[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.