '75 were allocated towards down payment assistance, would that be consistent with the ARPA with staying in the same lane as it were under the original allocation? You said they had already expended their funds. So now adding funds back into that lane, it would have to change how we have allocated DPA in

the past?

So no, I think, yes, it could be funded. I think where the department is now with their $1,400,000 they would make some have to make some adjustments to their program just to get it back to target that 40% threshold. I don't know Sam sort of speak to that, but that's the change. Has really nothing to do with ARPA in and of itself, but yes, it would be an eligible activity.

Okay. I can give

a technical answer. So given that the ARPA sorry, that the DPA activity this year was solely city funded, the contracts and the RFP that we've entered into were city funded contracts. So ARPA in the past had funded DPA. So it does meet the thresholds that have been set out collectively by the administration of the council to say this is a previously ARPA funded activity. However, if it was only if there was 75 ks added and that was the only amount added, that's a there would be some significant administrative issues that we needed to go through to re federalize those contracts and that would include there would be

a lot of

that's what we're I mean we're working through. So it's saying we could do it, it's not impossibility. But for 75, there would be some significant administrative hurdles to clear to re federalize the current contracts.

Right. So if we came at you with 10,000, you say, my gosh, why are you bothering making us do this big reopening federalizing of the contracts for this little so that feeds into my next question, which is $75,000 how many potential homeowners can you help with that little money?

We're averaging about there's two tiers of funding. One is for if you're purchasing in the block grant area or not. But roughly and this is an estimate is approximately I think $7,007 thousand $500 per homeowner. So we'd be talking about approximately 10 additional homeowners if it was a $75,000 allocation.

And this would be $75,000 on top of the $1,400,000 we've already allocated?

The 26 budget allocation across the two funding sources was $1,400,000

So we can

leave that as an

exercise the reader to estimate percentage. But okay, in my quest for impacts, 10 homeowners could be impacted more or less. Okay, thanks.

I have two more questions on earn and learn. It's for people who are within Milwaukee County. So there's out of city Milwaukee residents as well that can apply. Okay. And I'm on the website and it says participant enrollment for 2026 is now closed. Is there is that accurate? I'm just I don't know how we're funding it, if it's closed or do we have so many applicants.

Madam Chair? Earn and Learn does get funded, supported by other programs. CDBG is one of the programs that we fund. Those funding allocation does have to be young people from the city. So anything they would do outside of the city would have to just be another funding source. And obviously the same would be with ARPA. We would be looking for registrants or participants that were within the city.

Okay. And then what about the applications are now closed? So are we at a I'm trying to understand why I'm asking these questions. We went through the same questioning with Bridge and with Evict. If applications are closed, do we have more applications than we have funding for and we're not accepting anymore? Or if we're saying we need more funding because there's more applications, the it's closed.

That's how I read it. I In talking with them

How many more do we have then?

What is your question Madam Chair? I'm trying learn. Yes, is. I just looked. It is at That's closed. It is closed.

So I thought you gave an excellent information. Thank you on item three. I'm talking about item two, one hundred and fifty thousand. And I thought that was specifically for employ Milwaukee, also serves people outside of the city of Milwaukee. We know that a people do. Correct. But I was surprised to see that participant enrollment for 2026 is closed. Correct. If that's the case then that wasn't what you're talking about with the 2,000 applications. You were talking about summer internship. How many applications are we trying to fill?

Madam chair there are currently two over 2,700 applications for summer earn and learn not the SYIP for the open program for summer earn and learn. There is current funding for eight fifty eight slots. We were looking to use the additional dollars to within this 2,700 applications or right within the 2,700 we were looking to fund more young people and specifically targeting some of the older youth. So there's more than enough applicants to support summer earn and learn. There's there's more than enough to pull from.

We just want to use those dollars to see if we can target some of the older young people. If we're looking to address violence prevention, if we're looking to address our 60% population of young people, I would love for an investment to go toward something that would can be immediately used for this summer. Those dollars will absolutely be spent this summer. Did I answer your question or are you still perplexed about the numbers?

I was trying to balance the need along with item number three which is an additional 50,000 and we have disagreement which I think is a healthy part of democracy. I think we can do many things. I still would like to see more for eviction and the bridge project because I believe that some of the stability should also be in the home is that when we have multi generational families and we provide three years of financial stability, I do think this one summer of career development is invaluable. But also what I look for, and we just have to be honest about the deliberation we're having here, is that three years of financial stability is an upstream root cause. And I'd love to do both.

I think we can. But we are asked here to pick out funding and have a high impact. That's okay. None is right or wrong. They're both right. But we're asking our colleagues to invest and I think it would be a better investment to have more money in family stability where we have also it's very similar. We have thousands of applications for Zilber. So you know what we have? What I want to say here is way too many applications for programs of earn and learn, of pregnant mothers. This is not an organizational problem.

This is a Milwaukee challenge. And so what we can all agree on is that we have way too many applications and challenges and we're all trying to figure out where to invest. So I don't want to hide behind it. I'm not going to be able to support substitute E, but of course we can continue to deliberate. Sure. But I was having trouble to my colleague understanding item the two and three on the slots that were available. Could they you know where applications open could it be spent this year etcetera. So is somebody here from employ now?