Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and happy Halloween. All right. That's probably the only time I'll talk about Halloween today, so I got it out of the way. Welcome to our Finance and Personnel Committee meeting of of 10/31/2025. I'm Alderman Marina Dimitrijevic, the Chairman of the Committee, joined by my Vice Chairperson, Alderman Peter Bergelis.

We have Alderman Scott Spiker here, Alderman Mille Lake Hoggs, and Alderman Charlyn Moore that provides us a quorum to continue our work on the mayor's 2026 recommended budget. I'd also like to recognize any other people that are with us virtually. And I'll go with what I see here. That is Alderman Mark Chambers Jr, Alderson Jocasta Samaripa. I see online and then in person here we are also joined by Alderman Alex Brower.

Thank you so much. If I'm missing anybody, please let me know. We'd also like to recognize there's various department heads in the room. We thank you so much. Much of the budget staff has been here for weeks led by budget director Nick Kovac. Thank you for all of your work and helping us get to this point. Now let's get through to this day as well. We thank you. We thank our legislative reference bureau who have also been helpful drafting these amendments and our city controller Bill Christiansen. I need to give a special personal thank you to our staff assistant Mr.

Chris Lee to my left but he's truly truly my right hand person, even though he's on the left. Okay. Will help us flow through what will be quite an agenda of amendments today. So ask ask board. Board.

To you

question. To otherwise directed in the order as listed in the white packet. To It's arranged in alphabetical order and in order of seniority. For each agency amendments sponsored by finance and personnel committee members will be taken first followed by remaining members of the council according to seniority. This is the policy we've used historically and has been noticed.

Amendments from council members who are not members of the committee must be offered by a member of the committee and amendments not offered by a committee member may be submitted for introduction under the twenty four hour rule. I'd also like to note that we have a number of individuals from the public here and we truly appreciate you, welcome you, and this is the people's house so we always want to prioritize hearing the voices of the people. I would ask you sincerely, many of you I've seen at our public meetings and we really appreciate it, whether it be at City Hall for the nighttime meeting or it be at the Martin Luther King Jr. Library that this committee helped support for the first time in a while on a Saturday. I thank you for that.

I would ask you and some of you have reached out in advance advance to try to organize yourself by one person or maximum two per group. So I see many people here, but if you could do one or two people per group, with a two minute maximum for testimony. This will be really helpful. We have over 100 amendments to try to get through today. And because we have heard some from some people multiple times, I am truly asking for that consideration.

Okay. So with that, we'll now begin just hold on one second here how we're gonna do it. There we go. We will begin with item number one. So what I'll do with each amendment is read along in the white packet, if you will.

Madam Yes. Before you go to item one, I would ask to withdraw item 40.

Okay. Item forty four zero? Yeah. Okay. I should also let people know along the way, members will likely withdraw amendments and that can be accepted at any time. And hearing no objections, so ordered Item 40 four-zero is withdrawn. Okay. On Item one, I'm the author, so I'll just read it into the file. I'll introduce it, but I will not advocate on it from the chair. It affects Department of Administration, CCC, DCD, Library, Police, SPA, Miscellaneous capital.

And the Department of Administration Innovation Office moved position authority and funding for innovation policy analyst. In the common council city clerk increased funding for eviction free Milwaukee by $100,000 and increased funding for various operating and special purpose accounts consistent with the requested budget. In the library, restore sufficient staffing to maintain Sunday hours at two branches utilizing a new staffing model and expanding Sunday hours at two additional locations midyear. Insert a footnote directing the library to report the common council on usage and circulation as well as programming and promotional engagement activities. In the police department, create a safety and civic commission special fund with $100,000 of funding.

In the wages supplement fund, increase funding to provide a 3% wage increase for general city employees and increasing the residency incentive from 3% to 4%. In the capital budget, add $103,867 of new general obligation borrowing for City Channel twenty five cameras. In the capital budget, increase funding for the partnerships and affordable ownership housing and alternative to homeownership initiatives by $800,000 Offset these expenditures by eliminating the position authority and funding for the business advocacy and job growth liaison in the Department of State Development by reducing various special purpose accounts by utilizing $2,100,000.060000 dollars of additional revenue recognized by the comptroller and by increasing the property tax. There's also a substitute that was submitted to the file this morning that everyone should have. Is being handed out right now.

Yes. Move

to substitute with one e.

Okay substitute one e has been moved by Alderman Peter Bergelas. Any objections of substituting? Hearing none, so ordered. The substitute is now before us. The substitute is in the file and it was submitted this morning.

The substitute changes two things. I'm just waiting for it to be handed out. So from what I mentioned earlier, the substitute 1E makes two minor changes and that is adding one position of policy and administration coordinator in the common council city clerk and also changes the funding for the employee resource group and it's adjusted to reduce the funding in that area. Okay. Now we are on the substitute.

I will be brief. Again, I don't want to advocate from the chair, but I want to introduce it as the sponsor, and then I will move it around. All I really want to say about this amendment, I feel that I have said in many spaces, in many places, is that I feel that this lays out a vision for the city that I want us to all not just survive in but thrive in. It provides a path to home ownership for all. It provides much needed raises to the city workers that provide the services to our city residents and it opens up libraries and more libraries on Sundays when families and people needing a third space, a public space to do positive things when they need it most, it makes it available.

On top of that, it provides much needed funding to reduce the harmful effects of eviction and so those are the main parts of it and I think that is incredibly important that we build the city that we wanna see, wanna live in, and we wanna raise our families in. This is an amendment that is full of hope. We should be hopeful. We should want the best city today, tomorrow, and quite frankly when we live in a time of so much darkness, I think this lays out a path of light and I think that it provides opportunity that each and every one of us Milwaukeeans deserve each and every day and so with that I'm honored to put it forward and the substitute is before us and we will go to committee members first on finance and personnel. I will start with Vice Chairman Alderman Peter Bergelis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I will move adoption or approval.

Approval.

I'll move approval of amendment 1E as substituted. This item has endured hours of discussion amongst council members and I want to give you a special thank you for your leadership in putting together so many different priorities, across the city that, really ref this document really reflects values that our constituents and our residents have shared with us, not just in our budget survey or our town halls, in our districts or the finance committee public hearing or the full council public hearing, but we take input from our constituents and residents all year long. And this really, I think, is a it's not I won't say that it's perfect because nothing is perfect. And everyone has their own priorities, but this is a collaborative effort amongst council members to put forward that which is very important to all of us. So I think we can get behind this together as a council and pass this and amend the mayor's proposed budget together in one voice.

I appreciate your leadership on it and hope everyone will be able to support it.

Thank you so much. We'll move it around to committee members and after the first round of committee members, I would like to bring up the public that wanted to speak. Next we'll go whoever was raising their hand to speak on it.

I'm going start with.

Okay. Alderman Moore. Thank you

so much madam chair. I wanna just concur with my colleagues that this was just an opportunity for us to do what was in the best interest of our residents in our city. There are some folks that made it loud and clear. These are the things that we want. We want more support for home ownership.

We want to value our city workers to make sure to we're providing them with the appropriate support with raises. Like, it was loud and clear what our community needed and I'm so honored to be working with my colleagues and again, nothing is perfect. We all don't always agree and that's okay. But we all rally together around some really, really important issues. And I'm just really honored to sit at the table with people that value first and foremost our community. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Alderman Moore. Wanted to, I see we have, we've been joined by President Jose Perez, Alderman Brower. Who would like to speak next? Okay. Alderman Alex Brower.

Yeah. Thank you so much Madam Chair. Again, thank you to the members of the committee and everybody who's co sponsored this amendment. I'd like to offer my support Madam Chair. May I be listed as a co sponsor of this amendment?

Alderman Alex Brower has requesting to be added as a co sponsor to one e. Any objections to that? Hearing none, so ordered. You still have the microphone, Alex Brower.

Yeah. Thank you so much. Yeah. No. I just wanted to speak to a number of items in here. First of all, this is this is a great package that improves the budget that was presented by the mayor significantly here. Specifically, I wanna speak to the raises for our city workers. I ran for office here on a platform of standing with our city workers and nobody else delivers our city services but our city workers. I've been doing ride alongs with DPW. I spent six hours dumping trash carts with sanitation. I filled potholes and seen all the work then

and I did a tour

of waterworks. I've seen all the work that our city employees do. They deserve even more than what's listed here, frankly. But I think that the union and the leadership of this council has come up with a compromise that is gonna provide workers with a needed raise to present them, you know, with the value that this city needs to show them. You know, our city workers work so tirelessly.

I just cannot appreciate enough what they deliver for the city. I've been a public worker myself. I worked off and on eleven and a half years for the school district as a substitute teacher. City workers are the backbone of what we deliver and frankly, you know, this raise again, it just doesn't it doesn't go far enough but it really is going to deliver at least an acknowledgement of the work that our city employees are engaged in. Other things that are really positive here, eviction free MKE.

We get so this as a community, we get so much value from every single dollar that we put into eviction free MKE. I wanted to emphasize that, you know, they and they made a very modest request that I am so happy to support funding as well. The down payment assistance program is another example here of of pursuing homeownership and wealth creation amongst the working class here in Milwaukee. But thank you so much, madam chair. I just want to emphasize that this is this is an amendment that I hope this committee passes. I urge my colleagues on the committee to vote for this. I urge my colleagues on the council to adopt I urge the mayor to sign this budget that has this amendment. It's gonna be nothing but but positive effects for our city. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Alderman Brower. Thank you. Well, I truly appreciate the applause. I do want to ask us to be careful with that because we are going to be here for a while, but I appreciate it. It's better than the alternative. President Jose Perez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I probably should have went before on the mic. Yeah.

Now you're

not getting a plus.

I thank want

him for his commitment. I want to thank you, the finance committee. Getting to this point, going through the budgeting has been a task that all of you have stepped up to the plate. We've heard from the community. As my colleagues have said and echo them, I want to be added as a co sponsor. And I have to say this has been a long journey and we want to figure out how we deliver on behalf of the workers and we want to deliver on behalf of the community. And there is time for there's always been time for disagreement. We know that. We always don't agree. But I'm hoping all my colleagues support the amendment moving forward and we could continue to serve our constituents and our community to the best of our ability.

So I'll be proud to be added as a co sponsor. And I just want to thank the entire committee and yourself and all the departments that have been working with you and everyone else to figure out this budget and hopefully get us to the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you so much. President Jose Perez has been requested now to be added as a cosponsor and hearing no objections so ordered. We will now move on to Alderman Scott Spiker. Did you want to speak on this?

Yes, but I would be happy to go after my senior colleague.

Okay. I didn't have a note from Alderman Cox yet. Did you want to speak now or after Alderman Spiker?

After.

Okay. Trying to check with people here. And I have some people on the board too, but let's go ahead with Alderman Scott Spiker.

I do have, I guess, two things to say. One is the I would second Alder Brower with the eviction free Milwaukee. A year ago I helped work reallocation of resources that ended up in an omnibus where we were able to find some money for this worthy program so that it didn't stop working because when you well, I'm sure eviction free will be here and speak for it. But when you talk about something serving those who are in a bad situation and who are staring at a lawyer and a landlord on the other side, giving them some parity is justice. With that noted, I would note that the county has also said, hey, so I've been lucky enough to have conversations as Alder Brower has I think as well with Jack Eckblad, county supervisor over there.

They're doing work so that we can double our money, double our fund here. With respect to the library hours, I would like to give a tip of the hat to the chair. She was a fierce and first advocate for Sunday hours at the library. That's been demonstrably a success in my district with Tippecanoe Library and I would imagine in Alder Taylor's district with good hope and that's been with maybe not the greatest promotion I've ever seen for anything in my life, but hoping that by not only keeping those two which were proposed to be cut in the mayor's proposed budget but adding to an MLK. I was just there for a library board meeting.

That is such a beautiful space so desired by its residents that it would be a shame if they came to the door on a Sunday and saw a closed sign. And I would also like to thank my fellow board trustee library board trustee members, Alder Cogs and Alder Taylor for their work on the board because it's an extra bit but it's important work. I guess lastly, I would say I do have two proposed amendments, but I want to respect the Chair's process so I'm happy to wait for them until the public's been heard from.

Okay. That's fine. So Alderman Scott Spiker has sounds like two amendments to the substitute that's before us but just already listening he will he will offer them once the public has spoken is what he said said okay Alderman Melele Cox and I'll go to any Alder on the screen we've now been joined by Alderman Lamont Westmoreland, Alderman Russell Stamper, Alderman DeAndre Jackson, and we've had Alderman Mark Chambers. We are an item 1E, which is before us. We're wrapping up members in the first round and then we will go to the public in represented groups if we can. Alderman me, Lele Cox.

Thank you, madam chair. I first want to thank you for your leadership with this, amendment, and it's been great to watch members, will and deal and work together, to help make this, possible. At a time in a country where government workers have been, you know, fired without cause, left without pay, and kinda disregarded and unappreciated, I think this amendment helps as a small demonstration from us here at the city that we do appreciate the work that city workers do every single day. And I hope that they see see this as such. The libraries create a safe space and a foundation for literacy that we know is a foundation for a better life for our children and for families into the future.

So the fight for Sunday hours is a earnest one. Helping folks not be evicted at a time where federal workers just missed their first paycheck and where most of us are a check or three away from being in poverty ourselves and a weekend away from not having food share benefits. I think it's and people are gonna have to make hard choices between paying rent and paying for food. I think the investment in the eviction free is more than warranted. While I'm not a huge fan of every single piece of this legislation, I think the totality of it is very centered amongst the people and amongst what we've heard from residents, not just at the hearings, but just every day as we walk our districts, as we get calls, and as we talk to the residents.

Generally, usually, I would offer to divide questions and all of that kind of thing to be able to cherry pick the stuff that I specifically like and not be able to go for the stuff that I don't like. And it's not that I may not do that at some point. I know everybody else added their sponsors and all of that. I'm not gonna do that. And I'm I'm a just be transparent with y'all.

I'm struggling on whether on whether and how to support because of my concern about the tax levy. There is not an endless supply of money, and our future years are very gonna be even harder than this. So trying to balance. I guess I'm senior enough and seeing enough budgets that I can't ignore that we're gonna have to deal with it one the the the check is gonna come due at some point. And so trying to figure out how much I'm gonna bend towards putting so much on the levy is something I have not yet decided.

I look forward to hearing I wasn't gonna say anything till after the testimony, but I'm just being honest with y'all ahead of the testimony. And it's after the testimony and the conversation that I'll decide, like, how I'm gonna move forward with it. But one of the things that would help me, and I just will say this publicly is I'll say it to you since you're you're the sponsor Older Woman. Is there a commitment to between now and counsel to at least try to look for other sources that we may be able to find and maybe even work with the administration to find some other sources so that by the time we get to council, maybe just maybe the levy part will be a little bit less than this. Are you committed to that?

Thank you, Alderman Cox. What I'll say is that like I'm sure you would, it would depend on the source. Right. I'm definitely committed and I want to put it on the record that in the last few days and weeks I have seen funding sources come out of places that I didn't imagine before. We've seen new funding sources.

We've seen unrecognized revenue which we appreciate. We've seen when I asked about the Office of Community Wellness, we had a funding source that maybe we didn't know about. But so I'm careful with the fact that we need to have a transparent process of where these sources come from and knowing that if it's taking from you know another project that was attached to a council member we have to look carefully at it but yes I do have a goal to try to bring the cost down if we can but I want to be really careful about where it comes from. Mhmm.

That's fair.

And when it's available. Yeah.

That's fair. And I just I just wanted to get I knew that, but I just wanted to get that on record because if I'm honest, I don't think any of us are comfortable with with with the numbers, but well, I think most of us are comfortable with trying to accomplish most of us in here for the people. So so yeah, that's that's it. Wow. I

appreciate that. I I I do want to just add that it is a balance. The mayor's budget itself raised the a couple percentage of points. We have other fees in here. So I certainly along with those conversations when this goes to the November 7 budget hearing, we're going to we're obviously balancing it. You know, this is a balance and a compromise. So we should look at the entirety and that I am committed to. And as you know and everybody here knows, we are given a couple weeks to figure this out where the administration has months. So to find a new revenue source with limited time is very challenging. If I could I certainly would.

So with that let me continue. Thank you for asking that. Let me continue with any other alder persons for our first round of questioning before we go to the public anyone online Chambers Jackson Westmoreland Stamper or Samaripa that want to ask anything or anything on the record before we hear from the public on 1E I see the light of Alderman Mark Chambers.

Thank you, madam chair. And I I share the same sentiments of my colleagues, you know, in regards to hard work that this came about. I I do too personally have some reservations, but I understand the work that was put into growing this omnibus and and hearing the commitment of you know, commitment of finding something to lower the levy, which is really important to me as well. I will be asked to, be a cosponsor on, this file. Quite frankly put, you know, as my colleague, Alderman Brower, said, you know, we we have to, you know, invest in those that make Milwaukee Milwaukee.

And I think while this is not a 100% perfect, it's an attempt to do better. So, with that, please add me as a cosponsor within to to our Florida. Board of attorney. Thank you, doctor. Okay.

Alderman thank you. Alderman Mark Chambers junior wishes to be added as a cosponsor at this time. And hearing no objections, ordered. Alderman Russell Stamper, please. Good morning.

Good morning. Colleagues, thank you. Budget amendment one reflects leadership, ingenuity, and creativity. It shows that when we work together, we can find solutions that are both responsible and responsible to the needs of our city. I appreciate this amendment.

Supports our city employees, the men and women who keep Milwaukee moving every single day. They are the backbone of our operations, the ones who respond when we call. One who maintains our neighborhoods, who engage our families, and who ensure services continue no matter the challenge. So I wanna thank our city employees for their dedication, resilience, and commitment to the people of Milwaukee. This amendment is a recognition of your value and your service. Thank you to finance committee for all the hard work on coming together on this collaborative effort, And please add me as a co sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. Alderman Stamper wishes to be added as a co sponsor and hearing no objections, so ordered. Okay. We'll conclude our first round. There'll certainly be more questions and deliberation but we'll now go to the public. I'll ask you to come up kind of by group or if there's individuals but I was first going to go with the group and the two speakers that wish to speak for down payment assistance. So if you'd like to stand up and come up and we would ask for two to three minutes. Okay. All right. Okay.

Okay. Good morning. Good

morning. Good morning.

All right. Please introduce yourself officially so we have you on the record.

Hi, I'm Valerie Langston. I'm a member of the resident advisory council with CDA. Good morning, finance and personnel committee and everybody else. We appreciate the collaborative efforts shared with the city in supporting Milwaukee's collective affordable housing strategic plan over the last four years for advancing racial equity and providing quality affordable homes for every Milwaukeean who dares to dream. There has been a definite impact on the families in our communities who have purchased homes by qualifying as first time homebuyers with the down payment assistance.

Without sufficient DPA funds, hundreds of homes could be lost to outside investors. DPA and other collective housing strategies are working, and Milwaukee has seen the first increase in black homeownership in fifteen years with additional increases in Latino and overall homeownership rates. CDA is an agency that supports three home buying counseling Axe Housing, Housing Resource Inc, and United Community Center. These strategies have consistently met the needs of families. The impacts have been impressive.

Fact, 1,000 homes purchased by by black and brown families. Fact, 6,300 families participating in the first time homebuyers counseling program between 2022 and 2025. Fact, these resources have shown the first increase in black homeownership in fifteen years. CDA advocates regularly excuse me, CDA advocates have regularly come before you expressing the need for down payment assistance to be included in the budget, asking for consistent funding of $1,550,000 which can support 150 families yearly. I'd like to take a minute and thank the sponsor, chairman, Ms.

D. I don't want to mess up your last name. And, the council members that are supporting this fight to invest in neighborhoods, especially amending the low income DPA with an additional increase in funding. I feel the omnibus approach you presented is creative. Again, I personally thank you for your support, and I certainly do hope you have more than seven other members to support this effort.

The finance, I am compelled to say that CDA and ROC specifically are in agreement with how much consideration you have been given to our request for more funding. We are appreciative and support the solution shown in amendment one a now supplement one e. The finance and personnel committee has a chance to approve additional funds to our DPA program in the amount of $800,000 bringing our total to $1,400,000. As you deliberate the budget, remember, this DHP a contribution will help at least 125 families realize their dreams into 2026 and beyond. We know that stable families and stable housing contributes to stable communities.

With 100% of the city down payment assistance funds being used to support city of Milwaukee families and city of Milwaukee neighborhoods. Let's keep moving forward with Milwaukee's collective affordable housing strategic plan. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank

you. Looks like that'll conclude for down payment assistance. Thank you so much. I believe we're joined virtually by Ms. Colleen Foley is here for Evick Free Milwaukee. Is that correct? There she is, Chairwoman.

Good morning.

Good morning. And you have about two minutes, Ms. Foley.

Thank you so much, Chairwoman, and thank you for your leadership on this omnibus amendment. It is a powerful investment in our neighborhoods. I want to thank the common counsel and the mayor for the past support for eviction free MKE.

It was supposed to be

a three year pilot. We are entering year five now. And I urge the all the persons present virtually and everyone in the room to support the portion of this that specifically addresses eviction free MKE. That project started in September '21, thanks to tremendous ARPA dollars, American Rescue Act dollars from the city, the county, as well as philanthropic dollars from United Way of Greater Milwaukee and Waukesha County. So here we are now fast forward four plus years into the program.

We have helped over 13,000 households that distills down to over 30,000 adults and inclusive of over 13,000 children. It's also a really terrific return on investment. We have an independent report that I've provided to the committee and to all the alders in the past that shows by Stout, a national analytics company that the program has saved approximately $23,300,000 for local government and that's in every conceivable facet of the safety net system that involves foster care and keeping dollars in Milwaukee from retaining residency and NPS dollars as well. So here we are now and I would also like to mention that I was before the Milwaukee County Finance Committee roughly a week ago and that committee has also entered an amendment and at that meeting back on October 23 endorsed $100,000 in funding for eviction free MKE. So essentially this would be a match and it's a powerful match.

It enables us to continue to build this program and also to ensure that we sustain it as legal aid works to garner additional funding from philanthropy. And again, Vanessa Swales, who's a reporter for the journal Sentinel wrote a really compelling story today that's in the paper that speaks most powerfully to our program. And that's from the mouths of the people who we represent, many of our clients stepped up and told their story, which is really brave and hard for people. I applaud those individuals for doing Ultimately, I just want to thank you all for your support, your historic support of this program. As I mentioned, it's powerful for families.

It's good for the bottom line and it makes Milwaukee a better place for all of us. Investing in neighborhoods is smart and it's particularly hopeful and compelling right now given all the challenges nationally. Just a really healthy reminder of all the good that happens locally. And I should also before I part say we have a number of our staff in the room, including our managing attorney, Nick Toman, and a number of our attorneys and support staff. So I thank them, the ones who are able to be here this morning and also our community partners who have been incredibly supportive of our work. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Would you like to raise your hands if you're here for evict free so we just we can see you and we know we can work with you? Thank you. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Okay. On to the next group. Also, please hang around because we may possibly have questions from members for the groups. Sometimes that happens. This is the time for that. Would someone like to speak on behalf of AFSCME or the city workers? Okay. Okay. Good morning.

Good morning.

And please like most two to three minutes, please. Thank you.

Yeah. I'll try to keep it tight for you.

Thank

you. Alright. Good morning, Director Kovac, Chairwoman Dmitievich, Finance and Personnel Committee, the common councilors members present. Specifically, I want to thank Alex Brower for being a supporter of this campaign from the very beginning. I also want to say good morning to those viewing online. Many city workers have their eyes on these proceedings and we'll be watching those on November 7 as well. Also good morning to the city workers present in the back here who use their precious little PTO to come in support of city workers. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Ian Gunther.

I'm the Chief Steward of AFSCME47, which is representing the rank and file workers of the Department of Neighborhood Services, Department of City Development, the assessor's office and most of Milwaukee Water Workers. I am also an electrical engineer for plants engineering and Lynnwood Water Treatment Plant. Our union has been working hard to organize city workers in the advent of not receiving a raise last year and the prospect of Act 10 likely being struck down next year. First, I want to correct the record. There's an idea on the common council that there are, that all city workers got a raise, with Act 12, but those were not raises.

Those were wage increases to get to the average wages of, their area. That means that city workers have been underpaid for several years, some since Act 10 was passed in 2011. Some departments have still not received wage increases to come to average wages. One of my coworkers present today is Jen in the back here, who works in water quality department. Water quality is one of those departments that has still not received a consumer price index wage increase to the average of her industry.

These are the people that work hard every day to ensure that our water is clean. Last night, the news dropped that the city accepted a deal with the Milwaukee Police Association says is a 15% raise for MPD officers considering compounding figures. That's a 5% raise per year for the duration of their contract. And yet for some reason getting comparable raises for the people that actually uphold the infrastructure of the city seems to be like pulling teeth. Respectfully, we will not accept anything below 4%.

The common council has already negotiated us down from 6.5 raise that we demanded. Anything less than 4% begins to cut into the bare minimum that would have matched a raise that we didn't get last year with the raise that the Mayor is proposing this year. To be clear again, in the last two years alone, according to the cost of living increases estimates from the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, inflation has increased by 5.8%. A 4% raise is still a 1.8% loss in our wages against the cost of living increases in our state. We cannot backslide as a workforce.

Our city depends on us. With all that said, we support this compromise proposal in the omnibus that creates a total of 3% additional raises for all workers, plus an additional 1% raise for city residents. Please vote in favor of this proposal to set the tone for city government that recognizes economic situation and meets it by supporting some of the hardest workings workers in the city of Milwaukee. Thank you.

Thank Thank you. I do just want to correct one item of grand concern. The common counsel has not yet voted on the tentative agreement with the Milwaukee Police Association. I think that's critical. It is a tentative agreement that was adopted by the association. Just want to be sure that is completely accurate. We have weeks to look at that. Any other members of the public on 1E? 1E. Okay.

Now department heads, if you needed to speak on this and then we'll go back to council members and I'll start with Alderman Spiker who was waiting to offer his amendments and offered a wonderful courtesy which we appreciate to the public. Director Cole, are you speaking on 1E?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I mean there's many amendments here that I know affect you so I want to you might be up here for a while. But very much we welcome you. Good morning to our Finance and Personnel Committee and please offer us any comments you have on amendment 1E.

Thank you, Alderman. I appreciate your love and adoration for our employees and the administration shares that same wish. I'd like to read into the record and speak to this issue of the defunding of our innovation policy analyst position. This proposed change affects Maureen mining, currently a city employee and a vital member of the innovation team. Nobody asked Maureen about nor informed her about this potential action and did not sign up to work for the common council city clerk's office.

In fact, she only learned of this effort in reading it in the urban Milwaukee website. Maureen is extraordinarily upset over this coercive and action. She wanted to be here today but was too much overwhelmed too far overwhelmed to be here by herself. The administration asks that we share your love for and appreciation for city employees. We respectfully ask that this position be restored. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much for that. Just want to ask, there's a lot of moving around to keep voices at a minimum. That is one part of 1E. I'll speak to it since I'm the author. 1E is a substitute. And first of all, this committee will refrain from speaking about any person. We will speak about positions only. That is what our city government is made of. So that's number one.

Number two, this item is not new to this committee. In fact, it's been debated significantly because it's this very committee that decided that they didn't want to go forward with the position. And then furthermore, the position was created via what is known as ARP. And so what our amendment does, the substitute is it creates a new policy and director in the common counsel position. We do believe that there can be a coexistence and that there are enough good ideas to go around that can be shared by all branches of government. Any other questions? Yes.

For clarity, E

does not move anybody. E goes with what the committee had done historically before the ARP choice was made and then it creates a new position that deals with transformational ideas in the common council.

Do you understand, Commissioner?

Understand what?

One E came out this morning so perhaps

Wait. Does eliminate the position, correct?

Right. The director talked about moving people?

I think, yeah, I think maybe when that statement, at the time, I think the original 1A moves it, 1E eliminates

Yeah, are on 1E.

Right. I think he

That's when I spoke to the issue of moving

the position. He's at

my Okay. Yep. Thank you. We received that. We appreciate that. Thank you for sharing

So

so one e

Will result in a layoff of a filled position.

Oh. And a position that

It creates a position under

In the council, right. And it should not be I mean, we also create the we also don't allow the creation of a new position in Department of State Development. But I'll let the committee remember that this position has been before us before. It was to have two positions in innovation. We historically rejected that and then it went through the ARP process.

I mean I do need to clarify.

You can say what you like to The

committee created this position by committee action in January. We then asked to make an alteration in that approval. That alteration was held. The committee did not deny this position. The opposite is true. The committee created this position by committee action. Someone is in this position. They will be fired or laid off if this amendment passes.

So what you said is not true.

Okay. Oh, thank you. There was a miscommunication because it was also seen as an analyst under budget. There was We a

had to do a miscommunication.

Oh, I'm talking. Excuse me. You had your piece. Mhmm. Let me say my piece. Piece. And that part of the story was left out. So I remember because I chair this committee. And then did you want to tell us about how the ARC process was used to?

The ARC process was used to fill the position, which I understand the council advised us not to do. But the committee said that so I don't deny that and I guess that's why the perception is there. But what you stated is the opposite of the truth. The committee created the position. The position existed. It was filled. It was funded. It was filled through the ARP process which the committee which is a part of the city ordinance. So I just want to be clear that yes, I am we are aware the committee didn't want this position filled or or it had some reservations. Those were said verbally. Actual committee action created the position in January. It was filled several months later.

And I think my last point on this because it's been a lot is when that happened, there was a miscommunication that we thought it was a budget analyst.

Correct. And and that is what it will be in the twenty sixth budget. So we ended. That's been clarified.

So the committee can certainly look And I

guess I should be clear. The miscommunication was at what level it was within the budget office. There is there was an available position. There was available funding in the '25 budget for this position. That part was true. It was a technical correction we attempted to make which the committee elected not to make. But the funding and the position authority is there for position. It was filled in '25 and this would take a this would be the first time under mayor Johnson's administration that either he or the committee laid someone off.

Okay. Not sure that's accurate either. But I think Hold on. Hold on. So I think the question before the council is do we think there should be one position of innovation in the Department of Administration, which we approved last time during the budget with actually very little pushback and then this policy position on transformational ideas in the council. I think there are great ideas in all parts of this government.

Madam Chair, if I may

We will now

There is one kind of example that Chairman held the Chief of Staff. This will be the second time.

Okay. So when we're going back in history and quoting things, there's I'm more interested in going forward about how we think this position can be used to help the common council. Okay, so we're still on omnibus 1E. Alderman Spiker has amendments. Alderman Chambers did you have something quickly to add on this point?

Correct the callback. Said he corrected himself.

Okay. So we're now on. Thank you. I really appreciate the feedback that you've offered here on this position. Thank you. We're now going to go to Alderman Spiker. And oh, I want to welcome. I see that smile. Alderman Andrea Pratt, good morning and thank you so much for being here. I would like to welcome everybody. Thank you for being here. We are now actually on 1E and we heard for public testimony which we appreciate and we're now with Alderman Scott Spiker on amendments that you had to offer. Do we have those in writing?

Yes, of course. Guess I do have one question about the position that's being eliminated in DOA and then another position not exactly the same being recreated in the council. I know there was some consternation expressed at committee about the proper use of ARP, the auxiliary resource program. I think what might have happened here is there were some misgivings about the use here. They were made clear and the administration went ahead anyway and that had certain consequences which I would rather have not occurred

because I

think it was a useful position. But be that as it may, that I think that's what transpired. Quick question regarding, I guess the Safety and Civic Commission, dollars 100,000. So that is something so I guess for the administration, that is something that was created back in the day by my predecessor Alderman Wittkowski and President Hamilton at the time. Bingo.

Alderman Wittkowski had been cabinet level, safety director worked closely with the safety commission and so when he became older he was always yearning to have a strong safety commission back, worked with President Hamilton to bring about something broader than the safety commission namely safety and civic commission. As Terry was want to do, it is a very large commission with 18 members plus 10 alternates or something like that. It's been staffed by Lashonda Patterson in the past. So she splits her time between her job as safety director, which is different than the cabinet post was back in the day and staffing this committee. This commission has appeared before public safety I think exactly once because I asked it to.

I've not heard anything from them since then. So I'm just wondering why we're allocating $100,000 towards that given that I'm not sure what this commission is doing although Alderman Bergalis was genius in appointing Tara Kavassos to it because she will not be a member of anything that doesn't get something accomplished. So I have great hope there. But my concern I guess is the 100,000 devoted to staffing of that. Is that something the administration supports or do they think Lashonda Patterson can handle the job as it stands?

Okay. Alderman Berglis, did you wish to speak to that?

Thank you. As the author of that piece 1E, I'll answer that the Civic Commission came to our public hearing and asked for funding. They have a lot of plans. It's a it's a group of dedicated citizens, volunteer citizens who have been all appointed by their respective elders that care about their community. They want to do more. They have no budget to do anything. So my budget my addition to the omnibus was a revenue neutral opportunity to give them something to operate and make our community a better place.

Okay.

So to the administration, my question?

Yeah. You mean on the Public Safety and Civic Commission? Yeah. It's a commission that's currently being supported by the police department. I mean, would defer to

the sponsor. Read from the Yep. Since you'll defer to the sponsor and that's not what I want you to do. Safety and Civic Commission in the write up section two says section blah blah blah of the code requires the police department to provide administrative and professional support to the commission. There and then under three, there's currently no funding source specifically designated to the police department staffing of this commission.

What I was the sentence I was attempting to finish was I'll defer to the sponsor on why they need the 100,000 because it's a it's a the police department is currently staffing it absorbed in their current budget. We don't think there is a need to give $100,000 but there may be additional activities the sponsor is anticipating that I am not aware of.

And just to clarify then, it sounds like as written it is supposed to go towards staffing not to give the commissioners a pot of money to do with what they will.

That's what I would refer

to the sponsor. Okay.

So we'll go back to the sponsor now. Aldrin Rodellis?

Thank you for that question. Dollars 0 would be allocated to staffing. Staffing is already covered. The commissioner gave us a long list of initiatives that they would like to invest in ranging from drug awareness, reckless driving. I would have to go back to the footage of that hearing or the notes for the long list of ideas that the commission had. $0 to staffing.

Does the budget office in the BMD2 acknowledge that that is reflected in your write up? Where does the money go? Not to a position, but to Did

we create a special fund or how did we do this? I believe it's we just created a a line item for it. I'm sure.

Okay. I'll respond

to my concern.

In certain line and amount. Safety and so it's a new line item in the police budget. Safety and Civic Commission.

So it's a special purpose account miscellaneous. So the sponsor speaks truly then, of course. No.

It's a special fund. You you you look above that. It's two two eighty point page two eighty. I'm pretty

sure it's a special fund.

Yeah. Under special funds Yeah. It says insert the following line amount to safety and civics commission and here's what it says, special per oh no, it doesn't say that. That's the next one. I got you. So it is a special fund. So for if it's a special fund and sorry for my ignorance, it can be used by the commissioners for what they will?

Well, it should be used for the purpose described in the line item.

Right. But that is not staffing according to the sponsor. Correct. So what would it be used for then?

This is what I'm deferring to the sponsor for. Okay. I I really don't know. We just drafted the amendment.

Guess I'll just I'm sure I I expressed my answer that question already. I think we should move on.

I'll just express my concern. I'm not sure what this commission does and I'm not sure what it would do with a 100,000. One reason that Alderman Wittkowski before he left was fixing to maybe kill the commission was he wasn't sure what the baby he created did. So it my concern is safety and civic commission is a very broad scope, very broad. Pretty much you got a problem, we can do something about it. A focus commission that has a narrow area that it works on much more effective than somebody trying to do everything. So I guess my if this is truly budget neutral, you know, horse apiece here, but I have some concerns whether that's true too.

I don't think it's budget neutral. This amendment raises the levy.

No, no. But this particular he's he's trying to say that the long term disability insurance and the unemployment compensation compensate for it. We got to pay that bill whatever

it is. Okay.

Just cutting the funding for it.

I do need to reel this back in because there's a lot of like just shouting out and this is gonna be a very long day if that is how things go. So please wrap up this part. We had a point of order on this question that Alderman Chambers just wanted to understand. Would you allow a brief question on it on the Safety Commission? You have the floor.

Oh, no. I'd be happy to. My other questions will be about the revenue sources.

So we're going to wrap up Safety commission, but Alderman Chambers had a question.

Thank you, madam chair. Director Kovac, can there be other sources to us when the within the police department that can be used for the Civic Commission, like to say, leftover SRO money that we had like this year and or asset forfeiture or anything like that? Can we direct that towards funding the Civic Commission?

Okay. Two different answers there. The SRO money is generated, you know, via court order. MBS reimburses us. That money goes to the general fund. So it would it doesn't the police doesn't control that money. Asset forfeiture is a different story. Asset forfeiture is something the police do an annual file on for counsel review. And there are rules about what asset forfeiture can be used on. I would defer to the police department whether this would qualify for that.

Can I get can I get that on file? And then back to the question, what you're saying is you're saying that the SRO money goes to the general file?

General fund.

General fund. So why will retell that the money is directed to the police and we can the police only can use that. I'm pretty certain that's what was told.

Well, no. That's you just can't use you can't use the midyear money outside

of alright.

Bill, do you wanna clarify? There's a couple different issues depending on which year of the money you're talking about.

Yes. Okay. We'll go to the city comptroller. We're still on safety commission and we got to go back to the amendments.

Okay. Well, specific to SRO revenue in 2025. So

mute yourself or mute caller two.

There is an ongoing question with the city attorney about whether this would qualify as greater than anticipated revenue and the issue is per the greater than anticipated revenue ordinances and statutes, greater than anticipated revenue has to be applied to an unanticipated expenditure. And in this case, we've the officers were funded in the 2025 budget. Now, they were funded for potentially a different activity, you know, whatever they were assigned to do that wasn't being an SRO. But the the question is, well, is that purpose shift, does that qualify this for greater than anticipated revenue and I'm I'm not certain I'm not in position to make that call at this time and it's it's kind of an open standing question. Alright.

Is there a time for

I I accept that. Thank you, Bill.

I'm sure.

Official request. Okay.

I already did.

Okay. We're looking for a city attorney opinion on those funds.

I think it's OB says open opinion on that.

Alright. Got to bring it back in because that's actually that funding source is not before us at this moment.

Madam Chair, before when are we anticipating a response back? That was asked a while ago.

Yeah, can follow-up and get a timeline Okay. For

you for the courtesy. Alderman Spiker has the floor.

Thank you. Turning now to the funding sources in the omnibus, I just have two questions about the first two items. So long term disability insurance, in the write up it says on Page five of the write up, long term disability insurance was budgeted at $750,000 in 2024, whereas actual expenditures were $8.90 plus. And then in '25, it was budgeted more to account for that $8.55 in the '25 budget. And in the '26 budget, and this is why it's being cut, I assume, it was proposed to be 950,000.

So this amendment would reduce, shave off 50,000 to bring it down to an even 9. Can you explain whether that is in your opinion fiscally sound or what risks if any do we expose ourselves to by that cut? Director Kovac?

Yeah. With this account along with the other account that's proposed to be cut here and various healthcare accounts, I mean it is a projection. So it risk is issue. You know, when I said all you by cutting the funding for that, are not reducing our obligations for long term disability. You are just guessing that our guess was too high.

So there's a risk there. I mean there's a reason we raised it because the trend is going up and one of, you know, with a lot of these accounts that are, you know, healthcare, disability, workers' comp, they do tend to track with staffing levels. So given that we did the major reclassifications that reduced vacancy levels in the last several years, we are now expecting to see those trend up. We have seen them beginning to trend up. So we are attempting to account for that via the budget process. There is a risk that if we don't fully budget for those that we will be short.

So let me see if I understand. Guess, of course, we have to pay the bill whatever it is. You have estimated the bill at $9.50. The omnibus would say actually let's only budget 9. We're comfortable with that additional risk. How certain are you of your $9.50 figure that

I'm not certain of it. It's our best guess.

How confident

are

you?

I mean we're reasonably confident that that's the right number.

But 900 doesn't give you the willies?

It's anytime you're dealing with projections, the scale matters. So yes, it's in a yes, I don't if use the

The term like scale is 50 out of Right.

So I'll acknowledge that it's not a huge if it was a bigger cut, I'd be more worried.

Okay. And then lastly on unemployment compensation, again same story, the fund received 400,000 of funding in 2024, 2025 and currently in the 2026 proposed budget, actual expenditures in 2024 were only $233,000 So what's the worst that could happen here that would give you any concern about that small shift?

Could the benefits director weigh in on this? I'd be happy to. Because she's the one following these trends the closest.

Okay. We have a benefits question for Ms. Molly King. I thought I saw her on. Oh, I'd also like to recognize Alderman Larissa Taylor has joined us. Good morning. Anyone here from the benefits department? This question or employee relations? Anyone from the administration want to answer we'll to move on. Can't help if people aren't here.

She just texted me saying she wanted to jump in. Are you there, Molly?

Are you

on the board?

Okay. Or

employee relations administration?

Maybe she'll come back later. Okay.

Can you move on to your next thing? Can't. Yes.

Nobody's here. I mean this was the one where I guess the risk I would feel more after the budget director's answer, I don't feel super concerned about the 500 off the $9.50. So if there's nothing here to say then I guess I don't have any concern if it's revenue neutral.

Okay. Okay. We have a memo from you. Thank you for your memo. And then I also once Alderman Spiker is done with his amendments introduction, I missed the virtual hand raising by Alderman Joe Casa Samaripa, so she'll be next. Alderman Spiker still has the floor.

I'd like to present an amendment to the omnibus and this would be the more profligate one.

Okay. Is that being handed out?

It should be. Oh, okay. It's in the

file.

Is it in the memo?

No. No. No. It's a separate document.

Okay. Just wanna be sure I have it while you speak of it.

Yep. I'll wait.

You're waiting for that other box to have a pilot.

I know. I know. Okay. Per our No. That's the same. Way of doing business here, we do have to have these written. It's written and it's before us. So

I'll wait till it's handed out and then I'll speak to it. Okay. And I would move that the amendment be before us realizing if it's voted voted down we go back to the

other. Okay.

So, oh yeah, he will. So amendment one g is being offered Alderman Spiker as a courtesy it's before us so he can speak to it and then we'll take a vote on his amendment. Very

good. Thank you madam chair. So this is a hard amendment to make, but there is a huge issue with the omnibus that's staring me in the face, which is that in addition to the mayor's proposed increase to property taxes of 3% and correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct, 3%.

And his proposed increase of 4% to a series of municipal fees.

Approximately 3.5 to 4%.

3.5% to 4%, 3.7% on the streetlights. Yes. In addition to that, the omnibus would have and it does this quite transparently, it doesn't play any games, would add 3.67 roughly million to the tax levy. Yes. What would the impact of that be on the average homeowner? Do you know that? I know it's a kind of

a Yes. No, we did. Oh, you mean, oh, I didn't do that, but I could do it quickly. It's just

we have have staff do it while you're answering other questions.

Wait, is your question of the omnibus or the first 3% that's in the mayor's budget that impact?

There's only 2% oh I'm sorry we're yeah.

The percent right.

Yeah, I'm asking what the increase is from the omnibus of the additional 3.67 on the levy.

Okay, so the extra levy on top of the mayor's levy increases we're

Yeah, talking

yeah. I think we talked about the mayor's increase.

The mayor's increase was 3% to 33.9%, I believe. So and then the base of that is 03/20 something. So roughly $3,200,000 is each percent from last year's base. So if you go up an additional $3,600,000 it's more than a percent. So it would be four point something percent. The question I think Oliver and Spiker is asking is median household impact, which I just need to take the rate and the median income and compare it to last year's. I believe the 3% was a $60 increase. So if you assume proportionality which we should in this case, it probably be another $20 a little over $20 more than I'm going

to spare you from this. I already have the calculations from the legislative reference bureau. Did you have those ready, Kathy? Or the controller has it. We asked for this in advance. So, I appreciate you wanting to do that on the fly and I I recognize you for that. You're pretty close

to the fart.

Yeah. I'm sorry. What was the question? So, what we were asking was what I had asked you previously or the controller was the alder person is asking about the effect of the omnibus. So again, I do want to be careful because these data points matter if we're trying to put them out. We have a levy impact from the levy increase of the mayor, but he's asking about just the omnibus, the 3,600,000.0. I thought it was 0.083%, something like that.

It's so the proposed budget had a 3% levy increase. Right. With the increase in the omnibus, it would go to four. 13.

Okay.

And sorry, my question is the typical household impact which with the mayor's 2% or tax levy increase of 3%, that would add $67.32 to the levy for your median homeowner who had a house worth 166.5 back in 2024 and now has a house worth 192.5 in 2025. So if your house is worth more than that, it'd be a bigger increase. If your house is worth less than that, it'd be a little bit of increase. But the point is the levy increase proposed by the mayor, the 3% would add 67 and 32¢ to the average homeowners property tax levy and my inquiry is what additional impact on the tax levy would the omnibus add in dollars?

The quick math in my head, I'd want to have staff run it out, but if 3% has an impact of $67 then an additional 1.1%, I mean, 67 by three, it's a little over 20. So I would think it's about a little over 20 per percent. Therefore, I would think it's about $25 although it is confusing because you're comparing comparing last year's median to Yep. Somebody can run that for you. My quick guess would be about $25 but

Madam Chair? Okay. Kathy from the Web site of Reference Bureau has looked at these. So go ahead, Kathy.

Doing the calculation on a using a median value of 166.5 adding a tax levy impact of point zero eight three would equal a $13.82

impact. That's last year's meeting. Your house went up in value.

Okay. One at a time. Did you have your answers on the levy increase?

No. And I'll explain why. So continue

on the levy increase?

The increase cited by miss Bregos was if your house had the good or bad fortune depending on how you look at it of remaining a 166.5 for your average homeowner. But of course what happened is everybody's assessments got jacked and so you would be basing your levy on a larger number. So the budget office had calculated what the impact of the mayor's three percent increase was, but that is assuming also reflecting the increase in the value of your house which happened that year. So 3% of a bigger number is a bigger number. So that's how they came to $67.32.

So the ask here is, okay, if your house stayed at 1665, it would be a $13 increase. But of course, nobody's house, the average homeowner pretend they exist. Their house didn't stay at 166.5 according to the numbers that went up to 192.5. So you had more valuable house so the impact is greater than $13

I think so. I mean, the confusion here is when you it is hard to do apples to apples because with the fees, there's a standard fee based on frontage and those don't move because the house value moves. What we normally do to do our apples to apples comparison is we take the prior year's median value multiplied by the prior year's rate. Then we take the New Year's median value multiplied by the New Year's rate. I'm doing quick math here. We'd have to read and I do think the rate has also shifted a bit because the base has shifted a bit.

But getting ballpark, I'm satisfied.

I mean, I think I'm thinking it's 25. I'm here and it's maybe lower than 20. I think it's about 20.

Okay. So twenty, twenty five deaths. Okay.

I I think I yeah. Somewhere in that range. I mean, if the mayor's 3% was 67, that that's how I'm thinking about it in my head because that, you know, apples to apples.

Okay. So, let's let's reset to clarity. The mayor's proposed 3% increase on the levy would affect your average homeowner as defined with a $67 increase. If you had the median home in '24, you still have the median home in '25, you would see a $67.32 increase. And actually I do have okay.

I'm getting a text from Brian. He's just straight multiplying the the rate change from the amendment times the median value which is a 192,005 times point zero eight three. That does spit out 15. Well, basically rounds to 16,000,000. 15. 98,000,000. So, I said about 20, we're saying $616 to a median household.

Okay.

The difference but it so that's comparing it

Because I wanna I be

mean, it's not comparing it to 25 the way we did. It's so it's a different way of doing the calculation. They're just looking at the median value this year, how much more taxes will it pay due if this omnibus passes, that is $616.

So I did not intend to demonstrate at this point, but it has been demonstrated. I have not worked with the administration on this because it would have been clean. So this is me at the table saying, okay. How How much does the omnibus add? And you're saying roughly 16 is our best guess. So that's fair. So that's like a quarter of what the increase was just from the mayor's 3% roughly.

Yeah. Although it's using different methodology, but yeah.

Okay. We're on one g. We gotta.

So here's here's the point. So, again, resetting to clarity. Omnibus represents an increase in the property tax levy. Here's a question. Do the city workers deserve an increase in their pay? The answer the answer is obvious.

You're not going to engage in the one on one thing, so ask that hypothetically and move it along.

The answer is obvious.

Of course,

Of course, act 10 froze general city wages, not by any law, but by the Baird administration's decision at the time. They said, okay. If we're gonna have to negotiate with police and fire, you guys keep getting raises. The general city, you're out in the cold. And so I understand completely why people would be a little ticked off. I have many general city employees in my district. Unfortunately, with police and fire, 62% of police live out of the city, 58% of fire live out of the city. But when we're talking our general city employees, 75% live within. Only 25% live without. My point.

General city has been left out in the cold for a very long time. There was a process in the last couple of years of doing market studies to try to rectify that, to try to bring people up to where they should have been. I'm hearing loud and clear from folks coming to the table both here and at the original hearing, that work isn't done. There still are people who are at least seated very near an open door as far as being left out in the cold. So that needs to be rectified.

I understand also why it must be completely galling to a general city employee to see in the news there there is a proposed 15% increase to police officer salaries. We can debate whether that's worth it or not, but, you know, you might say, yeah, of course it is. Of course they deserve that. Or you might say, no. No.

They don't. Whatever you think, mandated if that if the council say approves it, which I'm not saying they will. It's mandated that we bargain and it's mandated then that the end of the bargaining, whether it's resolved by an arbitrator or agreement, that that bargain results in a pay increase and a substantial one. Last thing that y'all should be all galled about, act 10. Makes no sense.

No sense with anybody with a modicum of a sense a modicum of a sense of fairness that there's something special about police and fire that's different from our municipal general city workers, the sanitation person, the plan examiner, the neighborhood services inspector, the water work I mean, just the list goes on and on. There's nothing that any fair minded person can see for why the two classes should be treated differently. Nothing. And perhaps a court will agree, and then perhaps we will be back to 2011. But we are not there yet.

So what do we do? The challenge we face now is that this 3.2 in levy has to come from somewhere. And so it's very tempting. I've been in this seat for six years. I've been at the city for ten. It's very tempting to focus on only one side of the equation and say, what do city workers deserve? I think we all would agree more

than this

is what they deserve.

But the problem

is who pays. So we have very strong representation from union that I've supported since I've come to office like many others. But there is not a representation of the folks in our district who are going to pay those bills. You are, in many cases, in my district, those same people. You're paying your own bill.

But I realized that there's a whole vast ocean of city residents who are not city workers and are going to look at this $4,100,000 increase in what is being devoted to city salaries above the two above the 2% and say, what about me? I'm a person too. Times are tough. Some folks may be on SNAP benefits and you say, well, they're not homeowner. Who cares if they're not homeowners?

That rent's getting passed on. The property owner, the landlord in the fullest sense of that word is not going to eat that cost. They're going to pass it on if they can. If they don't pass it on in rent, they'll pass it on in neglect and not tending to these properties and letting the horrible things we see in the paper every other day happen. So I wanna be cognizant of the fact that I represent all my extremely skilled and valued city workers whether they live in my district or not.

But I also represent a constituency that is not a city worker and who I have to answer the question for, why in addition to the 2% did you do the extra? And the thing that makes this so hard, this is probably the hardest vote I've ever had to take above act 12. The average household income of a city Milwaukee resident is something like anybody know it? Director Kobach, you know

it? Well, the the federal site's down right now to get the most updated number. But Google's spitting out 51,800.0 for household income in the city of Milwaukee.

Okay. So let's round it between friends and say roughly 52,000. That's for an entire household. So that includes parents, maybe some kids, maybe a spouse, who knows? But that's what you're getting for the whole family on average.

The average city employee mean is making 71,000. That's not all of you. There's some very high end folks who are making way more. If you don't believe it, check out the executive pay plan and find their salaries. The problem we're facing then if you'll look on my memo on Page two is for a resident, the folks we wanna support the most, the effect of this omnibus is to add another $2,600 to their salary.

Again, no question that it's deserved. None whatsoever. But again, that money has to come from somewhere. And so Alderman Murphy would always say there's another bingo. Alderman Murphy would always say, well, you can't tax the poor to pay the poor. And you certainly can't tax the poor to pay those who are better off.

Mr. I'm sorry. This is a motion to substitute introduction. So we've heard a long introduction to this motion. Can we vote on it?

You. Audience Biker still has the floor.

Yeah. I don't believe speaking out gets one recognized unless we've abandoned parliamentary procedure. So the point is $2,600 has to come from somewhere for each employee. Who are we asking to give it? We're asking the folks who are experiencing increased utility prices, greater issues with joblessness, maybe end of their SNAP benefits.

There's a host of things. So this is why it's hard. And I sit in a position in addition to thinking about that realizing this. If I vote for the omnibus, my own salary increases. How can I justify that to my constituents?

How do I go before them and say, you know, I'm doing okay but I get more. And who does that more come from? You. That's a very tough position for me to be in. So the omnibus I would amend with the most grievous of injuries which is to remove the $4,200,000 that I know the city workers deserve but I have no other source of giving it to them.

I would love it if the administration comes. So if this gets voted down, the omnibus passes, I would love it if the administration comes to the table and says, look, Spiker, along Alder Cogs' line, there's a way to do this without such a grievous hit to the levy. And so such a grievous hit to the members of the proletariat who aren't here today but who are impacted by this omnibus. So I pray if my omnibus amendment is voted down that between now and council we will find funds other than the levy because the levy affects all and there are a lot of people out there who just can't take another hit. So thank you.

Thank you so much Alderman Spiker. We are on one g which is an amendment to 1E. I've had a couple people who want to speak on one g. I said before this that Alderman Joe Costa Samaripa was had a technical issue and then I'll go to Brower who asked to speak. Alderman Samaripa, are you wishing to speak on one g or 1E? Because we are one g which has a significant difference from 1E.

Yeah I had a question way back when on the omnibus not on Spiker's amendment

okay do you want to hold till we see where the committee goes on one g

yes please roll the vote please.

Okay. Apology on missing that virtual, but you're first when we are when we take a vote on this. Okay. Alderman Brower, we are now on one g. Please keep your comments to one g. Hopefully everybody sees the difference between one g and one e. Albert Brower.

Yeah. No. Thank you so much. I just want to make sure that there's no members of the committee that need to speak before me. I just want to offer some thoughts on this here and looks like there's not. So, I'll go ahead. The Alderman Spiker, I can appreciate your concerns about the levy increase. I mean, you know, the working class is taxed considerably right now. But if we look at the at this it's this entire economic situation and why doesn't the city of Milwaukee have the funding that it needs. If we look at the big picture, it's because the richest 1% and the billionaires and millionaires are vacuuming up all the money in this economy right now.

You know, we need to and I would encourage every colleague individually and every person who's listening and every worker out there, you know, to fight back against that economic system and replace it with a better one with socialism. Right? But in in the meantime, until we do that, we have to be able to pay for the things that we need. Right? Things do cost money and

the money does have to come

from somewhere and if we want our workers to be appreciated, if we want them to show up every day and do the work that we're demanding that they do, they need a raise and they need a raise in this budget right now this year. Unfortunately, that is we are without option for more funding from the state. We are without option having to turn to the levy. I just had a conversation with a candidate for governor a few days ago about how the the when they are if they win that seat that they need to increase funding for local governments so we can tax the richest Wisconsinites and funnel it back to municipalities like Milwaukee so that we don't have to rely as much in the property tax levy. I would encourage colleagues, you know, to, you know, be be sparing with your endorsements of these candidates for governor until we can extract concessions from them to get more money for the city of Milwaukee and for municipalities like us so we can afford wages and benefits like this.

But in the meantime, before we make these transformational changes that we need, you know, we need to get the money from somewhere. Unfortunately, I believe we are out of options as far as other places to look. We need we will put this on a levy. And to the question of, you know, whether this you know, how much this burdens individuals, it does. We need to acknowledge that.

But what the working class of Milwaukee needs to do, who's burdened by property taxes and it is a burden, what we need them to do is do exactly like what our brothers and sisters in this room are doing who are members of of ASPE, which is unite and organize to demand from their employers who may be members of the 1%, the richest 1% to demand higher wages from them. Right? We need to the answer the answer isn't a reductionist like like, scarcity mindset of just, you know, cutting cutting cutting cutting cutting. The answer is for the working class in this town to organize. I call on every person, you know, who's listening in in the city of Milwaukee to organize and fight for higher wages.

You know, if we if you can achieve higher wages through organizing a union just like our brothers and sisters here are doing, you can, you could then therefore afford, you know, the, the things that are happening. And if and if not, you know, what I would say is that let this let what what's happening here be an inspiration to you to organize a union and to fight for higher wages. I mean, that's that's the answer is is for all of us to unite and fight for an economy that works for the many, not the few here. But unfortunately, in the meantime, we do have to show these workers in the immediate moment right now starting in the first pay period in January, not the first pay period in January 2027, not the first pay period in January 2028 after we are forced by the courts to go back into a collective bargaining arrangement the city workers. But but right now, to show them a meager thank you by increasing increasing their pay.

And I think I

think that's something we can talk about with our constituents. I'm gonna be proud to talk with my constituents about who are concerned about property tax increase which I think every one of them will be the same. But but the money that we are asking from you, that we are levying is going to a good use to improve and maintain the quality of city services that we have so that we can afford because right now as an employer, I know that Doctor had was here

a minute ago, as an

employer, we can barely even afford to be picky. I mean, we want to have quality workers attract and retain the best quality workers. If people, if our constituents aren't believing that they're getting their bang for their buck with their taxes and and I, you know, if they if they believe that's not the case, well, then we need to look to the supervisors of the of the of the city workers and and if there are city workers not performing, those city workers need to be terminated. But really, with the question of, you know, how are we gonna even bring in higher quality workers if we if we terminate workers who aren't performing, right? Well, we do that with higher wages.

So the only option in my mind is a higher wage environment and that's what this omnibus attempts to accomplish. I really appreciate like like what's happened here. The city workers came in acknowledging and recognizing in a letter that they brought to us that they, you know, are behind significantly. If you go by what the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, you know, the state's labor arbiter has recommended for contract start times. There, the city workers are behind at least 25 to 30% over the course of the last few years behind where they should be.

Now, some of those workers may have received significant increase studies. But like, you know, brother Ian Gunther said, though those market studies just brought the wages into current alignment with where they should be in comparable places. And then when you do that, then continue to base build to keep up with inflation. So that's it. So the argument that we should be making to constituents who are rightfully concerned about a property tax increase should be we are doing this to increase the quality of services because high quality services that I I have not seen a way yet in my time here and I and I don't think I will as a as an observer of politics though you can that we can get something for nothing.

You know, right as far as as far as high quality work and and it demands that we get the rate. So, I I I can appreciate that, you know, your sentiment on this but I would just I would urge everybody on the committee to vote against amendment one g. Thank you so much, madam chair.

Thank you, Alderman Brower. We're on one g. I'd like to get to calling the role on one g.

Okay.

But I see Alderman Chambers wants to speak on one G. Alderman Chambers.

Thank you, madam chair. I will not be supporting one G should it come to the council floor on many reasons. First, you know, I appreciate my colleague on his concern. Far as, you know, raising taxes on a levy. I wish he shared the same concern when we was taking on the vote to raise the sales tax.

On that point, one of the things that I want to bring up, want to highlight is that he you know, bring up our pay raises. There's a theme that we took care of before we even thought about raising our pay raises. Should I add that the council have the council nor the administration or anything have not had a raise in fifteen years. Anyone on this level have worked at a position of for fifteen years without getting a pay raise, you're crazy. I'm just being honest.

I'm being transparent and and stating facts. And before we even thought about our raises, we took care of our employees first. So I really want to get that notion out of there saying that we're taking care of ourselves. And I was proud to sponsor the executive pay plan to get our raises to make sure that we'll echo. We could have went higher and we didn't because we understand the parameters that we were facing.

We understand the the climate that we were facing but we understand what's facts is facts. That it was fifteen years before someone did not, you know, for anyone got a raise. They took care of y'all before we took care of us and that's that's leadership in my opinion and this amendment does not display leadership. It does not and I I wish that my colleague, I respect my colleague. I think he's one of the most insightful persons on this council. I think he is very intelligent but I think that if we're going to lead with leadership, I think we have to stop the games and just get things on the road. So madam chair, I urge this committee to vote down amendment one g. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else from the committee on one g?

Briefly in conclusion.

Okay. In conclusion from the sponsor of one g, Alderman Specker.

Yes. No, thank you for the insights and comments. Alder Brower, who I respect deeply, we come from different foundations and arrive at different conclusions but very sharp and very passionate, fierce advocate for labor. The problem in telling the workers to organize is they have to do so with one hand tied behind the back as as I don't have to lecture him. He knows this as well as anybody.

We're a right to work state where you can be in what used to be a union shop and now you can get the benefits of union bargaining without paying the dues. That's tremendously destructive to unions. So I would support organization wherever you can get it but I understand there are workers who are hindered in being as effective as they like they would like. And then briefly on Alder Chambers' comments, it didn't quite speak to the issue of who pays for this. Did mention the fact that it would impact our salaries as well.

The executive pay plan didn't just affect our salaries. It affected everyone. And I 100 agree that if Alderwoman Cogs was here in 2008 and she's here in 2023, she just is a bargain if we only have a 15% pay increase for her. But of course, a number of members including myself, I voted against the executive pay plan, were not there for fifteen years. So it would be an increase versus what your predecessor fifteen years ago made.

So that's just a point to make. But on the whole, I desperately want to vote for the omnibus if we can get another source of revenue besides the non city employees in the city who are in dire straits right now. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe that will conclude our remarks on one g. If there's anything else that needs to be asked that hasn't been discussed, then we'll call the roll on amendment one g once one g is dealt with we move on to one e if it is not adopted one g please call the roll

on amendment one g honor woman more

no

trying

to One g is a substitute.

Yes. This is Spiker's?

For Spiker? Mhmm.

Honorman Spiker? Aye. Honorwoman Cox?

No.

Honor Member Gillis? No. Madam Chair? No. Fails one to four.

One to four, one g has failed. We're now on amendment 1E, the original amendment that we spoke about. Alderman Samaripa had a question on one e. Alderman Samaripa. Yes. Alderman Samaripa. Excuse me. Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please.

Okay. Thank you, madam chair. Yes, sorry. There are some technical difficulties. I think people's audio isn't working that are trying to participate virtually. But I wanted to go back to the I did not I was not aware. I thought the omnibus was room was moving the staffer that was mentioned earlier into the common counsel common counsel clerk's office, but I just learned in committee that the substitute that was put forward this morning actually eliminates position. Is that correct, madam chair?

I heard the Department of Administration state something about how they did not want the position to transfer into the common council. And the substitute creates a new position in the common council for transformational ideas.

Okay. So the worker in question will not move into the common council clerk's office any longer but rather be laid off as was mentioned earlier?

So we're talking about the position and the administration stated they did not want the position moved into the common counsel. And our budget amendment 1E has a new position created in the common council. And then I'm not sure if you heard the part where the position in question that would be eliminated is a position via ARP that there was some difference of thought or opinions on the finance committee if we ever supported that second position. There's a desire for the council to have policy director of transformational ideas in the common council.

And how long is that worker? How long was has she worked for the city?

We will not be able to talk about personnel names and people in this committee. We only talk about positions.

Right. That's why I did not say her name.

That position that did not have the support of the committee, there was a miscommunication. They stated on record and then it went through ARP. We allowed for Director of Innovation but this committee that we went back and forth, we looked at the records. That's why they had to go through ARP is because there was not support for a second position in innovation. That position is funded via ARP. How long they've been in the ARP program, that's something that DOA can speak to.

It was this summer. I don't know the exact date. It's been a few months.

A few months in the ARP position as the second innovation staff person.

And ARP is reimbursed by the Board.

Okay. I appreciate

Okay. So I guess another way of looking at it, the impact of the Common Council Amendment 1E is to create a new position in the Common Council for transformational ideas. Result of that is the elimination of the extra position in Department of Innovation and there certainly is a disagreement here of the history of and you can feel free to ask finance members if they supported a second position there but there's certainly a we've been transparent about the disagreement. What we can agree on is there's a disagreement there so. Other questions?

Saying I disagree. I just I'm trying to understand. I was unaware. I thought the last time I one of the finance members spoke with me I was told we were moving. I thought that the position was just moving into the office.

And I

But that's not the

case.

And I heard from the administration they do not want that position moved into the office of common counsel. They put that on the record. The administration does not want the position moved into the common counsel.

I think madam chair, just for clarity, if you if you don't mind. Sure. Order women's Amaripa, I think you're right with the original version. But with this amended version, it switches to what the chairwoman said. So I don't so I don't want you to think you were, mistaken in any way. It sounds like what your understanding was is what the file originally said, but the amended version in front of us does exactly what the chairwoman just described.

And furthermore, from that original omnibus, we heard from the director administration that they don't want the position moved into the council. I don't I don't it's we've said that.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We have said that many

times Yeah. Think we should

be clear that we don't want to move to the council. We want to stay where it is. We don't want the position eliminated. Correct.

Great. And we have stated that we didn't really want it to go through the art process and we want someone in the common council. So I mean a director of policy and transformational ideas. Again, I'm okay with that disagreement. That's democracy. It happens sometimes. It's okay. Any other questions or comments on amendment 1E? I'm being transparent about that so it is what it is. Yes.

I mean there's several comments about 1E that I like to make.

Okay. You're making that on behalf of the administration? Yeah. Oh okay. We're open to that. Yeah. We've made many comments on

the I I can see the writing on the wall given the co sponsorship so I'm saying this in the spirit of collaboration which I think Aldwoman Cog suggested potentially between now and counsel. I just want to state for the record

Can you speak up just a bit

for will the mic say

for record

our take and there could be department heads that could go into more detail if you would like or you can allow me to provide a summary. It's obviously your discretion. I don't know if department heads want to jump in. But kind of working from the bottom up of 1E, there is the of the revenue created by or the cuts or revenue created by 1E. There is the 2.1 of $6,000,000 from three different sources recognized by the comptroller but to be clear, it wasn't the comptroller's doing. I want to

be clear about that.

There was new information in three different cases having to do with the structure and the reimbursements of our city insurance payment from Milwaukee Waterworks and cyber insurance having to do with the billing for the school resource officer and having to do with new information from the state. What I'll say is I want to give congratulations to the government relations division for getting the state to increase their municipal aid payment and increased even more than we thought in September. So that is all great news. So there is 2.16 so I will just state for especially for new members who haven't been through this before, given that the comptroller rec which is recognized money between the proposed and the adopted budget, if the council were to do nothing, which I know it won't but I am just letting you know as a technical matter, that newly recognized revenue of $2,160,000 by default would lower the tax levy from the increase of 3% or $9,000,000 lower by $2,000,000 So that's the default action. The omnibus obviously anticipates spending that money in other ways and I would say the administration is certainly open to levy neutral ways of spending that money and a number of the ideas in this omnibus we support, not all of them, but I'll go through them.

But just for the record, is 2.16 that's there. There's additional money created, which I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but we certainly disagree with the 82,000 created by eliminating the one position. We disagree with the 130,000 of savings by eliminating the unfilled position of the jobs job in DCD. And then we do disagree. I don't if you want to hear from Molly on the details.

I can quick summarize because she sent the details. I think she worked out her technical difficulties. Long story short on the $50,000 in long term disability insurance and unemployment, those are trending up in '25. The '25 budgeted amounts are likely to be short. So therefore and if we're short in those amounts in 2026, which things could change in 2026, but 2025 trends indicate we had to increase them.

If we're short, we've got to use the contingent fund. If the contingent fund runs out, we have to contingent borrow. I said earlier that $50,000 is $50,000 so I like to keep my comments relative to the scale that they are at, but we do not recommend those cuts and we think they could force contingent either fund or borrowing eventually. Now working up so to that but the amendment does create $2,400,000 in revenue, most of it from the newly recognized revenue. One of the sponsor of one g said, could we do a 1%?

I don't know if he said that explicitly. He wanted know what could be done for employees. It is true that we could roughly 1% raise, even a little more could be done with just money. Having said that, I would also like to state just for the record that as much as we agree that we want to maintain competitive wages, we don't want to repeat the cycle that happened in the decade after Act 10 that we have tried to address with the reclassifications over the last three years. It does employee raise is due.

They don't just you don't just have to pay for them in the '26 budget. They affect the gap for '27 and '28 and so on. Now the counterargument to that is well you proposed a 2% raise yourself and that's true. So we proposed a rate that was consistent with prior raises in the context of a major reclassification that also happened. I want to emphasize that.

Just talking about the zero from last year and not talking about the reclassifications that had happened in those three years up until this year, I think this is valuable context. So it does make push the gap higher. And then going up through now the spending, the $6,200,000 in proposed spending, a lot of clerk stuff, I will just speak in general because Shakita Winters I think did an excellent job, the budget analyst for the city clerk explaining this during that budget hearing. I think here and there there might be a slight adjustment we would support given some new spending trends we saw over the summer in a couple of special funds. But our general statement that what the mayor proposed allows the current levels of spending in all of those funds to continue.

The mayor did not propose cuts to those funds. He proposed levels consistent with prior year spending looking at what the carryover was likely to be. So it is our position that even though it is restoring what the city clerk requested in May, we think it is actually adding service in all of those special funds. Took obviously the counsel's discretion to add the service but that's just our position is that there is enough money to continue current service levels in what the mayor proposed. And then the Safety and Civic Commission we have discussed.

The other, you know, we do support innovation district. Don't know that I have much to say about that. Eviction free, we do support. We supported it with ARPA when it came through. I think that and the libraries are a couple of things we would probably support spending the newly recognized revenue on.

And on the libraries, I know this was discussed extensively. Library Board, I know the Library Director is here if there is further questions but I think I can summarize the library's position roughly potentially what the Board's position might be. The Chair of this committee in Crafting the Omnibus asked some really good questions and inspired I think some really good answers from the library. I want to thank the Chair personally for that because I think what came out of that, basically the question was how much money do you need to not cut Sunday hours? And the first answer was well, we cut $800,000 so just restore the $800,000 and it's business as usual.

That was the easy answer. But the chair asked us to really look closer at it and the library, really want to thank Director Johnson and her team for saying, you know what, maybe there is a way we can create a new staffing model and that new staffing model could allow us to restore that service without the price tag. And so I really want to thank the Chair for asking the question. I want to thank the library for providing that answer. But there is some context to that.

There was a number of options that were provided and those options were provided in response to direct questions from the sponsors which is appropriate. That's what should happen. Saying so one of the questions was what would it take under the new staffing model to fund four Sunday branches instead of two. And we did our best to cost that out with a huge caveat that it's a new staffing model that we are not sure how it's going to go. So I think the library and I think this was expressed at the Board meeting would prefer to test the new staffing model before committing to an expansion with a basically before committing to expanding hours while using staff differently in a leaner way, they would like to see if it really works like they hope it does because it's a test.

And therefore the library would prefer option four which is 300 instead of $600 some thousand. So I'll just put that out there both based on the operational ability of the library to even do it and if you are looking for fiscal savings to not increase taxes quite so much, there is a real option to have two branches that the Board would decide which two rather than four and if it really works out great and the staffing model is working out great, it's possible expansion. The Board could even allow expansion midyear. But we do still want to commit to that. So on the library, there is a potential for savings and a potential to respond to what the library staff and directors are telling us about what they think is feasible.

So we do support an addition there, just not quite so much. And as for the raises, I don't want to here is actually the big one. The big one that I actually think and hope might actually happen between now and council. Actually, hope the library happens too, but we will see. The $800,000 for down payment assistance, we are supportive of that in general. The only reason we didn't fund it is we are had been funded more with ARPA. We are just not and there is only so much TID money and levy money to go around. There is and this has been communicated. This is not the first time the counsel is hearing it. It has been communicated before.

I do know that the chair of the committee and economic development committee is fully aware of this discussion and so there is more than $800,000 available out of a many year expired TID to fund down payment assistance. So there is a mechanism that could fully fund the 800,000 in this omnibus and would but not have it on the letter. Why didn't

you use that in your budget then?

It's not a budget amendment. It would it needs separate council action because it's 20

Why didn't you bring that forward to us? Why is it just now? It's just like a I'm random

pretty sure we have brought it forward many times and we brought it forward at the last A and D meeting with the discuss. This is not a secret. We've discussed it. It's not something that it's some it's something the council would have. I mean, we would like to do it. We did it with some of the flood money. We talked about it extensively then. We said there's 900,000 left in this fund. This is not a secret. It's not something the mayor could formally propose in the twenty sixth budget because technically it's budget from it's either '21 or '22 budgets. If the money is there, it exists. It just can be it can be dispersed at any time. And again, this should not be news to anyone on this committee. We've discussed it. We provided memos. I think Sam Leckman can give you a full list of all the counsel contacts on this. So this is not news. Point of order, ma'am.

I just want to make sure that there was a lot of

I have a couple more comments but I can take more comments.

More comments on my amendment? Yes. Okay. So I do want to pause. That very lengthy. I appreciate it. Remember there's been months and months that the mayor has had to put a budget forward. We get weeks. We get a week from when we conclude hearings to put a budget amendment forward. And now on every single line of the budget amendment that I try to put together to hear from the voices of the people in this room, each one has an amendment to the amendment.

I I guess my question is why doesn't the mayor just sign it the way that it is? If you want to veto it, go ahead and veto it. But to take a step and a step and a step and negotiate every step of the way when you've had the whole year to do it is really tough on this body of 15 people that are responding. The reason these people are here is because they're responding to the choices that the mayor made. And we're responding to them.

And so it's hard. I mean, I'm always open to ideas, but it's almost when you go through each one, it sounds like there's very little room to differ from what the mayor originally put forward. There's a lot of ideas out here. And then when new funding sources come up that weren't used or discussed with everybody or are coming up at this moment, it just feels very reactionary and it doesn't feel completely transparent. Doesn't it feel odd to people that we move to solve something that people were asking for and then all of a sudden there's a funding source that we didn't hear about or we didn't all hear about or there was a memo on. That's gotta stop.

It was discussed at zoning committee. This is this should not be news to anyone. You you the coal council voted on using this funding source to pay for a flood relief program. It's not news. It's been out there. We've been talking about it probably and privately

for months.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm saying that we have a plan here to move forward that reacts to the people who are reacting to the cuts of the proposed budget by the mayor's office. So it is it's interesting that things change so significantly when the people speak out. So we're on 1E. Did you have, you had concluding remarks about how the mayor feels about our omnibus?

Have a couple.

Please, I want to make sure that you're able to say everything that

you need.

I don't

know if chambers are

I want you to continue.

Okay.

Yeah. I want to make sure we have all the space because So yeah. To

those general comments, I mean it is a I don't know if I want to call it a negotiation but yeah, the mayor spent the whole year or a big chunk of the year proposing executive budget. The council spent several weeks asking great questions, reviewing it, getting public feedback. And then there is an omnibus that we helped draft. We are happy that that's part of our job. It's been public since for about two days now.

And so I am providing the mayor's comments on these changes that you can take them or leave them. But the fact that I am providing the mayor's comments I don't think is unusual or should be questioned. Am just providing I mean the fact that I am providing my role feedback and administration feedback, I think there is a space to do that. Whether you agree or disagree with the feedback is at the discretion. But I just don't like being questioned on why am I providing mayoral feedback on a $6,000,000 change to a proposed budget. I would like to be able to do that.

Please don't want you to.

Just from a process, I have never, in my seventeen years, I have never had the mayor having opinions questioned like that. So we welcome great ideas and I have even gone through them line by line and said some that we partially welcome, wholly welcome, welcome with a different funding source. So we do welcome the eviction free, the down payment assistance, the change to the library but at a lesser amount. We welcome all that. On the wages, I think we tried to stay within what we thought we could afford in 2026 and beyond and it does create structural pressure beyond if wages go up at all, but certainly if they go up more than 2%, which had been the standard in two of the last three years, again, in addition to the reclasses.

So to the extent that there is new money in 2026, I think we're open to that being spent on wages. But keeping in mind that it does put pressure on twenty twenty seven then. And will there be this will there be as much money in 2027? We expect a huge gap in in '27. So I guess I mean, that's not a definitive statement one way or the other, but the mayor would appreciate an omnibus that is either that doesn't raise property taxes or that raises them less. That is the mayoral feedback that we'd like to see. We are certainly happy to work with you on every line item if you are open to our feedback. I know at least Aldo Woman Cogs was open to it and even requested it specifically of the chair that you would be open to it and I would underline that request. The mayor would love it if we could have discussions. One thing I will say is a technical matter now.

There is the expenditure restraint incentive program limit that I think we have let a number of you know about both in committee and privately. Alvin Brower asked a number of great questions about that. That is $8,100,000 That's how close the Mayor's proposed budget was and obviously if we hit that number or go higher, would hope we lose $10,000,000 So I assume there is no desire to go over that. This amendment gets us doesn't quite get us there, it gets us close. It adds 5,800,000.0 to expenditure restraints.

That leaves 2,200,000 of room for all of the other amendments. And we are not recommending you hit the limit, but we are just letting you know if we really can't go higher than that limit. In terms of the levy, will just make some general comments because it is there is some nuance to the levy limit calculation. We do based This on the latest numbers from the state in that new construction and based on our debt cost this year, 3% was not our limit. You could go up above four like you are suggesting.

You even could go to 5%. We don't recommend that for policy reasons and for some of the reasons Alderman Spiker stated about the effects on households. But putting aside the political and other and socioeconomic decisions we make about what the tax rate should be, there is just some technical issues I want to make sure the committee is aware of. Any you are only allowed to go up by state law. You are allowed to go up by net new construction, which is generally about 1% a year.

So then you might ask, well, how in the world are you going up 2% a year and going up 3% this year 2% in most prior years, 3% this year. And the answer is a debt adjustment, which the state allows all municipalities to make. So you're allowed to take a portion of your debt cost from that year and raise taxes to pay off your debt. But then whatever you use there has to come out of next year's levy limit calculation. So if you ever get really close to using your entire debt calculation, it could force you not just to not be able to raise taxes next year but even might have to lower taxes next year.

Some people might want, right? But it certainly limits both the mayor and the council's future options. I am not here to tell you you can't go to 4.1 which is what the omnibus does. I am just saying that that would then use almost the entire debt adjustment which would mean that the amount of Levy could go up next year will likely be less. And that may be okay with I just want people to be aware that there is that effect, that multi year effect given the state levy limit calculation. The more of your debt adjustment that you use, then you either have to go into debt on purpose next year and raise taxes to do it, which we do not recommend. That's a spiral. Or you have to accept that you will now have a one revenue source will be severely limited in future years if you get too close to the actual levy limit.

Point of personal

privilege. Okay. Anything else you'd like to share on the omnibus? That's what I have. Okay.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank

you. One e is before us. Any other questions on one e? Alderman Chambers on 1E?

Yes, madam chair. Comptroller Christerson, your job as a comptroller is to recognize any revenue that's come in to make sure that we are fiscally being responsible and making sure that we can use the money, correct?

Recognizing revenue in the budget, yes.

You no have a lot of other responsibilities on top of that, correct? Correct. All right. So your job is just not simply recognizing money.

Right. That's not all that I do.

I just wanted to clarify that question. Sure.

Okay.

To during the Kobach point and to Madam Chair's point, far as finding additional revenues and the frustration that lies behind it, While I was not on the council when the this this TID money or TIF money that was available, we didn't know anything about this TIF money until about August or September when myself, Alderman Burgillis, Alderman Stamper brought that up and we passed various other council led things like the council led transformation fund that we could potentially potentially maybe, you know, possibly use some of that fund or anything like that to help because if I'm not mistaken, DPA was a part of that too, wasn't it? On the Consulate Transformation Fund, which was housing. We can't use that that tier money on that back then.

You could've.

Had we known.

That's fair point.

That the fund there. So, I I'm I'm just I I hear your your your feedback. I respect your feedback. I know you've been in this seat. I know you've been you know, here for a while. I just really to know the chair's point. I just really wanted to to stop and just like give it to us straight because we only know what we know. And if we don't dig, if we dig deep, then that's when stuff come out and that's when the frustration comes.

I I do think that your time frame of most people on this council knowing that was available August, September is probably about right. I mean, some members of the council, the ones who might remember the actual was it in 2019? Sam get Sam would know the details.

Yeah. We passed the their transformation fund in '8 March or April? That's

and yeah.

And, you know, that's an additional 08/09 actually, it took so how much money off of that? It was $7.50 Right. Or, like, $500,000. So it was one point I

think you raised a fair point. Why didn't we bring this up then? That's I I think part of it is there there had been some of it was in a I mean, there there had been a prior action to reserve this money for for a purpose and I think for a while that purpose was expected to be used. At some point this summer, it became clear that that purpose maybe wasn't gonna happen. I I don't know if I can give you a better timeline than that. If you'd like to hear from Sam on the I mean, I agree with you that Yeah. This money's been sitting there for three years. Yeah. Why didn't why are you only hearing about it now? With all due respect question.

Yeah. This source is not before us. That source is there's nothing in this amendment talking about that source.

Correct. And I I

got that.

Yeah. Yeah. I I get that. The reason why I brought it up and and I'll be done after this comment. Or the reason why I brought up, it goes back to your point as far as like why we're just now finding out like all all these, you know, you know, because obviously, I would have been more perfectly fine with getting that money to DPA and not putting on this omnibus as far as where they can have the money right then and there.

And they don't have still before you.

It's not before us today.

But it could be introduced.

What's before us and what the people here are in support of today is they're talking about one E.

Madam chair, thank you.

Thank you, I mean, madam we have a plan right now how to fund what is in front of us. We're looking we will certainly be looking at things as they present themselves.

Madam chair,

could you just I'm still saying my sentence. We've had a lot of talking on that side. I just need a moment to be able to say and bring it all together is that we have a plan in front of us. We've put forward together ideas and again the people reacting to a budget we got with what we got. To bring in new things now feels you know feels a certain way that people have mentioned.

Of course we'll always look at things. We'll look at things from now. It kind of feels like we're only looking at things because I brought forward this amendment to be quite honest here and it was the great council members here on the finance committee that wanted to solve these issues so this is before us we have a plan I want to bring it back and reset it is this opens up libraries Martin Luther King Jr. Library on a Sunday. It opens up Mitchell hopefully on a Sunday. And by the way, halfway through the year, it's not immediately. The pilot can work itself out. It invests in our workers of the city and city residents. Residents. It helps prevent evictions.

It invests in the innovation special fund and it also helps homeowners achieve that American dream via the down payment assistance program. We've had an amendment to it, one g it failed and we're on 1E now. Any other questions or comments first by council members on 1E. We'll make sure we've gone through everybody and everybody's gotten everything that they've had to say. Spyker.

Thank you, madam chair. My colleague left but, yeah, if that 12 and if the sales tax hadn't passed, half the people in this room wouldn't be here because they would have been laid off as would have hundreds of police and fire. So let's be clear that whatever else, poison pills, whatever you call them came with it, we would not be running a city with the services we had had not that revenue source been availed. Briefly, the Director had mentioned the library wants this. Let us distinguish.

There is the at will employee who heads the Milwaukee Public Library and then there's the Board of Trustees which ostensibly is over that head in the sense of being able to dictate which libraries and what hours they shall be open. Of course, they would be unwise not to consult the great staffing knowledge that the director has. But I was at that library board meeting for three hours and although I heard director Johnson express misgivings about adding two extra libraries and keeping the existing ones and adopting a staffing model to accommodate that, although two extra ones would only happen halfway through the year, the Board in the end didn't say 100% we agree. 100% let's go to the council and say can't have that. That didn't happen.

I was there. So the director may have misgivings and we'll find out whether they're well placed about whether the staffing model will work. But what we have been calling on throughout this budget is innovation. And as we all know, if we don't get innovative with respect to the provision of library services say, the provision of library services say there's going to be libraries closing down. So again, appreciate the chairs pushing on this issue of Sunday library hours.

That's what people have been asking for in every survey that comes out and we're trying to find a way to give it to them. Director Kovac, you had mentioned something that I guess hadn't been a point of discussion. So say the omnibus passes as is and so there's a 3% raise for all general city employees and a 4% raise for those who are also residents. Do you have any idea what impact this will make on the mayor's proposed budget next year as far as what raise he proposes. Obviously, I'm not asking him to commit now. But if we do this here, do we increase the odds of him offering zero next year and so us having to come to the and do something.

That seems to be a fair surmise but I have not discussed that issue with the mayor yet.

Yeah. And I guess the point you had raised about if we I mean and this I mean I guess I hadn't fully appreciated it till you said it. You are saying that if we raise the levy this much this year in accordance with both the Mayor's original 3% and then the omnibus, next year we will be in a tough position to raise it either at all or nearly as much. That's that what you're

what I'm saying, yes. I can't say for certain because we don't know what net due construction will be, but it's usually about 1%. So we're going to need the debt adjustment and we're already using more than 90% of our debt adjustment. This would push it up to about 95% of it. So you are getting close.

So is it fair to summarize then you are saying that what we buy with the additional spending on the levy for the omnibus is a tougher budget situation next year?

Absolutely. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Madam Chair, just want to make one comment about to be clear what the administration is suggesting and it's a suggestion that involves we have to involve counsel cooperation. We are suggesting that there is an alternative funding source for the 800 and it is a reaction to the omnibus which we have had for two days.

It is a reaction to the budget you proposed? Correct.

Is a reaction to a reaction. So we are offering an option if you want to reduce the $3,600,000 tax increase that this omnibus would do by $800,000 down to $2,800,000 There is an option. Is an alternate funding source. It would require separate council action but it's possible it can be done within the budget. The omnibus could be footnoted to say down payment will be paid this way. Again, it requires separate action. Lots of amendments do that. So yes, technically it's not what 1E does but it achieves what 1E wants to achieve with less of an impact on taxpayers. We're offering it as a suggestion. Sam can give more details on the timing or logistics if you'd like them.

I mean we don't I don't know why we're getting into something that is not before us. It's not written. I can't you don't get I'm sorry but the executive branch doesn't get to amend legislative amendments.

We're just making a suggestion.

I appreciate it. I appreciate it. I thought at the beginning of this budget we went through down payment assistance. We asked this department why you didn't fully fund it at $1,500,000 And at that time there was no suggestion of this alternate funding source. It was actually that the things I heard was that we wanted to use less resources. We didn't think we want to keep up with the commitment. I heard other reasons why 1.5 wasn't offered, but I never ever heard about this when the department was up. So it's very the timing is off if you're sensing elevation in my voice is because it's just coming up. It is not before us. It is not written.

We don't take written offers at the table. We have a written amendment that's been out in front of us. We will certainly look at that. We look at every revenue source. But every revenue source that comes up affects an alder person. There's 15 of us. It could affect a district differently. We don't have just one person here. That's the different part of democracy. We get to offer this is a best plan that I could find in reaction to the budget we were presented. If there are new things, I'll always be open to looking at it as every member on this council. So with all due respect, I'm gonna have to put a pause on that, and I appreciate you very much. So we have one e before us.

I'm sure.