[0:47] All right. All right. So, it >> says stop sharing.

[0:50] » That's right. You're right. >> Never mind.

[0:53] » Should I stop sharing? >> It's going to go to your gonna

[0:59] » video's going. I can see.

[1:03] I can see us. Audio is on. >> I'm recording.

[1:08] What is it?

[1:14] » I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[1:19] » Oh, the meeting.

[1:23] » Hello everyone. Sorry, we're just getting set up for a standard date which

[1:26] is second.

[1:50] » Are we being recorded? All right, it's our uh what is today? July 14th study

[1:57] session on downtown capital improvement priorities

[2:01] prioritization. I'll turn it over to Emma.

[2:04] » Thank you, mayor. And thanks. We do have a Zoom audience tonight watching us. Um

[2:09] we're going to dive in. So, uh why why are we having this discussion? Why have

[2:15] we dedicated a study session to this topic? Um,

[2:21] you know, I think this is actually a really exciting uh conversation because

[2:26] it's spurred on by this council and previous council. Some of these projects

[2:31] have been have been on the docket for many many years. Um, the real momentum

[2:36] we have in our downtown and the real desire to invest in some transformative

[2:40] capital improvements that could reshape um downtown for for generations to come.

[2:46] I think what's also really exciting about all those projects that we've been

[2:49] talking about for years is that they really hit all of council's goals. They

[2:53] hit parks and green space. They hit economic development and they could

[2:57] support affordability in terms of affordable housing. Um so that's the

[3:01] awesome part. There's no der of great ideas and great opportunities in the

[3:05] downtown core of Milwaukee. The sort of reality check part is that resources are

[3:10] limited. Um because these are all in that downtown core. they all potentially

[3:15] compete for urban renewal um area dollars. We're very excited and happy to

[3:20] see that the tax increment in the um urban renewal district is doing its job.

[3:24] It is growing, but it's a finite pool of money as well, and it cannot cover every

[3:30] single thing we might want to do on the capital front downtown. We also um have

[3:34] a wonderful staff, but we don't have uh unlimited staff. And and these projects,

[3:39] I kind of jokingly call them the downtown mega projects. um they they are

[3:44] big and they're some of them are going to be multi-year and they're going to

[3:47] require a lot on the design front, the construction management front, the

[3:50] community engagement front and um we're going to need to be judicious in how we

[3:55] apply staff to that. We also have a finite amount of space. So you do a lot

[3:59] of construction in an area, you got to put all the vehicles and the equipment

[4:02] to do that. So we have to think about construction staging and we also have to

[4:06] think about construction impact. It's really um easy to think about how great

[4:11] it's going to be when projects are done, but there's that painful middle. No one

[4:15] likes construction. And we've built such a great momentum in our downtown core

[4:20] with um thriving small businesses that we have to be mindful of the disruption

[4:25] construction can cause. So, in light of all the things we want

[4:32] to do and those reality check constraints, uh it's very important, I

[4:36] believe, that we prioritize and we make sure staff are aware of how you as

[4:41] council want us to prioritize these major projects so that we can deliver

[4:45] this transformative change, but in a sustainable and strategic way.

[4:50] Okay. So, what are the projects we're actually talking about tonight? I'm

[4:54] going to see if I can collapse this. move it.

[5:01] I love Okay, it's going to stay there. Um, the first one we're talking about is

[5:07] our main street enhancements project that is uh highlighted there for you on

[5:12] the map in blue. This project is currently in the capital improvement

[5:16] plan that's in the adopted budget. Uh, that plan had design occurring in fiscal

[5:21] year 28, construction occurring in fiscal year 29. The total cost of the

[5:25] project is about $7.6 6 million and this is an integrated project. So it has URA

[5:30] funding um but it also has transportation funding, wastewater,

[5:34] storm water and SQC funds because all of those utilities would get upgraded in

[5:39] addition to the streetscapes that we would do. That's project one. Project

[5:44] two is Milwaukee Bay Park. This is currently in the CIP partially funded um

[5:50] design uh slated for 2027 and construction slated for 2028. again in

[5:55] the adopted CIP. We're going to talk a little bit about that tonight. This

[5:59] project, the total estimated cost if we don't get the existing designs and the

[6:06] existing trolley trail grant for the project would be $13.6 million. If we do

[6:12] get those, even if we don't um get the other funding, it's going to be $12.2

[6:16] million. Um funding for that.

[6:20] » Can you show that again? >> Sure. So, um, if we were handed by NCPRD

[6:26] the plans for that part, the 50%, we're saving some money. There's already been

[6:30] about a million dollars invested there. If we don't, we have to do a design.

[6:36] » The funding that's already allocated in our budget for that is 1.65 million of

[6:41] URA. >> Well, that's not my question. My

[6:43] question was to your comments about the polytrail.

[6:46] » Sure. Sure. >> Would you just say that again?

[6:49] » Yes. So, in the agreements that we've been negotiating with NCPRD, you're very

[6:53] aware, I'm sure, of the SDC's we're asking for, the metro local share we're

[6:57] asking for. There's also a grant that NCPRD has received for Milwaukee Bay

[7:02] Park for the trolley trail segment. We would um even if we can't do a deal, if

[7:06] we are building that project, we would of course make the ask that grant

[7:11] assigned to us because it's already allocated for that project can't be used

[7:15] for any other purpose by NCR. So there's $1.4 million

[7:21] difference she's saying if we [clears throat]

[7:24] don't get that grant and the >> the plan.

[7:28] » I understand that. I think the plan there's you know there's a question mark

[7:31] on the plans. I just don't look at trail as being questionable because it could

[7:36] be used for anything else. >> Well, but it it it actually hasn't been

[7:40] assigned to the city the correct results.

[7:42] » No, no, [clears throat] but I I understand what you're saying. I I I I

[7:46] feel feel more comfortable about that than I do about the design about that

[7:49] money coming. So that's that's my >> I love your option.

[7:52] » Yeah. When you with this figure it looks very as much as a figure

[7:58] that we saw when this was first design ago. Why has it not increased?

[8:10] » But but but it's a very good point that every day it gets more expensive.

[8:15] Yeah. >> And I I will tell you that that's

[8:17] » I thought that was 9.5 I think or >> Well, yeah. Let me let me just tell me

[8:22] if I'm wrong here, Peter. Is it is it that's that's kind of a crayon inflator.

[8:26] You know, it's just it's just taking Seattle construction uh you know uh data

[8:32] and just applying that to the raw numbers. And so at some point, you know,

[8:36] that crayon is going to have to be sharpened. And so these are good

[8:39] planning figures. Yeah, I we we did have some detailed numbers from uh I want to

[8:45] say October of 22 where the you know the NCPD had engaged with you know not

[8:53] studios or or two and and their GGC contractor and they were you know

[9:00] fine-tuning those estimates and we have some really good construction estimates

[9:05] 02 uh estimates based on the the design and

[9:10] the construction drawings being at sort of that 50% mark. So what they were

[9:15] doing there they were they were fine-tuning those numbers looking for

[9:19] opportunities to reduce cost based on some value engineering changing out

[9:23] materials and things like that. So at that time we're we're working with those

[9:28] numbers and as council Massie said we we're we're adjusting them based on

[9:33] Seattle construction cost index and and other related related things that that

[9:38] » I guess I compare it to when we talk about our budget forecast going forward.

[9:42] you said at the end of our budget sessions that you're being as doom and

[9:44] gloom as possible and [clears throat] my question to you with this is is this

[9:48] number >> as doom and gloom as possible or is it

[9:51] there a chance that we're going to have to find 10% more and look for 1.3

[9:55] » well I I I think we feel relatively good about where we are in terms of

[10:02] those numbers so we have built in some contingencies we recognize that uh even

[10:08] if we get the plans from and what assign from uh NCPRDB, but the design or or the

[10:16] construction documents are still a little stale. There's some updates

[10:19] related to code that we need to do, building code, tree code, those those

[10:23] types of things that have changed over the last four years. So, we've

[10:27] recognized those things. So, I think we we feel pretty

[10:30] » good where where we are right now in those numbers. But, you know, that said,

[10:35] uh it it still is an estimate. So, but we have some contingency built in like

[10:41] That includes that's the scope as previously desired that does not include

[10:44] additional swimming access. It does it does include uh however it does include

[10:50] that community shortage that were but not I was quoting

[10:57] » so oh sorry may >> I would just say about this I mean

[11:02] um I mean I imagine you have another slide

[11:06] with some of our other numbers here but um I also think it'll be a fight but if

[11:13] we don't get agreement on the IGS I do think we fight for our SDC's.

[11:19] » I think we shouldn't write off the SDC. >> Now, I I know you're gonna go through

[11:25] your deck, but are you going to talk more about what exactly the main street

[11:29] enhancements look like? Because I can close my eyes. I frankly can't do that

[11:33] for main street. >> No, I we don't have more details. Maybe

[11:37] not design, but it really is um improvement from Washington all the way

[11:42] just past city hall. >> Yeah. um and making everything ADA

[11:46] compliant as far as the sidewalk goes and ramps. Um

[11:52] » new water um infrastructure that could >> electricity

[11:56] » electricity. Um >> we're going to bury the electric for the

[11:59] whole thing. >> We probably can't bury electricity all

[12:04] the way through. >> It's mostly about

[12:05] » unless you want to spend more money. >> Mostly about having electricity.

[12:09] » It's it's electricity. Yeah.

[12:15] watering hanging baskets. >> It's having that consistent aesthetic

[12:19] for the sidewalk. That's >> consistenc

[12:26] with with new tree wells, ADA accessibility improvements and then

[12:31] » uh you know, we're going to overlay or grind do a grind on the streets.

[12:36] » So there's some beautifification. That's a really water.

[12:41] » Yeah, beautifification and >> storm water needs to be addressed along

[12:45] this upper side. >> Some safety

[12:49] water. >> We do have some retrofit on existing

[12:55] water. The other the other there are some other

[13:00] section of the city has probably some 1949.

[13:06] So, I think >> that's where I found it on Sodto. We

[13:12] weren't using it, but we found it when we dug up to install the new line.

[13:17] » I even the Romans use masonry stuff. >> They got a big empire

[13:24] » part of the ramen district. the TIFF dollars, reinvest them to get more

[13:30] have this positive impact with Milwaukee Bay Park. Like I'm resp much more

[13:35] familiar with it. It's much more Sorry, I'm much more invested than that. But

[13:39] walk me through a good f like what is the economic benefit that we're getting

[13:43] with mainstream enhancements? What is that like? Why is this that valuable of

[13:46] a project to invest? >> And I I would let Joseph answer that,

[13:50] but I think I think it's more in direct alignment with our URA 5-year action

[13:55] plan. Are you I agree with you on the Bay Parks economic development

[13:58] improvements or benefit, but that's not mentioned in the five-year action. Is it

[14:02] the water? >> No. But just to answer your question

[14:06] somewhat simply is there's a lot of scholarship about

[14:12] the like increasing park space I guess increasing green space actually

[14:16] increased. um that'll be part of the conversation

[14:20] as we move forward and you can say the same for all public infrastructure being

[14:24] affected as well but obviously we want in the end it's about increasing access

[14:30] dollars over time

[14:32] » I should also say it's not very sexy but we have um our code every city code in

[14:39] Oregon means the Jason property owner is responsible for rightway improvements

[14:43] there is some rideway in downtown that is bad it's it's there It's wonky. It's

[14:49] all this stuff. We and at at my direction, I'm really appreciative. Our

[14:53] public works crew went out and did a lot of patching because we knew we were

[14:56] going to have to delay Main Street even even more than we might delay after your

[15:00] direction. Um, and that frankly was done like in as a good faith demonstration to

[15:05] our business district that we know we we don't we don't want to saddle all these

[15:09] folks with code compliance issues like hey go repair that sidewalk. doing this

[15:14] kind of investment in some ways could be seen as subsidizing those adjacent

[15:19] property owners um and not saddling the business community with um doing those

[15:24] upgrades to improve access um and safety on the right of way. Would you guys

[15:28] agree? >> Let me let me ask a question. I think

[15:31] this is a great idea to kind of level the playing field, so to speak. But at

[15:35] the same time, I I I get concerned about the the business owners having an

[15:40] expectation that the city is going to fund this stuff.

[15:43] » Sure. >> You know, you know, through the next

[15:46] century. >> Sure.

[15:47] » And so I I you know, I just want us to, you know, put a pin in that at some

[15:51] point, you know, we say, "Okay, everything's up to date. Going forward,

[15:56] » back." Is it the property owners that have to

[16:00] maintain it or is it the tenants? >> Um might I add to this

[16:10] train? Um I think that there is an assumption on the part of property

[16:17] owners when a URRA is put into place that the deferment of those um of of

[16:25] that tax funding will result in some type of communal improvement. So I think

[16:34] I think there is an argument to be made there as well as an argument to be made

[16:41] to say excuse me that's not yours. Um an argument to be said uh that

[16:50] there's this is not it's not a perpetual district. It will eventually come to you

[16:56] know a sunset. Um, the piece I would add to this though is that there are

[17:04] entries to many of the stores that are not.

[17:09] » And so there continue there continues to be a need for conversation with those

[17:14] building owners to align during this construction to make sure that those are

[17:19] compliant. While the city is upgrading the public infrastructure, they need to

[17:25] still upgrade some of the private infrastructure.

[17:28] » Sure. >> I hope that that's a part of the

[17:32] dialogue with the business owners. >> The property

[17:37] h have we engaged with I mean to me it's kind of like the way Kelsey described

[17:43] it. The main street enhancements is a real favor of doing for our local

[17:46] business community by improving the street for them and it has additive

[17:50] lovely appeal and benefit there. But as we've engaged with the business

[17:54] community, they've been very insistent that we should build big park. Yes.

[17:57] » Have we proposed these two and >> so I'm gonna I'm gonna put a I got to

[18:02] get through the full breadth of what we're talking about and I think we're

[18:05] veering into sort of prioritization conversation with where we got to go.

[18:09] But let me think the whole thing. Can I ask one last main street question then

[18:14] as we are having development on our downtown main street? I think about

[18:18] Jefferson and Maine. >> Are they designing as a condition of

[18:22] their development new sidewalks or bringing that up to code or yes

[18:25] » is it helpful for them to have a like model main street to build towards or

[18:31] are they building towards the standard that we set?

[18:33] » We have that already work standard. So they be building to that standard. Um,

[18:38] as far as that goes, >> nutri wells.

[18:41] » Yeah. And that solar cells that'll go in as well.

[18:45] » Okay. >> Yep.

[18:47] » Yeah. >> It's okay. They're exciting. I know.

[18:50] They're exciting. Okay. But just to wrap up, Milwaukee Bay Park about 13.6 mil

[18:55] price tag. In terms of money, you've already allocated 1.65 65 of URA 1

[19:00] million of general fund which is a combo of MOT metro local share plus a little

[19:04] bit from um climate and natural resources and then we have applied for

[19:08] several grants. We've applied for a big metro capital grant for $2 million I

[19:12] think probably get the number wrong. We've applied for the state grant um

[19:16] we've obviously got the metro um community choice um grant as well.

[19:23] Kellogg. So Kellogg is currently in the CIP construction 2028, but that's a

[19:30] little bit finger in the wind. The total estimated cost of the project is 113

[19:34] million plus in terms of what the city has in its CIP.

[19:40] We have 1 million of URRA. This is a I kind of wish I had edited this out

[19:45] because we don't have sewer money. We don't have wastewater money at the CIP.

[19:49] That is something we want. That's something we want to affirm

[19:53] tonight. We do not have wastewater money in the CIP4 Kellogg. Um the rest of the

[19:58] project funded by project partners ongoing city operations and maintenance

[20:03] is unaccounted for. So, this is again kind of my bearer of potential

[20:08] harsh financial news is that Kellogg is such a cool project,

[20:14] » but it creates a big green space for us to take care of.

[20:18] » Acres >> and I think it's logical to not assume

[20:22] our parks district will be maintained. [laughter]

[20:25] » Yeah. Um I will say I mean they on the on the sewer relocation they have gone

[20:31] for an earmark, right? No, >> no, no.

[20:34] » I was told that when I was in DC, they asked Merkeley and Widen for a $5

[20:38] million earmark or 3.5 or something. >> They haven't they have not

[20:46] » really? >> Yeah.

[20:47] » Yeah. >> Was it for the or just in general?

[20:50] » No, similar is what I was told.

[20:55] » Okay. And then these next two, they're kind of quasi capital projects and they

[20:59] are not in our CIP. So, the first is the Harrison and Main lot. Metro owns half

[21:05] of that lot. Um, I think kind of maybe a new piece of information and don't spend

[21:09] the lead on this these conversations, but

[21:12] » they did. You're right. [clears throat] >> They did. They did.

[21:15] » 5 million or 3.5 >> 3.5

[21:17] » 3.5. >> Okay. Um, Metro owns half of the

[21:22] Harrison and Main lot. Um when our um DDA with Toho um ended, we did um staff

[21:32] to staff explore Metro's potential interest in that property. Um Joseph,

[21:38] you're supposed to interrupt me when I say things that are wrong, but my

[21:40] understanding is that they are not interested in a land swap. However, they

[21:45] are interested in or willing to have conversations about us buying them out

[21:49] of jail capital property, which I believe is a a change from the past. Um,

[21:54] we don't have a hard number on that. Um, they are working on some appraisal

[21:58] figures. >> I will give you a ballpark is probably

[22:01] between 500 to 7. >> Really

[22:07] sounds like a bargain. >> Add that to the town. Well, tell me that

[22:13] does sound like you are also on the record. So, I just

[22:16] want to take Yeah.

[22:19] » Well, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong that >> I

[22:22] uh I don't know. [clears throat] >> I don't know. I don't remember. We know

[22:27] what they paid for it when they bought out the Texico city.

[22:30] » I don't I don't um

[22:34] » I think it's it's it's what the market is saying. So, that's what that's why.

[22:42] I mean, if you if you figure in the value of cooho

[22:47] and and and the potential bokei for for that at, you

[22:52] know, half a million, >> like a pretty good deal

[22:57] » to control the full lot. >> There's a lot to be

[23:00] » and and you know, we um have only had very preliminary conversations about a

[23:06] vision for that lot. Um, at the time we had that conversation with Metro, you

[23:10] you guys were articulating priorities that included community event space, um,

[23:16] included green space, included still potential housing development. So, I

[23:21] don't want to, um, represent that we have some clear this

[23:26] is what that would be, but we but I think there is interest there has been

[23:30] interest in this council and previous councils in talking about that as a

[23:33] development opportunity. Um similarly, COO, not currently the CIP. Again, not

[23:39] really a capital project. We've always kind of envisioned that as something

[23:42] that we would um advance through public private partnerships. Um the we we

[23:47] control most of that site except for the corner um which is owned by private

[23:52] owner. Um we could explore acquiring that which would have

[23:58] financial. So my assumption with both of those is

[24:04] that we would probably be looking at three

[24:08] years between a visioning process, deciding

[24:12] what we want to do, an RFP process, etc. >> I think that is a very fair. Yeah, maybe

[24:20] I think three would be ambitious.

[24:24] » Which property are you talking about? I I would say that you probably go

[24:28] faster with the coho if >> because yeah and if if housing is still

[24:34] the goal in that then yes be faster but if there's other ideas that's why at

[24:39] this point >> the other thing is coho has its um I

[24:46] guess not perfect but it has its mainstream frontage whereas yeah

[24:49] » redone was done to the new standard sort of to the standards of the south

[24:55] only partially not completely done. >> We have an asphalt section.

[25:01] » I'm going to give this >> We were waiting for that.

[25:03] » We were waiting for that because they would destroy it during construction

[25:07] » and pay. Yeah. I respect that we're only on the first slide, so it might. But the

[25:13] ongoing maintenance estimates for Kellogg and for Milwaukee Park, assuming

[25:18] our pros district decides not to maintenance,

[25:22] » what would that look like on a year-to-year basis if we had to guess?

[25:25] » Kellogg is very hard to estimate. I'll let Peter share a number if he wants,

[25:28] but actually next week we're going to be talking some Chromeberg concepts and I

[25:34] think it really ranges and and I would also say well I think we can expect what

[25:40] MCPRD might say. They are still our parks operator and we should still ask

[25:44] them to assume maintenance of that. Milani Bay Park I think we have a

[25:49] clearer sense. I believe MCPRD is spending about $60,000 on maintenance a

[25:53] year. That's with current design. So you had a splash pad and bathrooms and more

[25:57] trees. >> Yeah. Plus, I mean, we would more than

[26:00] likely start off contract contracting that out. I think the numbers that we

[26:04] were looking at was about $1,000 a year for maintenance for just, you know,

[26:08] walking park. >> Uh, you know, the the space uh in in in

[26:16] the Kellogg and Palmet area, the full 13 acres, a lot of that's still sort of

[26:21] water space. A lot of that a lot of it doesn't require like intense

[26:26] maintenance, but there's still some maintenance work that needs needs to

[26:29] happen and we're working with the project team to sort of develop what

[26:34] that looks like. But, you know, I would probably add on to that and then uh you

[26:40] probably need 50 to $60,000 a year at least there. And then when you look at

[26:46] Kronberg and if there's potential amenities associated with the Kellogg

[26:51] Dam project that we'll be talking about there

[26:55] having to take care of that space. We're probably at least another 100

[27:00] probably looking at about $100,000 a year for the killer space. Uh in terms

[27:07] of in terms of maintenance personnel cost,

[27:10] » well, especially given what we heard about the amount of time the underpass

[27:15] will be underwater, what it'll take to probably clean that up after it's every

[27:20] year, every winter >> and some of that as well. And then, you

[27:24] know, that grows because >> yeah, do other stuff. So I think you're

[27:29] looking probably combination of at least like $200,000

[27:34] between the two long-term starting off and then grow

[27:39] » and that's not something we have budgeted future budget. So that 200k

[27:43] would be whatever our

[27:48] » general fund and storm water would be utilized. But I think these estimates

[27:53] are sort of what I would call good steward

[27:58] estimates. You know, in other words, you're trying to do everything right.

[28:01] » What I also say is that, you know, we all deal with the household budget and

[28:06] we do we can afford. >> Sure.

[28:09] » You know, and it may not be that high because we can't afford it.

[28:12] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So that's the the five projects.

[28:18] Things when you're when you're thinking about all these projects that I I think

[28:22] would be bouncing around in your mind are, as I said, they're all great

[28:25] projects. They all support um a council goal, if not multiple council goals. Um

[28:31] I think we should think about funding availability and assignment. So some of

[28:34] those I showed you already have budget in your CIP. Some of them don't. Um some

[28:39] of them uh have grant dollars that we secure or are trying to secure, some of

[28:46] them don't. Um alignment with adopted plans. U some of them are kind of

[28:53] preconceptual in Harrison in Maine. Some of them um are like we mentioned the

[28:58] Main Street is been in the CIP for a while and is in the five-year action

[29:02] plan. We're going to ask you tonight about some appetite for debt financing

[29:06] because doing it all will absolutely require us to to acquire debt. Um impact

[29:12] on downturn commerce. I already talked about this construction the end goal the

[29:16] end results great but living through it sucks. Um community expectations and

[29:21] clarity of scope and priorities. Again, I think you can chart all of those five

[29:25] on a spectrum of how solid the design is versus how um maybe conceptual or still

[29:32] engagement we'd have to do to really pin down a design. And then project controls

[29:36] and dependencies. So, some of them are fully in our control, some of them are

[29:40] partly in our control. Um some of them are in our control, but doing it adds an

[29:45] end cost. You guys, we've already started talking about a lot of these

[29:48] things. So, what was in your packet? um was three scenarios that we are going to

[29:55] ask for your thoughts on tonight. Um and this again is really staff trying to

[30:01] strategically look at what could be realistic.

[30:05] There is one scenario where you give us direction to prioritize the main street

[30:09] projects primarily the main street enhancements um which again is fully

[30:15] funded in the CIP. we've got um designs almost or designs working like we're

[30:21] we're we're we're grooving. Uh it supports economic development. I think

[30:26] if we did that, we could also begin coho and Harrison and Maine planning um

[30:32] alongside that work. It's kind of actually nice that we're doing

[30:35] engagement with the downtown stakeholders to maybe uh find some

[30:39] synergies there. Um, this would also because this really is also

[30:43] depprioritizing construction of Milwaukee Bay Park, it might give us a

[30:47] little more time to talk about parks governance and plan for those O andM

[30:50] costs. And as I mentioned, it aligns with the URA 5-year action plan

[30:54] considerations. Um, it's disruptive to Main Street. It's going to be

[30:59] » whenever you do it, >> whenever you do it, it's going to be

[31:01] disruptive to Main Street. Um, you do have a lot of new businesses opening, so

[31:05] it might be disruptive in the very near term, but yeah. And then I it looks like

[31:09] very few bullets, but I don't want to um undersell how big this bullet is. It

[31:15] delays that waterfront redevelopment that has already been delayed for so

[31:18] long and is so desired. >> Well, okay. And my question about that

[31:22] one from this from what you in the packet

[31:25] » is it sounded like you weren't moving that up from 2029. If you're moving that

[31:30] up and starting that next year, >> I think that's worthy of a conversation.

[31:35] If you're not moving it up from 2029, >> you mean Main Street?

[31:38] » Why on earth would we to do it? >> You mean Main Street?

[31:41] » Yeah. >> I don't think we could move it up.

[31:44] » Yeah, we don't. We I mean, we're we the way that we've programmed those dollars

[31:49] and it's the the the bulk of the three the three

[31:54] million and the euro and the other uh util the other utility work is not

[31:59] available until

[32:03] » the next budget. Yeah. So, >> I guess unless you're stealing some of

[32:08] the Milwaukee Bay Park URA funds. >> Well, I I I think

[32:14] funds, >> but I I guess that

[32:16] » borrowing. Sorry. I guess as I was writing as I was

[32:21] helping that staff report together the prioritization was

[32:27] on but we're talking about mainstream keeping it on at the same time not

[32:30] pushing keeping it on the same time but >> but I mean that means we're talking

[32:38] about Milwaukee Bay Park in 2031 >> well and that's and I I think that's why

[32:43] we're saying that because we would have to take those dollars

[32:48] to from your >> So let's talk about this this this

[32:51] middle scenario. So I think also the last I think when we went through our p

[32:54] our budgeting process mayor we were optimistic we were going to sign some

[32:59] IGA and we were going to have a real good chunk of speed money and I think we

[33:03] are way less optimistic than than we were. So that's that's what's really

[33:08] forced this question. We can still deliver Milwaukee Bay Park on a very

[33:13] near-term timeline, but to do so is going to take reallocation of URA

[33:17] dollars to make that happen. And that reallocation of URA dollars would be

[33:21] from the main street project, which would push that up. So that's I think

[33:25] why why it was sort of why you don't get the

[33:29] benefit of the main street jumping up was the big change is the lack of the

[33:33] NCP funding. Um that not coming in. If that had come in, I think we'd be in a

[33:38] different situation. We could actually do the advanced boat maybe without debt

[33:42] financing. But >> yeah,

[33:44] » um so the Milwaukee Bay Park, obviously it makes good on a long-term vision, um

[33:50] supports multiple goals, sustains momentum, and I think the faster we

[33:54] move, the less time you're going to have to spend on any kind of redesign because

[33:58] that scope and vision is still as fresh as it can be eight years later. Um, we

[34:04] still have a funding gap to close though, even with the reassignment of

[34:07] the URA dollars. Um, we've talked about this contract piece from NCPRD as a as

[34:13] an unknown. I do think we would want to delay big visioning around and um, Main

[34:21] Street a bit. I think we could maybe do some, but I think it's um I think it's a

[34:27] little more challenging than if we're really just focusing on that main street

[34:30] core. Um, we would also, you have a million dollars for Kellogg in the DRA.

[34:37] I think if you really tell us it's Milwaukee Bay Park, get Milwaukee Bay

[34:40] Park done, we would advise you reallocate that. That then provides less

[34:45] flexibility if and when the Kellogg funding comes through.

[34:50] Um, and it is saying we are prepared to assume those onm

[34:56] advancing both. Again, I love all these projects and I am always up for a

[35:00] challenge. But if we want to do it all and we want to do it all on the timeline

[35:05] that we were hoping in this CIP and we don't get these NCP or DIGA signed,

[35:10] we're going to have to do some debt financing from the URA. Um, we would

[35:14] both have to do debt financing and then you'd also have to

[35:18] to pay for that debt service do less in the way of URA programs and grants. Um,

[35:25] I think in that scenario, if we're doing both those projects, Main Street and

[35:29] MVP, I think we have to be honest. COO and Harrison and Maine are probably put

[35:33] off for 30 years. Um, again, that less flexibility. We're need

[35:40] every dollar. And so, if Kellogg suddenly comes up, we're going to be a

[35:44] little bit in a pickle. Uh, and that's a lot of construction activity to sequence

[35:49] and manage.

[35:52] So, what we I will shut up because I want to hear you guys. We would love to

[35:57] hear what option you're leading towards. I know you're put we're putting you in a

[35:59] bit of a tough position here, but um we want to make sure we are putting the

[36:04] dollars, the staff time, the energy in the places you'd like us to do that. Um

[36:10] if if the consensus is leaning towards the advanced both um we'd like to know

[36:16] uh if we'd like to make sure you understand

[36:20] that debt financing requirement. Um and then the Kellogg question.

[36:27] So again the current financial assumptions are that we are not we have

[36:31] no financial outlay in the CIP for the sewer location. we have held that $1

[36:35] million of URA funding and we are talking depending on how you want to

[36:39] move forward if it's the Milwaukee Bay Park scenario. We would propose that we

[36:44] reallocate that um knowing that that puts us maybe in a

[36:49] bigger bind if and when Kellogg funding comes comes forward. Um

[36:55] I also would love to just make sure we are still moving forward consistent with

[37:00] your direction on the sewer piece. We continue to get some pressure on that.

[37:05] But the direction I've given the staff who have were working great with the

[37:09] project team and try to be great partners is the city is not funding the

[37:13] sewer relocation. The city does not have the funding set aside to fund the sewer

[37:17] relocation. So I I need to reaffirm that meeting

[37:21] tomorrow about the sewer. >> Is that been bubbling again?

[37:25] » It it it's always simmering and bubbling.

[37:28] » Well, we have another come to meeting. I thought we had a come to God meeting.

[37:32] » So that's I just need to affirm that that is still there is no change in that

[37:35] direction. >> No change.

[37:37] » Okay, that one's easy. That's the easy question of the night.

[37:40] » Well, and that's why they went for an >> Can you help me understand? There are

[37:45] two things that I don't really have clarity on. With the main street

[37:49] improvements, there's $3.3 million URA funds that we could reallocate to um

[37:55] Milwaukee Bay Park. >> Yep. Yep.

[37:57] » What would happen to the other $4.2 2 million in storm water funds. Would that

[38:02] mean that we're able to do half of a main street improvement? Would that be

[38:06] given back rate payers? Would that be reallocated to other storm water

[38:09] projects? >> Well, and that's not all storm water

[38:12] money. So, there's only storm water. So, those transportation

[38:16] wastewater dollars and SDC dollars, we would need to reallocate those to grass

[38:23] other projects. Uh, one of the things we were utilizing the URA for in in this

[38:30] case was also all of the waterwork that we were going to do downtown because we

[38:34] have some really large water needs for really elsewhere

[38:39] costs. Uh so that's going to defer that work all of this work downtown and as

[38:46] you said we we'll have to reallocate those uh to other projects and perhaps

[38:51] there's a project uh that we have that we pushed out a little bit further that

[38:56] we can reallocate those into the next Log for example maybe that one was up

[39:03] north perhaps

[39:08] » I appreciate you mentioning defos here. So, I guess I'm just trying to think

[39:12] through this as if we take all the UR funds out of the main street, are we

[39:18] still able to do half the project? Are there components that were obligated to

[39:21] do like PAS work and waste or water >> downtown or we would the whole we would

[39:26] not touch main street? >> It would be dispersed elsewhere. No,

[39:29] » it' be dispersed elsewhere or or remain in the reserve for a delayed start of

[39:35] Main Street. >> Correct. We'd still have to come through

[39:37] and do the water work at some point, just so you know, because those are

[39:40] probably lead joints and so all that needs to be removed by 2037.

[39:45] » This is part of >> 37. So

[39:47] » part of the weighing of of the issues and the challenge that staff has had too

[39:51] is there's work that has to be done. So you do water work on Main Street with no

[39:55] improvements or >> tear the street up

[40:01] and plus it's like what are you what are you all doing?

[40:04] So I don't think we're saying we push off Main Street forever. We push it off

[40:08] for >> No, we probably re the next budget

[40:12] cycle, right? We would reallocate when those like I might change when Logas and

[40:16] when >> Well, there's a cascading effect.

[40:21] » Also, it's really hard to scale these projects geographically when you're

[40:25] dealing with contractors that have given you bids [clears throat] on an entire

[40:30] stretch. there's like an economy of scale that you know if you if you bring

[40:34] a whole team in like um the best example would maybe be like when new buildings

[40:40] are constructed it's a buttload of money to bring a crane in.

[40:45] » Yeah. >> You're not going to want to do that

[40:46] twice. >> So you need to be able to make sure that

[40:50] the project in its fruition takes place as it's con as it's designed.

[40:55] » Yeah. I I I would the one thing I would add to also because you know we did when

[41:00] we if you put the CP together we had a discussion this past past year

[41:06] developing the budget and developing the CIP we used a a prioritization matrix

[41:10] and when you actually look at the main street project it scores higher than

[41:16] uh and the reason why that is because of the waiting related to regulatory

[41:23] requirements there's some ADA accessibility things that we need take

[41:26] care of downtown and also sort of a fiscal stewardship to the public. We

[41:31] have some really old assets that that at the end of their money cycle that we

[41:36] replace. So like water stewardship things like that. So it scores higher in

[41:42] that respect but this is helpful. I feel like I

[41:48] understand what's better. The one outstanding question I asked us with Bay

[41:52] Park, I don't understand how that gets us to where we need to go for 3.6 or

[41:57] 12.2. I'm seeing that we have in our CIP right now, we have $2.6 million. We add

[42:06] 3.3 to that plus one. We're at 4.3 plus that 2.6.

[42:10] » We've applied for about $4 million of grants.

[42:14] » Okay. >> So, we continue to apply for grants. We

[42:16] would do private fundraising. Um, and we would fight for our SDC's.

[42:22] » Yeah, I was just think >> Yeah. I mean, we we we got 1.75 million

[42:28] in metro grant that was just awarded in the last month, but we've got

[42:32] » I don't think we told you that we got the 1.75 metro capital. I mean, Adam

[42:36] kind of hints at that, but >> and then we have the we've applied for

[42:41] the LGP grant federal grant >> and we're applying for the federal grant

[42:46] in in the fall WCF water conservation fund grant. So, but that 13.6 six. That

[42:56] number there represents uh the cost of if if we don't get the contracts

[43:02] assigned and we have to redesign the the the project uh and we don't get the

[43:09] Charlie signed. So that's like worst case the worst case number of what we

[43:14] think we would have to come up with. Uh and then the gap is dependent upon those

[43:20] other grant resources. Are we going to get them or not get them? Right? So

[43:24] » I have a question for Rebecca. As the business development,

[43:31] which project do you think juices business development more,

[43:37] Milwaukee Bay Park or the Main Street? >> Robert, [laughter]

[43:45] would you like me to repeat the question?

[43:46] » No, I'd like you to rephrase the question.

[43:51] » It is. It's very hard to compare these two projects in the scope of what fuels

[43:58] economic development because the main street enhancements are really a

[44:03] response to deferred. And so it's the main street enhancements

[44:08] are a necessity so that when people are coming here they are not tripping and

[44:15] you know falling and hurting themselves. >> But they're already here

[44:19] » right? But that that would assume that they're already here. Um we I would I

[44:25] would counter that by saying they're trickling in. There's there more and

[44:30] more and more people coming and visiting our economic hubs including downtown. Um

[44:39] I think that there's a certain amount that of that that will just grow

[44:44] regardless of what we do. Um I think it's really difficult. Well, these are

[44:49] like apples and oranges that mainstream enhancement in the Milwaukee Bay Park

[44:53] because Milwaukee Bay Park if developed of course is like a huge boom to our

[44:59] economic development that supports the businesses. It supports our

[45:06] our city as a destination. It supports um [sighs] a huge amount of very

[45:13] accessible green space, even more accessible um than it has been. So,

[45:19] um, but the the problem is that we would

[45:24] still be dealing with aging and failing

[45:28] infrastructure. So,

[45:32] so when you ask me what spurs economic development, Milwaukee Park, because

[45:39] infrastructure maintenance doesn't spur economic development unless you're

[45:42] talking about the aesthetics of, you know, the street tree wells all matching

[45:49] or street trees staying relatively above grade.

[45:56] » New firebox, new new venture, all of that.

[46:00] that they contribute to a sense of place and that that definitely in in um it in

[46:09] improves people's experience when they're here, but the infrastructure

[46:15] itself I don't think brings people in as much as a

[46:24] » I enough

[46:28] But I do think I on the on the counter to last they'll lose businesses if

[46:34] infrastructures are the services that they Right.

[46:37] » Right. Yeah. Yeah. I'll give an example. Our our business I'm not personally

[46:43] responsible for the ent the grade of the entrance to our main shop, but it's not

[46:50] ADA accessible and we hear complaints about it all the time. the property

[46:55] owner is probably not going to fix that in the immediate future. Um maybe not in

[47:01] alignment with the time frame of Main Street enhancements. I don't know. But

[47:06] if we continue to get complaints about that accessibility issue and it starts

[47:12] to impact our business, we might look for a different location.

[47:19] It's just I mean there are like there the aging infrastructure in terms

[47:26] of buildings and their lack of of being retrofit to meet the needs of today's

[47:32] communities. That's that should be a concern that um that should be

[47:38] highlighted. >> We might be missing businesses because

[47:41] of that. Sure. But that's not the city's project so

[47:46] much as what the private group should do.

[47:53] » The what I'm hearing

[47:58] I'll just say I'm leaning towards the prioritizing Milwaukee Bay. My heartburn

[48:03] or like challenge here is I worry that we're signing up for something that we

[48:08] can't afford. like it's like choosing between to me Milwaukee is clearly the

[48:12] better option but we have $6 million more or less in URA that we would be

[48:17] able to give to that one million in general fund. Who knows what happens to

[48:20] our general fund going forward. Um we are finding an additional

[48:27] 5 million like I I didn't quite I'll be honest I I didn't quite pick up mind all

[48:31] the grants you laid out but an additional $7 million in grants to

[48:36] protect us there >> like I just

[48:40] » I'm not sure where the six million in it. We don't have that much.

[48:44] » The six million is take our existing contribution, take all the money from

[48:47] Main Street and Kellogg, it totals to about 6 million. It's 5.5,

[48:53] » but then you have about $1 million in general fund that we've given it, which

[48:59] who [clears throat] knows what happens. >> Most that's met local share. So, it's

[49:04] safe. >> It's met local share.

[49:07] Um what's Yeah. So then is it grants and then what do we know what the gap is

[49:12] still the fundraising gap? Well, I I think you know if we're able to cover

[49:19] the you know the was it the 4.3 4.5 million from

[49:24] » NC >> NC par uh and and we're getting the

[49:29] trolley trail the trolley trail grant >> and we're utilizing the we're utilizing

[49:34] the if we're able to cover that with the dollars we're and we get the grants that

[49:39] we're sending for we're in good shape right if we don't get those other grants

[49:44] and we have that that gap. >> So basically is is Milwaukee Bay Park

[49:52] does the development of the park hinge on any money from NCRD.

[49:58] » Well, they're trying to if we prior because it still feels like

[50:03] there's a huge gap. >> Like I I would want to prioritize

[50:06] Milwaukee Bay Park, but there's a lot of unknown still that we don't know about.

[50:10] We don't know how much the operation and maintenance is going to be yearly. It's

[50:14] not just a oneshot $13 million payment and we're done.

[50:18] There's a lot of other factors as you can see listed there that we really have

[50:22] to consider. Um, >> so we're looking at

[50:28] » Sorry, I'm pulling up Adam's spreadsheets.

[50:30] » I don't feel comfortable making that decision without knowing a little bit

[50:33] more about finances. >> So, I think they said I think Peter said

[50:37] it was 100 his estimate was 100,000 a year, right? of them,000.

[50:45] » So,

[50:49] and Peter, I hope I'm looking at the right spreadsheet for

[50:52] » plan B. Um, so the city's contribution would be $7.6 million, which is a

[50:59] combination of metro local share, city general fund, 250k, which we already

[51:03] have in the budget, um the 1.65 65 of urban renewal already in the budget and

[51:09] an additional 4.9 that he right now has financed bond or raise. I think we can

[51:14] cover most of that through reassignment the UR reassignment. We this is assuming

[51:19] we get the 658 trolley trail from NCPRD. Um and then we have applied or will be

[51:26] applying for 4.62 million of grants and we right now have we estimate 93,000 in

[51:33] combined donations. So that funds the project.

[51:37] » So four million then we got the claw back

[51:41] from the >> No, no, because we would be reassigning

[51:44] that from other URA. >> I was going to say though I mean we we

[51:49] would have the assurance that we have the URRA money and so that would be our

[51:53] budget to start but we could still parallel track be working on getting our

[51:58] SDC's back whatever happens in in the NCPD dialogue in the next year. Um, you

[52:05] know, I Yeah, we're not going to give up those SEC's without a fine.

[52:09] » No, I know. That's what I'm saying. There's there's still a lot up in the

[52:11] air. Doesn't it doesn't reallocate? If they come in, we

[52:16] reallocate that. >> The four you were describing is not

[52:20] connected to NCPRD. It is money that could be supplanted by NCPD, but it's

[52:24] not connected. So, we don't have to worry about that.

[52:26] » Exactly. >> Yeah. That's what we would have thought

[52:28] of saying, >> right? And they're saying that the city

[52:32] when you say city significant park cost that's just building park.

[52:36] » Yeah. Building and maintaining it. >> Yeah.

[52:39] » What how governance question is left unanswered. So that's the thing. I don't

[52:44] I think just looking at obviously you want to prioritize the law. I just don't

[52:48] know if it's that simple of an answer just saying yeah go ahead do it because

[52:51] there's so many other variables. >> None of this is simple. Well, I mean, if

[52:56] you look at it, it's fame is the main street because it's already first of

[53:00] all, it's been sitting for five years or it was actually was part of the five

[53:03] company, right? [clears throat] So, we already have the that's already kind of

[53:07] been and it's more than it's more about it's accessibility too,

[53:11] » but with the Milwaukee Bay Park, you still have a lot more questions left.

[53:16] » Even if we started, when do you think shovels would be better if we did

[53:22] like based on what we have? But don't don't forget if we get SDC if we get

[53:26] » I think if we if you gave us if you gave us clear direction tonight it's build

[53:30] Milwaukee Bay Park as fast as possible I think we could get it done in calendar

[53:34] year 28 FY 29 >> we're we're probably getting it um in 21

[53:41] » with with what we have now we can build it by 2020.

[53:45] » Yeah. >> We don't need any money from NCPD or

[53:48] anything else. This is what I'm saying >> for the trolley trail.

[53:50] » That's what I'm saying. like with what we have in our hand right now.

[53:53] [clears throat] I when I go buy something, I'll buy it based on what I

[53:56] get. I buy it with what I have in my hand.

[53:59] » So, in our hand right now on deck, we can build this.

[54:02] » Well, no, because there's some grants. >> Yeah. I think and that's where there's

[54:07] this little gap. There's about $2.7 million of grants that we don't have

[54:12] confirmation that we that they've been award that we would have to make up with

[54:18] other reallocation some additional reallocation.

[54:21] » But these are the same grants that NCPRT had.

[54:24] » Yeah, we're saying a lot of numbers out loud. I thought I heard $4.6 million

[54:28] grants, but now I'm hearing we have 2 million already and an additional 2.7

[54:33] outstanding. >> Exactly. So, it's it's it's 4.6 6 if we

[54:37] get the state then federal and then we already know the federal

[54:42] » but we've applied for the state we'll be applying for the federal they were

[54:45] already awarded >> the metro local share is not being

[54:48] double counted as general fund and grant it's two

[54:51] » no two separate this is metro nature neighbors

[54:54] » I'm going to bring up an issue that's not

[54:57] number related and uh I I think that that we went to the community and said

[55:05] you know what we've been talking about all all the time for the past few years

[55:08] since we walked in New Park. We're just going to set that aside. Maybe replace

[55:13] some sewers on Main Street. >> Yeah, that's not going [laughter]

[55:17] » that's not going over well. >> Yeah, that's reality, right? But reality

[55:21] is also money. The numbers understand you right. I just asked you the $100,000

[55:27] maintenance. Where's that going to come from? You said, you know, I don't know.

[55:29] Do you think do you not think that I mean it is your job but I mean it is

[55:34] good um right I think I think people would want to be would would want to

[55:38] know that and if we got to take debt out for some of this stuff I think that

[55:41] would change some people >> so it's not as easy as saying you know

[55:45] what we've been saying that for over a decade

[55:47] » and that's the reality check conversation I'm trying to have with you

[55:50] as your city manager is I don't think we I think we've been operating a little

[55:55] bit and we thought we might get these agreement that would have changed the

[55:58] the landscape But with where right now I feel comfortable

[56:03] advancing option A or option B. Option C scares me. Yeah.

[56:08] » But I serve a direction. >> But you're comfortable with option B.

[56:11] » I am comfortable with option B. Doesn't mean that that that I don't think

[56:14] there's still questions I'm going to be bringing towards you about how we fund

[56:18] Park Zone M and what that means in terms of governance of the park district.

[56:22] » I think that's a pretty big question. Well, we're going to have that

[56:24] conversation that >> no matter what

[56:26] » we're going to be having >> because because I it's kind of what I

[56:28] daylighted at the last regular session too, Adam, that this is the challenge of

[56:33] having a parks and green space when we don't have our own parks department. So,

[56:37] it there's a lot of success stories here. You guys have helped you in the

[56:41] community have helped secure seven nature and neighborhoods community

[56:44] choice projects. My fear, that's great, you guys. And you said last week, let's

[56:49] go accept all of those. We want to do all these projects. They're awesome. All

[56:52] of those will come with an on and an operations and maintenance for a day

[56:56] because I truly do not operate on security. We'll continue maintaining

[56:59] those parts. So we have to ask this question

[57:04] about it's not just about Milwaukee parks. Okay. So if that's 100 grand,

[57:09] what's those other projects? >> We're working on we're working on those

[57:12] those >> you guys see the trajectory,

[57:14] » right? It's headed towards our own parks district and that's a much larger and

[57:19] expensive conversation to have >> then because what do we do if we're

[57:24] going to take on all these projects? Where is that going to?

[57:26] » So we just and I know I'm I'm pushing you guys in uncomfortable ways, but

[57:31] tonight we're talking downtown CIP. We are going to talk on August 18th about

[57:38] parks on that's how I'm gonna call I'm not gonna call parks. We're gonna talk

[57:42] about parks operations maintenance. >> We should have that conversation.

[57:45] » I hear you. But I also feel here's why why I put this on the agenda is I feel a

[57:51] little bit like I'm talking out of two sides of my mouth. We're putting in

[57:53] grants for Milwaukee Bay Park because we have been beating a drum. It's Milwaukee

[57:56] Bay Park. It's Milwaukee Bay Park. It's it's stressful to have $2 million

[58:01] in grants coming from Metro if actually we're going it I need to check in

[58:07] because if you guys said no it's no long you know unfortunately things went bust

[58:12] in this IDA negotiation so we've changed I need to know that sooner rather than

[58:17] later because it changes where I put staff resources and it changes where we

[58:21] put capital with funders. So, I know I'm I know I'm asking a lot

[58:26] of you and I can't give you the full crystal ball, but I I I'm coming

[58:31] honestly to say it can't all be a priority

[58:36] » and Peter, if we don't prioritize the main street

[58:42] projects, what fails first?

[58:47] » Well, I mean, I I think you we already have some things that are starting to

[58:51] fail, like our sidewalks, right? You see those? We've gone out there and and done

[58:55] some maintenance on those. Uh, you know, we have some old water bes we may we may

[59:02] we haven't had a lot of water breaks downtown, but we may start to place them

[59:07] and we'll have to do repairs. Um, you know that those water mansions are there

[59:12] some of the oldest water in the city. Uh, they're almost 100 years old. Uh, so

[59:19] that would be the the place that I think of right now. the P there's some paint

[59:24] failure that that occurs. >> Are they generally in the street or

[59:27] under the sidewalks? The streets under the water.

[59:32] » But I I think those are the things that we would see that we see problems with.

[59:36] » We have some storm water that is on our main lot. Um that'll have to be that

[59:44] that's part of this project is to move it into the street into the rightway. So

[59:47] you could do something on that property along with storm water along the whole

[59:52] stretch to be providing

[59:57] or that it's being done in parts right we're

[1:00:02] pieced together. Um the tree infrastructure really I mean that's part

[1:00:07] of the reason why this has also come to us is because we've said no they're not

[1:00:10] taking out trees and now we're like wait there's we don't have the proper tree

[1:00:14] wells and trees in our downtown to support that infrastructure. So maybe

[1:00:20] that >> and if and if business association

[1:00:25] partners want to do things like light up downtown

[1:00:33] we've gotten lots of >> requests and flower basket things like

[1:00:38] that right to put along this >> I mean a lot of those things come with

[1:00:41] the infrastructure of like benches

[1:00:47] » bike racks Councelor Koserati, there are two things I share

[1:00:53] your like, okay, how do we make this pencil out? And I think [clears throat]

[1:00:57] it is comforting, Emma, that you say you feel like we could deliver an

[1:01:01] opportunity to prioritize Milwaukee Bay Park in this option we chose. There are

[1:01:04] two things that I think of that help me feel better about choosing that. The

[1:01:08] first is um [clears throat] you mentioned like there's upward

[1:01:11] trajectory. I think if we choose option B or frankly option A for that matter,

[1:01:15] we're doing compressor valve that is hard to do. you were saying we're not

[1:01:18] going to do something >> any trajectory towards us eventually

[1:01:22] having our own parts which you know is a very expensive this I believe talk about

[1:01:28] » this I think is true and we're continuing to push

[1:01:33] more costs into our general fund deficit that we are going to base in next budget

[1:01:38] which is like it is nebulous money but it is deeply concerning to me that we

[1:01:44] just keep piling money into that hole The the other number that I think makes

[1:01:51] me feel better about option B, the mayor was kind of alluding to this was the

[1:01:54] delta in time frame of delaying these two projects. The delta between doing

[1:01:59] Main Street in 2029 construction versus 2020 2032

[1:02:04] [clears throat] construction is 3 years versus the delta of doing Milwaukee Bay

[1:02:09] Park in 2029 versus sometime in the future is much longer and it makes me

[1:02:15] feel more comfortable. The delay that we're seeing to me feels more manageable

[1:02:19] and much be an option. But I do still to your point this O and M general fund

[1:02:27] toll like what scares me about option B is not committing to Milwaukee big park

[1:02:32] is the how big of a deficit are we going to face next year

[1:02:35] » and I and I should just point out that that O and M class which scares me too

[1:02:40] would have been the case if we signed on IDAS if NCPAS

[1:02:44] but when you guys authorized me to sign that we were already saying we we were

[1:02:49] prepared to absorb >> right we didn't have to absorb the

[1:02:51] entire cost. >> Exactly.

[1:02:53] » That was the trade-off. At least we're getting three million

[1:02:57] » in terms of construction cost. >> So, it actually veins out. This doesn't

[1:03:01] even This is 13 million amps. [clears throat]

[1:03:05] » Right. >> I I I would say though what we're we're

[1:03:08] still it's just we're reallocating capital dollars and it's not operational

[1:03:12] dollars. So, we're looking at dollars that were done with these other capital

[1:03:16] that we going to spend. So in this case, main is it main street versus

[1:03:22] reallocating those dollars to Milwaukee Park. I I I I agree on that future

[1:03:29] trajectory that I know is there what that looks like. Yeah.

[1:03:34] » Like what are those what are those long-term possible as you know Emma

[1:03:38] mentioned that IGAS that we drafted? We were we were basically agreed to take on

[1:03:44] that cost of the walk and we had we were starting to do some of that program

[1:03:51] » and I and I I I don't have all like we have to have this parks conversation

[1:03:57] option A be yours. It's got it's coming. You know that because we're following

[1:04:03] the the >> obviously I just wish they had more.

[1:04:06] » I hear I've been knowing how much Milwaukee pays Milwaukee base is going

[1:04:10] to cost. I I don't know what everything else is going to cost. And the problem

[1:04:13] that I'm having is I'm trying to look five years ahead, right? Because I don't

[1:04:17] want to put the city in the same position NCPRD is in right now

[1:04:20] » or put future council in position in there because we have so many other

[1:04:24] budget issues. >> Yeah.

[1:04:25] » That we're looking at. So my thing is this, eventually we say, "Oh, sure. We

[1:04:29] have some funding to do some on." >> Yeah.

[1:04:32] » Well, that funding eventually is going to get more. Is it going to run out and

[1:04:36] not be enough? >> Yeah.

[1:04:37] » At some point, we're going to be back here asking ourselves the question, how

[1:04:41] do we pay for it? Now, >> there's going to be two options.

[1:04:45] » Our own parks district or a tax increase. Either way, you're going to

[1:04:48] get a tax increase or a bond or some sort of increase. That's what I'm that's

[1:04:52] where I'm seeing this going is it's going to keep going up until we get

[1:04:58] to that point because at some point the cost is going to get more. We all know

[1:05:01] that. We're not we're not oblivious to that.

[1:05:04] » So then what? So I that's the thing I don't want to

[1:05:08] make it like I I hate to make a decision based on right now

[1:05:12] » and based on public f I'm pissed too about

[1:05:15] » but that doesn't mean I'm pissed enough to make a decision that's potentially

[1:05:18] going to put us in a financial bind that's going to hurt us later on down

[1:05:21] » sure >> because the goal is also to not make our

[1:05:23] city more expensive >> right is that part is that goal

[1:05:28] » so that should be considered and that's the thing it's hard to make a decision

[1:05:31] when I don't even have a ballpark of what that whole picture is going to be

[1:05:35] Sure. >> And [clears throat]

[1:05:37] I hate to pile on the doom and gloom because I'd like to but I'm gonna I'm

[1:05:41] gonna pile on if we are trying to solve $6.7 million budget in the first year of

[1:05:46] the benium. Add on to that a hundred million or $100,000. Add on to that

[1:05:51] whatever other ongoing general fund obligations we commit to. It feels like

[1:05:56] the presumption is we have to go out for a property tax increase which I do not

[1:06:00] like operating as if we have to go to voters asking for them to raise taxes. I

[1:06:04] want to find >> difference is how high

[1:06:07] » and it is yes and I have no sense of this deficit that we have how high we

[1:06:13] would have to ask to go like there is so much unknown there that makes me deeply

[1:06:18] uncomfortable and it feels >> I so so there's an option D which is

[1:06:23] nothing but I think I need to know I think the staff need to know like

[1:06:27] » we we can't operate under move everything forward

[1:06:31] » so you're getting a little bit of the wake up call where we've all been

[1:06:36] sitting with. I completely deeply respect and really appreciate as your

[1:06:40] administrator that you guys care about the budget and you care about balancing

[1:06:44] it and you care about all that. >> It's it's a little chicken and egg. Like

[1:06:48] it's hard for us to get a ton of financial clarity until we know your

[1:06:53] priorities, but I understand it's hard for you to name the priorities until we

[1:06:57] provide some financial clarity. So, we're trying to give you as much as we

[1:07:01] can when we can, but I do think it's helpful to I mean, we have been very

[1:07:05] consistent on this Milwaukee Bay Park. That is what we are trying to affirm.

[1:07:10] And we we can't it's it is you have like I'm giving you the I think A or B or C

[1:07:16] option B and do nothing are all justifiable defensible paths that I will

[1:07:21] back you up to the hilt on, but I we need some direction.

[1:07:25] » Well, let me uh let me throw in some already money situation in that you

[1:07:31] know I've heard you know about parks and so you know that gets into the whole you

[1:07:36] know the whole governance thing which is I really don't want to go too far in

[1:07:40] that because I think this you know black hole talk about but you know I think

[1:07:45] that when we talk about taking on all these these

[1:07:50] responsibilities still meet in the district you know you

[1:07:54] know our 54 cents you know levy is of the parks district. And so we don't have

[1:08:01] we don't have a lot of control there. You know, it's going in there and then

[1:08:04] they're saying, "Well, we're not going to maintain this." So to me, in many

[1:08:08] respects, that's the worst possible situation to continue on. But that's

[1:08:12] kind of the road we're on right now is that, you know, we're taking on O&M

[1:08:17] responsibilities without being able to tap that 54 cents. you know uh at least

[1:08:23] if you go the government's route at some point at least you can tap into that

[1:08:31] » without the we could do I'm not saying this what are we maintaining right now

[1:08:36] what are we maintaining on our own right now what parks are we maintain our own

[1:08:40] what maintenance are we >> well we do storm water storm water

[1:08:47] » in Milwaukee Bay but we also do what little gets done I guess outro island

[1:08:53] right >> maybe more is done there

[1:08:56] » we take care of our infrastructure which is expensive and you know we don't

[1:09:01] get obviously we don't get utility fees from Milwaukee Bay Park to maintain the

[1:09:06] utility infrastructure out at Memphis Park or to use our sewer system from the

[1:09:12] aquatic center so >> so I will say um

[1:09:19] you know six months ago I was like let's you know we were in negotiation let's

[1:09:26] get things to J's side um and you know the governance question and the future

[1:09:33] of the parks district you know will come I think the things have piled up over

[1:09:38] the last six months with the county starting to talk about a levy the county

[1:09:42] starting to talk about um all of that and in the last two meetings for I know

[1:09:47] most of you watched them but for those who didn't watch in the last the June

[1:09:53] 24th board meeting and the DAC meeting last week a lot of people seem to want

[1:09:59] us to leave. [laughter]

[1:10:02] Um, so, um, I do think that conversation about the future, I mean, and frankly,

[1:10:09] the county commissioners could

[1:10:14] short circuit all of it by just deciding to go out for a new structure, right, to

[1:10:19] reform the district. They would make that would make us have to opt in or

[1:10:23] out. That would make the litigation kind of irrelevant. That would, you know,

[1:10:28] that would change the thinking in a fairly short order. Um, are they

[1:10:33] thinking of doing that? I I have no idea. Um, they focused on a levy because

[1:10:37] that was the easy thing, easiest thing to do, but then they decided, you know,

[1:10:41] they're polling to a levy shouldn't go this year. All of that to say, I mean, I

[1:10:47] hear what you're saying about lack of clarity and lack of, you know, what

[1:10:52] we're getting into. But that's true either way.

[1:10:57] That's true. You know, whether we prioritize Milwaukee enough or not. And

[1:11:01] to the points that councelor Massie made um about Yeah. What what does the public

[1:11:07] say when we say when we decide to put walking bay park behind street

[1:11:12] improvements on main street? Yeah.

[1:11:17] Yeah. I I can't see saying that. And and again I think we start the convers I

[1:11:25] mean you know we start the conversation about how we get our STCs. we file a

[1:11:31] petition or whatever for dedication of SDC's to this regional asset within the

[1:11:36] occupant park. We figure out the process for trying to get those independent of

[1:11:42] the IGA if the are going to take that differently.

[1:11:48] » Well, I I think the I think the meeting was

[1:11:53] clarifying. I think there may be a slightly different playing field just

[1:11:59] yeah I I think the DAP meeting on August 12th will be very interesting. We

[1:12:03] strategically put our conversation about funding and governance on the 18th of

[1:12:08] August so we can kind of see where that comes from. we're doing some financial

[1:12:12] analysis um that keeps the prism of affordability and that people sense but

[1:12:18] um it to where what councelor Masky was saying

[1:12:24] it is hard for me right now to see the financial upside of the unit

[1:12:31] just with the direction they seem to be going

[1:12:36] and the capital improvements you all want to see. Yes, of unlocking B, but

[1:12:41] other parks. I don't see a future that we aren't assuming we're O and M without

[1:12:47] the revenue if we stay.

[1:12:56] Okay, I'm I'm going to kind of looking at time and I'm gonna I I think Yes,

[1:13:02] Joseph. >> Can I

[1:13:04] think maybe it's clarified, maybe it's not. Um,

[1:13:08] I think the problem that we're trying to get with prioritization is with every

[1:13:13] project, all these projects to a certain extent, we're starting to like put

[1:13:18] assigned dollars, no matter how low or like we're putting portions of our

[1:13:24] budget towards those things. And so one project is is staying static for a while

[1:13:29] and and also holding those dollars tapped while maybe another project is a

[1:13:33] little bit more has more wheels as energy to actually get done. So you have

[1:13:39] we start spreading out these dollars and we have a bunch of projects that are

[1:13:41] kind of just stasis. So I think what we're trying to do right now is that's

[1:13:46] how that's not how we've been operating because we've been putting a little bit

[1:13:50] of resources towards almost everything and it's kind of locking us up because

[1:13:54] we're not going you know what there's five projects let's move four into this

[1:13:59] one and actually get it done. So I think that's what we're trying to look at. I

[1:14:02] know we're going to get kind of bogged down with a lot of the numbers because

[1:14:06] again these numbers are are they're not good and I just got comped for I just

[1:14:10] got comped for Harrison and May and I'm off. So sorry it's going to be between

[1:14:15] probably 800 to that would be

[1:14:19] » why you take that other house coming together

[1:14:21] » exactly >> today

[1:14:25] the list of sales so that's so

[1:14:29] » I thought that was smarts come from metro

[1:14:32] » no they do not this is this is our um anyway so I I add that to the mix for

[1:14:38] why we're why we're trying to prioritize and get some direction because these

[1:14:43] things do you >> think deliver really cool stuff but we

[1:14:46] want to get it done and we I think that was a really well so I mean one way to

[1:14:50] think about the question still was a Joseph question but if we're not just

[1:14:54] don't think about the money for a minute like how would you prioritize context I

[1:14:58] know but I just I think that that that >> I will tell you it does not give me

[1:15:06] heartburn to put Harris and remain off not give me heartburn to do that

[1:15:11] » right >> um And I liked the point that Joseph

[1:15:14] made earlier that um COO could still go

[1:15:20] because we prioritized it as housing. If somebody came in and wanted to do

[1:15:24] housing, pick that up >> and you know, so I like that, you know,

[1:15:28] I think that that's that's com there's some comfort in that. Um, but between

[1:15:33] the two apartment buildings going up now, the, you know, complaints we're

[1:15:37] already hearing about parking and everything else, I have no hearts over

[1:15:41] leaving Harrison and Maine to be discussed in three years.

[1:15:46] » Let's start there. I have differences of opinion. [laughter]

[1:15:52] » I would agree. I think auction be um is passively built along the park. I think

[1:15:57] we have the ability to do that. The two things that I will say again surplus

[1:16:01] things. We canled our contract with co on the assumption at least that I have

[1:16:06] that we were going to quickly look for a new RFP start that process again and we

[1:16:12] have not done that yet and that at the very least doing what we can to engage

[1:16:17] partners to me seems like at least that was my understanding of what we do. I

[1:16:22] wish at this point that we kept the offer frankly because it seems like

[1:16:26] we're not be able to do that but I might. The second thing is council

[1:16:30] body's claim. I'm deeply worried about our the court bill that we're running up

[1:16:36] on our general fund starting and I have no sense how we build that

[1:16:43] bold if it is a property tax increase. I'm curious about when compression kicks

[1:16:48] in if we're near that, especially with all the other fun measures that are the

[1:16:52] ballot. I'm curious about if the funds are able to cover this large of a gap.

[1:16:57] I'm curious if we add on other things like parks district and that's able to

[1:17:01] that is beyond our scope. Like there is just such a large bill that we do not

[1:17:05] have the capacity to pay and I see I feel no confidence that we're going to

[1:17:09] be able to pay it and that is uncertainty that is most scary to me and

[1:17:13] we should talk about that when we talk about parks on pen. should talk about it

[1:17:16] frankly more often. >> So you won't priority you're gonna

[1:17:20] prioritize be scared of death. >> I think to be to take Robert's uh

[1:17:27] council Matthew's point this is $100,000 year over year that we are committing to

[1:17:33] in a worst case scenario operations and maintenance. I think that the concerns

[1:17:37] that I have about the credit card bill are far larger than just the $100,000

[1:17:44] that we're going to be adding here. And that uncertainty I have is frankly with

[1:17:47] all the other things that might be added to that bill like a parks district, like

[1:17:51] all these other

[1:17:59] » I'm skipping. You guys can come back. [laughter]

[1:18:04] If you can abstain, you can come back to >> I'm going to change my vote from I want

[1:18:08] to hear everybody's Yeah, I I you know I

[1:18:14] I I share all these concerns. I hear I share your concerns. I really do. Um but

[1:18:21] I think that we need to prioritize Milwaukee Park.

[1:18:25] We've invested a lot of effort in it for way too many years. I think that there's

[1:18:32] a I think there's a way forward. I don't I I think this is basically what Peter

[1:18:40] and and and Emma and and Joseph have laid out is it's doable, but it's also I

[1:18:45] think it's the worst case scenario. And I'm not so sure that that that will play

[1:18:50] out. I think that there's still avenues for us to,

[1:18:55] you know, get some of the NCPRD SDC's regardless.

[1:19:04] And I will also remind people that when they when the the DAC voted and

[1:19:08] supposedly, you know, the the county board says, "We want to hear from the

[1:19:12] DAC." Well, the DAC was tied with two extensions. Okay? So that's not a

[1:19:16] foregone conclusion that the DAC is not going to go back to the county board and

[1:19:20] say sign the IGA. That's not a foregone conclusion. Okay. And so uh I think that

[1:19:27] you know we I think it would be really hard to explain to the residents you

[1:19:30] know this this this decision. I share share Rebecca's concerns about you know

[1:19:36] deteriorating infrastructure. There's no great answer but I think Milwaukee Bay

[1:19:42] Park is a better answer than the other. That's all. All

[1:19:46] » and I would add that, you know, I mean, the most troubling thing to me about

[1:19:52] delaying the streetscape is the sort of ADA accessibility issue. But I do think

[1:19:59] we have to remember that Milwaukee Bay Park brings ADA improvements and equity.

[1:20:05] I mean, there are equity elements to the Milwaukee Bay.

[1:20:08] » You got to sell me. I know. >> Pardon?

[1:20:10] » You got to sell me, mayor. I know. Well, say this general

[1:20:16] say it's a pre-cooling center for >> That's right. But the cooling element of

[1:20:20] I mean people say all the time that you know splash pads are equity tools and um

[1:20:26] or treat and place where people can cool in the heat of summer all of that. Um so

[1:20:34] I don't >> need all 24 spouts.

[1:20:36] » I [laughter] don't want us to lose sight of that. Uh

[1:20:41] Yes, >> that's an inside

[1:20:44] Kia wanted to value engineer the number spouse and splash down.

[1:20:50] » Okay. Um Adam, you want to wait? Rebecca's watching.

[1:20:56] » I'd like to hear from the business. >> Sorry, Savage. Everyone's everyone but

[1:21:03] I just came back to my computer. [laughter]

[1:21:07] » We're building a new city hall.

[1:21:13] Okay. So, so to pack you up, we got debated pie choice.

[1:21:19] » Exactly. You actually consensus has already indicated a support for option,

[1:21:25] but we would like to hear the poll. >> I I held off system.

[1:21:32] » Well, I can't represent. I mean, >> no, but you're a business owner on

[1:21:35] mainstream. >> I Yeah.

[1:21:36] » So, you do have that perspective. >> [laughter]

[1:21:44] » Um, okay. So, the things that I was going to take when you were talking

[1:21:49] about affordability. Um, is that

[1:21:55] we it's really really hard if not impossible to maintain the current state

[1:22:03] of affordability in the city. And you and I have had conversations about what

[1:22:08] has to happen to accommodate the the growth that we don't have any control

[1:22:15] over, but how we like supplement some of that. How we put more incentives in

[1:22:20] place, put more assistance in place, and how,

[1:22:24] you know, I think we have to we have to have the conversation about how

[1:22:31] Milwaukee grows. Um,

[1:22:35] and I don't I think that we can have that discussion and not be at odds with

[1:22:41] building. Uh, so I was really I was hearing what you were saying earlier

[1:22:46] that really hit my heart, you know, because you have been a really uh wrong

[1:22:52] woman advocate and unwavering advocate, but we're in that spot where

[1:23:00] it's like we're going to have more growth. It's going there are going to be

[1:23:05] unaffordable units that pop up across our city. There are market demands that

[1:23:11] are just going to make that happen. The the like really um

[1:23:18] sick lining of that is that you know an increase in the disposable wealth income

[1:23:25] that would be in the city or the um

[1:23:31] or the property tax that comes with those that's going to help us in our

[1:23:36] general fund to do a better job to protect residents that are struggling.

[1:23:39] Um, so I I want you to hear that that is like I hear that

[1:23:46] » and there are a lot of conversations.

[1:23:52] » Um, so and I also hear a really big urgency

[1:23:57] from a lot of the folks that are on Main Street and beyond around Milwaukee Park.

[1:24:03] It's I mean it's like reaching a deafening level. Um there are a lot of

[1:24:09] people who really want that to be built out. Um it's an investment that is um

[1:24:16] visible and the mainstream investments are not as visible. Uh we're also really

[1:24:25] good at duct taping things, but that doesn't mean that we should always duct

[1:24:29] tape things. So,

[1:24:33] um I think that puts us all in this really

[1:24:38] impossible situation. Um, and I think that

[1:24:47] I think that if I I I don't think advancing both makes sense uh with our

[1:24:53] current capacity and unless we have um a a release valve for some additional

[1:25:00] capacity and if that means you know putting funding into additional staff or

[1:25:06] um consulting or you know something along those lines unless there's a magic

[1:25:10] way to do that. >> If I could just say one thing, I I think

[1:25:13] in terms of staff capacity, the way that we've planned in the CIP, we have that

[1:25:18] capacity to do both purchases or the full financial capacity.

[1:25:23] » We'd have to take that. >> We'd have to go and pay up

[1:25:26] » and and then we're assuming we're not designing a lot of sewer, right? That's

[1:25:31] they are taking that off. That's where that's where we don't have the CIP did

[1:25:35] plan to have staff on both of these projects

[1:25:38] do this. So we have FTE. >> Yes.

[1:25:41] » But what is the mental strength of taking on you know two aligning two

[1:25:48] » I think worried about >> I'm more worried about proximity of

[1:25:52] walking be park and main street if you did both of those at the same time.

[1:25:57] » Yeah. >> I think the businesses would kill us and

[1:26:00] be to be honest like I don't but that would be a strength because they be like

[1:26:04] what are you doing? You've got that tore up and this tore up. Like where where

[1:26:07] are people go? Where's the contractors staging? Where is, you know,

[1:26:11] » and if if we hear that people have a problem with parking now, just wait

[1:26:16] until there are a whole bunch of contractor vehicles taking out parking

[1:26:20] spaces. in town. So co sorry >> which co is the right place for

[1:26:27] » I was say and um the dam will be very handy to

[1:26:34] » um okay so and I also think that we've been caught in this like

[1:26:40] quagmire for way too long um where we've been struggling with these decisions and

[1:26:47] struggling with forces outside of our control and it would be really nice and

[1:26:51] refreshing to just say, you know what, okay, we're going to do this.

[1:26:55] » Yeah. >> And we're going to move forward and and

[1:26:57] we can all rally behind that, which I think we all just need to rally around

[1:27:02] something right now. Um the things that I hear and well, let me let me do this.

[1:27:08] Uh I've been on Main Street as a business owner very long. It's like less

[1:27:12] than two years. Um but I've talked to main street businesses for more than two

[1:27:18] years. And the margin on what makes a good month and what makes a month where

[1:27:25] you think you're gonna have to close your doors is so much thinner than

[1:27:28] anybody ever imagines. Uh I mean I think like I go back a lot and think about how

[1:27:36] frequently I went into businesses that you know I had connected with and I was

[1:27:41] like oh yeah I bought this book and then I didn't go back for like two months or

[1:27:46] something. that's not enough and we can't we can't live on this amount of

[1:27:53] foot traffic. It's just not it's not feasible. Um, we have a lot of

[1:27:58] businesses that are coming online and I think that they are starting now to

[1:28:02] realize some of the things that you don't even know when you're like, "Hey,

[1:28:08] start a business downtown and you don't think about the hidden costs or the

[1:28:14] emergencies or things, you know, like you burn through your your reserve a lot

[1:28:19] faster than you could ever imagine." Okay, so

[1:28:23] cut to the chase, right? I think that we should prioritize theme park. I think

[1:28:28] that that is it's a catalyst project. I think it is something that unifies a lot

[1:28:36] of different groups and I realize that um it's going to put additional strain

[1:28:43] on the timeline for the mainstream projects and the infrastructure there.

[1:28:48] But I also really hope that we're able to come through with some like very

[1:28:53] creative placemaking that can make it can make that lift forward a little bit

[1:28:58] better. It'll also give some of the businesses that are on the south side or

[1:29:04] the north side of downtown an opportunity to get their stability

[1:29:09] because even with Milwaukee Fest, you know, the the road was closed at Jackson

[1:29:15] and the North downtown businesses, they didn't get anything. They I mean, it was

[1:29:21] not a Milwaukee fest for the north businesses unless you were drinking

[1:29:25] beer, watching soccer at the food carts. Um, but there are small businesses that

[1:29:30] need to we need to give them some time for their roots to take hold.

[1:29:38] » That was really long ago.

[1:29:44] » No, no, actually it's exactly what you know

[1:29:48] I'm I'm not against prioritizing people. The only point I'm trying to make is

[1:29:52] that um it's more than just that decision,

[1:29:57] right? Because as you said, things are going to get more expensive, right?

[1:30:01] » And and I think everybody understands that. I think that's part of the

[1:30:03] problem. It's like what does it stop? We don't have to add to it, right? I

[1:30:08] like, oh, they're charging this we should. And I'm not saying that, but at

[1:30:13] the same time, my thing is that the very little that we do control when it comes

[1:30:19] to what we make affordable is precious,

[1:30:23] right? It's very, very precious and it's limited. So we shouldn't just bat an eye

[1:30:29] to it and say well it is as it goes because this [snorts] is our

[1:30:36] responsibility. We have this responsibility to the

[1:30:40] residents whose money this is. So that's the only thing that I want to that that

[1:30:45] I'm trying to highlight that it's not as easy as saying go ahead and prioritize

[1:30:48] Milwaukee because sure everybody's going to be happy. I want it done, too. But

[1:30:52] there's other conversations coming. And what I don't want to see is is

[1:30:58] these wealthy people and these higher taxes then pushing out the people that

[1:31:01] can no longer. That's what I worry about. Because then who are we building

[1:31:06] to? the people who have paid most of their

[1:31:09] lives into it or the people who are just going to come because they have the

[1:31:14] money to buy their way into our community

[1:31:18] and enjoy what everyone else is now pushed out to

[1:31:23] last thing and I want to deliver Milwaukee Park and I'm going to I'm

[1:31:27] going to agree with all of you to prioritize. I just want us to keep these

[1:31:30] things at the forefront. I'm going to ask all of us to now push even harder on

[1:31:35] this affordability. I don't really want to hear that. Well, I don't know how

[1:31:39] much we can do or what can we help because if we can build this thing for

[1:31:43] 13 million, we better save these people some damn money.

[1:31:48] » Thank you, counselor. So, let me recap. Think we've got clear direction that

[1:31:53] we're moving with kind of option B. So, that's going to involve um delaying the

[1:31:59] Main Street enhancement CIP project, reassigning the URA dollars that were

[1:32:04] dedicated to that. I want to um get some head nods. We will also reallocate the

[1:32:11] URA dollars that work for Kellogg to Milwaukee.

[1:32:15] Knowing that we may there's a crystal ball. There's so many crystal balls out

[1:32:19] there, but there's Kellogg crystal ball. And if funds come forward for Kella,

[1:32:23] we're going to have to come back and talk um about

[1:32:29] » an application in today, right? Did it go into?

[1:32:33] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:32:35] So, we will work on the mechanics behind the scenes of how we do a budget

[1:32:39] adjustment to to reallocate the UR dollars to Milwaukee Park and continue

[1:32:43] to be full steam ahead on grants. Um, I also think if with your permission, even

[1:32:50] while we're in limbo land, I think we would like I'd like to start pushing a

[1:32:53] little bit on um asks to MCPRD about the contract transfer and the trail grant

[1:32:59] transfer. >> Okay. Um, second thing I heard I think

[1:33:05] consensus domain we're not talking about for three years.

[1:33:10] » Well, I think we're not talking about it for now.

[1:33:12] » We're not talking about >> Well, there's the other side of this

[1:33:14] coin. Metro is still gonna have some opinions about

[1:33:19] what we should do there. >> Metro might not want to just sit on

[1:33:21] their >> That's why I said what I did.

[1:33:24] » Okay. Okay. But so we you are not asking staff to actively work on any visioning

[1:33:29] or planning work around Harrison Bane. We will see what our partners in.

[1:33:35] » Well, I can also tell them we're not gonna move forward with any kind of

[1:33:39] submission for purchase. >> Yeah. Um,

[1:33:45] I appreciate, council president, I think I and Joseph, tell me your thoughts. I

[1:33:50] don't think I had that clarity of direction that it was going to be an

[1:33:52] immediate turnaround on a new RFP that we need to actually have a conversation

[1:33:56] about RFP goals and everything. But um to the very wise words council council

[1:34:02] question white have said about ensuring affordability is important. Um we have

[1:34:07] an action item in our affordability goal to really come back with you all and pin

[1:34:12] down our next steps on affordable housing within that goal. I wonder if in

[1:34:16] as part of that we can also talk about the the coho 2.0 plan.

[1:34:22] » I think it would be useful for us to know. Yeah, I think we should have a

[1:34:27] conversation around COO, how we move forward. Um, if it's could be just let's

[1:34:33] take those old goals and let's update them. Uh, we want to get affordable

[1:34:37] housing there. Um, I would like to have a better understanding about the what

[1:34:43] the Clomar told them about how hard it was going to be to build what they were

[1:34:49] trying to build and is is that pointing us towards something smaller? Uh yes,

[1:34:55] » I would like to have a conversation. Yeah. Around sort of how an RFP would

[1:35:00] look different based on what we know from the process.

[1:35:04] » Absolutely. The last

[1:35:07] » could you put a little more meat on that about smaller what how does that

[1:35:12] » I I think to summarize what you're saying mayor is that we learned a lot of

[1:35:15] things the last six years with goho >> y and I think the mayor is saying what

[1:35:21] we learned can we right size the RFP because that RFP might be reducing the

[1:35:26] size of the cast like the of how many units we can get there because maybe

[1:35:30] it's more realistic instead of having 200

[1:35:32] » is that because KO was going further into The co was very large.

[1:35:37] » Yeah. Yeah. And the weight but basically it was going

[1:35:41] » much they had to prop it up. What it took to support

[1:35:46] » plane piles you'll need more you build and the bigger you build right

[1:35:52] » more deeper those have to be and things like that. That's expensive. So that's

[1:35:56] why those kind of that's why they needed that sixth floor is to help pay for the

[1:36:00] offset of >> we can absolutely lessons learned and

[1:36:04] and maybe changes to how we can Yeah. Okay. Um and then the last piece, but

[1:36:11] it's it's arguably the most important because it's the surrounding context.

[1:36:15] It's that continued financial modeling about general fund sustainability. We

[1:36:21] were very clear with our in our budget process that that's the work for this

[1:36:25] bianium is our strategy for making a general fund solvent. That has only

[1:36:30] gotten more acute for a variety of reasons. Um not least of which is this

[1:36:36] parks um on M conversation that we have scheduled for the 18th. So you have my

[1:36:41] commitment that we're working on on that. It is only July 14. It's just our

[1:36:47] budget, but we will be bringing we'll bring that forward um to you to budget

[1:36:52] committee and um provide as much modeling data and strategic thinking to

[1:36:59] help you make the best strategic decisions going forward. But I have to

[1:37:03] say this is so incredibly helpful that the clarity from tonight, your staff

[1:37:09] deeply thank you. It will make so many things more

[1:37:15] just drive for us. >> Absolutely.

[1:37:19] » Final thoughts from my team CIP. >> Just appreciate that the conversation

[1:37:25] and and the clarity. So that's really helpful.

[1:37:28] » Final questions from council. Thought it was a good conversation. I

[1:37:33] also appreciate

[1:37:38] » Do we have um council reports on this agenda or should I just hold them for

[1:37:42] next week? >> You should hold [laughter]

[1:37:46] I don't have a council report. There's something I really do want to say though

[1:37:50] and I want to commend the public works department and Damian on their awards

[1:37:57] that they received. So, Peter, why don't you just high give

[1:38:02] us the highlights again? So, uh I I I think I put it out in our five week.

[1:38:07] Uh I read it

[1:38:12] has been uh we've been participating in the strategic energy program with the

[1:38:17] energy trust uh since I've been here and we uh were awarded a silver award and a

[1:38:24] roads award silver for the electrical and the bronze for the natural gas and

[1:38:30] we were in the out of I think 95 uh participating organizations we were

[1:38:37] in top five in electrical savings and performance is being part of that and I

[1:38:44] think top five as well the natural gas. So, wow.

[1:38:48] » We we consistently see savings through the things that we've been doing to, you

[1:38:56] know, solar the solar work that we did over JCB, but the controls work that

[1:39:01] we're doing here uh that we just finished up here at city hall. Uh we're

[1:39:05] able to better control the cooling system and make sure that they're

[1:39:10] turning they need to turn on turn off need to turn off. So, uh, it's it's a

[1:39:16] continu continuous ongoing process that that we participate in. Not just Damian,

[1:39:21] it's Mike and Carly Clarison

[1:39:27] are intimately involved in the program. So, they do a great job.

[1:39:31] » It's a whole long list of a lot of small things that add up. It

[1:39:35] » is. And do does that report we get it

[1:39:40] emailed to us, but does it get put on the website?

[1:39:43] No, we don't we don't put the B label for the website. It's more of just an

[1:39:47] internal document that we share just talking about what we're doing as a

[1:39:51] compiler. So, >> well, something like that should

[1:39:54] probably be in the co-pilot or something.

[1:39:58] » Storytelling >> storytelling and support of our climate

[1:40:02] goals that goes up this week. So, I'll thank you.

[1:40:07] » Sure. >> Anything else reports? I do have a

[1:40:12] couple council reports and I'll be quick. Um, one is um and uh kind of it

[1:40:20] relates to the parks questions is um you know uh NCPRD was asking has been asking

[1:40:27] for a government rate for utilities. So there is a mayor's uh email lister for

[1:40:34] the Oregon Mayor's Association and people throw out questions. So I threw

[1:40:37] out that question. um who has uh does anybody does any city have government

[1:40:43] rate for other for their school district, for fire district, whatever.

[1:40:48] And um I got about a dozen or so answers. And um a couple of of a couple

[1:40:55] of cities have a reduced uh water rate for their schools or water

[1:41:01] in their fields because they have a agreement that those fields are open to

[1:41:06] the public. when school's not using them. Otherwise, universally, no

[1:41:12] government utilitar. So, it was very interesting and informative to get that

[1:41:17] kind of reality check. Um, the regional transportation plan, uh,

[1:41:24] some folks prevent that's like the metro region TSP. They do it, but they do it

[1:41:30] every five years. Thank god we have to do the TSP every five years. um that

[1:41:36] they're starting off now from the 2028 update. They came and met with Jennifer

[1:41:41] and I yesterday. I have their little handouts if anybody's interested. The

[1:41:46] council president also has them in the C4 packet for tomorrow because they're

[1:41:50] going to be the same. Uh same thing there. The only real important thing

[1:41:56] about that process is 2027 and Jennifer's going to be already updating.

[1:42:01] We've had a lot of projects in there. the Harmony Road intersection, the

[1:42:05] railroad bike path. Um she's going to update what's already in there. Um 2027

[1:42:10] is our window to put it. So we will have a conversation since 2027 about whether

[1:42:18] there's anything we want to add to the RTP which does have to relate to our

[1:42:23] updated TSP. We can't just throw anything in there.

[1:42:27] Well, and and there was an interesting issue that came up about

[1:42:32] » it on their financial constraint list. >> It has to be on our financial.

[1:42:38] » I did not know and I don't that was the case last time. So, I made that change

[1:42:43] this time. >> And that's going to be a bit of a

[1:42:45] conundrum when you talk about the Harmony Road intersection. It is not on

[1:42:50] our conra. Um,

[1:42:54] so, uh, I'm going to send you guys around two documents from, uh, the that

[1:43:01] the MMC, well, I sent you around one doc the MMC sent around because I'm not the

[1:43:07] other one, but uh, SHS table has been kind of testy lately and, uh, there's a

[1:43:14] lot of dissatisfaction with, uh, the way Metro is running the process. um not

[1:43:20] just from the the mayors, but there was a lot of it there was a sort of tense

[1:43:25] meeting last week. Um the mayors have asked for we're in the process of of

[1:43:32] setting the goals and the um KPIs, the performance indicators. The mayors have

[1:43:37] put in a request for a key performance indicator to address uh sheltered

[1:43:42] houselessness uh that there's some resistance to. Um, I will share that

[1:43:48] letter you guys just so you know. Um, it's going to be an interesting few

[1:43:53] months ahead. Uh, the mayor's also there was a letter uh in support of

[1:44:00] Mayor Wilson in trying to get his council to fund the

[1:44:07] uh the upgrades to the modus center. I was the MOA center was a thing that I

[1:44:12] was sort of not I was not uh sure where I felt what I felt about that but I in

[1:44:18] the end I actually felt good. Um so um anyway uh yeah so

[1:44:28] big motor center has a has an economic

[1:44:34] driver for the region the loss of pretty solid consensus that

[1:44:39] the loss of the blazers would be ahead for the region.

[1:44:45] » There resistance by Portland city council. Oh yeah. Yeah.

[1:44:51] Yeah. That's what the letters about. >> Um so I think that's it for

[1:44:57] » anybody else. >> I have one in the

[1:45:01] » Could you pass this picture? Um,

[1:45:06] » tell you a short story as they open this afternoon.

[1:45:11] [laughter]

[1:45:14] » Um, the morning of Milwaukee Day, [laughter]

[1:45:19] » Milwaukee Fest. >> Um, it there was there was the buzz of

[1:45:24] excitement on Main Street. Kids were filling the street

[1:45:31] [laughter] as we were bustling around trying to get

[1:45:36] happening [laughter] again.

[1:45:41] » We were I got a phone call. >> Very very sweet.

[1:45:47] » This is the port.

[1:45:51] » I've always wanted one of those. These little port potties are for Emma

[1:45:58] and Joseph. >> Thank you.

[1:46:00] » And Dan Harris, who I really hope is on vacation now. [laughter]

[1:46:05] It's such a huge lift to put on an event like that. And it was so much fun for

[1:46:09] everyone. And you it's really hard to do that and then

[1:46:15] immediately switch into the tough conversations of Monday. Um but

[1:46:21] everybody involved had to do that. Um, and one conversation that you didn't

[1:46:27] have to have on Monday was why the portaotties were on one side of the

[1:46:32] street and not the other side of the street.

[1:46:35] » And next year they will not be on this year. They will not be because we pushed

[1:46:40] portaotties across Main Street with rude strength

[1:46:46] » and grave determination. [laughter] There was a whole cost

[1:46:50] benefit analysis of like if it spills in the entire kids area,

[1:46:56] you know, as a biohazard, >> we have ruined Milwaukee best, but if we

[1:47:00] don't, >> we have ruined the relationship. It's a

[1:47:03] very important business owner. And so we pushed pushed me

[1:47:07] » and and as I was closing, I was physically standing between two of the

[1:47:12] portaotties. And then Rodney walked up [laughter] and I was like, "Oh, you

[1:47:17] really have to go to the bathroom, don't you?"

[1:47:22] » We all made it. And so they're add that to your decoration.

[1:47:27] » Well, they were still there this afternoon.

[1:47:30] They were earlier like around two o'clock today.

[1:47:36] » I don't know. I'm gonna push them down to our place. [laughter]

[1:47:41] » Thank you. Those are cute. >> Monopoly.

[1:47:48] [laughter]

[1:47:51] » Monopoly.

[1:47:57] » That is such a hard thing to follow up with more bureaucratic business. Can I

[1:48:01] ask one little report kind of thing? Um, and this is here to say, but I heard a

[1:48:07] rumor, fellow city manager, that the county's TSP includes zero projects on

[1:48:14] county roads in cities. >> It's only not incorporated,

[1:48:20] » of course. >> So, I just So, the um development agency

[1:48:25] has been doing all of the projects on city,

[1:48:29] » okay, >> roads, but I hear that that funding is

[1:48:32] going to dry up here soon. >> Okay. Just as the city manager I was

[1:48:36] talking to I think has a lot more concern. Well, I was gonna say we don't

[1:48:40] have as much, but like Oregon City has a ton

[1:48:47] » Yeah, I've heard that.

[1:48:55] But the other complaint I heard about >> by your bootstraps over here,

[1:49:00] » the mayor of uh Sandy called out that the county tsp only has 1% of going to

[1:49:10] Oregon or further east. So um also not funding hard

[1:49:24] street I >> had an event I went to

[1:49:31] there are a lot of businesses that are closed along the 26th really I haven't

[1:49:36] been out there a while I I just I'm just thinking did the snow affect that many

[1:49:41] businesses I mean there are just a lot of empty places on Welch just wrote a

[1:49:45] bedroom that they're really really poured out.

[1:49:50] » Yeah, it's horrible. >> Horrible.

[1:49:56] » Thanks.

[1:50:03] [laughter] Oh,

[1:50:04] » we are journed.

City Council Study Session 07/14/2026

Transcript