[0:06] Good morning, everyone. We're going to first off, make sure your phones are off, so you don't get interrupted by my mute.

[0:17] If we could please call the roll for the third installment of the Capitol Improvement Committee.

[0:24] Could many members Rowland here

[0:30] capriolo here

[0:33] Sonner excuse

[0:36] Stand around here

[0:38] Layers here bouquet widths

[0:42] Here

[0:44] McBride

[0:45] Here

[0:46] Mr. Chairman here. There are seven members president two appearing virtually. We have a quorum. All right

[0:53] So today we're going to obviously make a recommendation to the

[0:59] administration on our capital priorities. I see supervisor or supervisor.

[1:05] Comptroller Sumner is here, so she's no longer skews. She's here. Not on time, but you know, okay.

[1:14] Okay. So we're going to obviously go through this agenda. We're going to

[1:19] I was to take care of the minutes, then we're going to talk about the IJCC project and then hit up

[1:28] binding and cash. So I want to first off before we start thank all the staff that has spent

[1:36] the

[1:40] jump show. Thanks. Thanks staff for all the work they've done to put in this. This was a very

[1:45] As you're going to see, this was a very complex year,

[1:50] due to the fact that our cash levels went from 14.6 million

[1:55] to 7.7 million after the second meeting.

[2:00] So the amount of meetings behind the scenes

[2:03] that were taking place, there was a lot of them

[2:06] to try to figure this out.

[2:08] So please call it number one.

[2:16] Item one, approval of a minute from the August 12,

[2:19] 2020 six capital improvements committee CIC meeting

[2:25] I'll call approval of

[2:27] make a motion make a motion all right I'd rather coffee this morning we're ready for

[2:31] this okay please call the role on the motion by committee member Capriola that

[2:39] item number one be approved committee members Rowling I Capriola I

[2:46] Sonner?

[2:47] Aye.

[2:47] Sen Ram?

[2:49] Aye.

[2:49] Layers?

[2:50] Aye.

[2:51] Okay, let's.

[2:53] Aye.

[2:55] McBride?

[3:01] McBride?

[3:04] Mr. Chairman?

[3:06] Seven eyes.

[3:07] Zero nose.

[3:08] The motion prevails.

[3:12] We're going to call items two and three together.

[3:17] Item two.

[3:18] An action report from the Department of Administrative Services requesting authorization for capital funding for the investing and justice courthouse complex project.

[3:27] Project WC0276, scope up to 857, million 948,000.

[3:35] This file is also very far to this committee capital improvements committee, the committee

[3:40] on community environment and economic development for informational purposes only for section

[3:45] 59.608 with constant state statutes and is referred to the committee on finance.

[3:52] Item 3, review and discussion of Capital Project WC0276, IJCCC, and related 2027 funding requests

[4:02] and consideration of the anticipated September board action item, estimated by the Department

[4:09] of Administrative Services and the Office of Strategy, Budget, and Performance.

[4:13] The Capital Improvements Committee may take action for someone to chapter 36 of the Milwaukee

[4:17] County Code of General Ortenances.

[4:20] Alright. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ashley Edsett, Director of Project and Performance Management within the Office of Strategy Budget and Performance.

[4:31] We have our investing in Justice Court House Complex Project here, happy to share presentation, but also just field questions from the committee as well.

[4:41] You want to present your.

[4:45] I'm going to.

[4:46] I think it's a representation.

[4:47] I'm correct, right?

[4:48] It's a representation of a.

[4:52] We can focus and this is the file that we submitted for September's Board

[4:57] cycle.

[4:58] So, happy to share.

[5:00] We'll focus in on the recommendation that will be in front of seat committee as well as finance committee this next month.

[5:06] Is this similar to what was presented last the last meeting?

[5:10] The first portion, laying on the foundational background, to it would be similar to content you've seen before.

[5:17] All right. We'll focus on the recommended impacts of the program, and I'll let you introduce yourself.

[5:24] So, certainly assisting Director Addison here in Jeremy Lucas acting, Deputy Chief of Staff,

[5:30] Officer the County Executive David Crowley.

[5:49] I'm going to go through recommendations here.

[5:56] One.

[5:57] Sounds good.

[5:59] So, in front of the board, this next month, we'll be a recommendation to fund the full scope

[6:05] of the Investing and Justice Court House homeless complex project.

[6:09] It includes multiple elements here from the new Criminal Court House building itself,

[6:13] as well as demolition, enabling phase investments,

[6:17] and some of the other supporting line items.

[6:20] The total amount of the project is estimated at $896 million.

[6:25] Because the county has already invested $38 million,

[6:29] what's being requested for capital funding is $857 million

[6:33] to cover all of the activities to move us forward

[6:36] from 2027 through 2033 where the project would be concluded.

[6:42] There are alternate as part of the recommendation that are not part of that base scope, not part of that $857 million.

[6:50] Those are listed here on this slide.

[6:53] That is something that could be under consideration by the board as priorities move forward.

[7:00] Additionally, there are five-year capital projects that are already in the five-year plan.

[7:06] That could be in some way associated with the work that's already been done in the courthouse complex.

[7:11] We have some examples listed here, there are opportunities to move some of these items or an investment of about 50 million dollars into the IJCC scope to support some of the efficiencies that could be achieved by aligning those projects with the overall IJCC project.

[7:34] the examples listed here on this slide, let's take some impacts, what we're looking at.

[7:44] What you'll see here is that this report differs from the ones that you received earlier

[7:48] and that we have been able to make some forecasting on when those bodies would occur,

[7:54] kind of when those impacts would get hit. So what you see here is that the estimated at this point

[8:01] GMPs. That's the guaranteed maximum price packages that we would work with our

[8:08] our builder on. And so you'll see kind of the first one when it would be done April of 2027.

[8:14] That includes the pre-construction enabling work etc. That is really mainly getting this building

[8:20] the historic court house ready to move everyone in. Following up the following year,

[8:27] to like 225 million demolitions, site prep foundations really just starting to tear down the old safety building,

[8:35] do some foundation work and prepare it for the full construction which would occur the year after which would be kind of the bulk of the project

[8:43] cost in around 500 and 8 million.

[8:47] And so that's how kind of the early forecasting of the funding lays out of course subject to movement in one direction or another as we get final construction.

[9:00] Here's just broken down the issuance of the bonds like the author's

[9:03] issued to issue bonds here kind of breaking it down principle and interest over time.

[9:10] And ideally as we're able to fund it through possible like more support from state

[9:16] aids, grants as we get construction documents done for different areas.

[9:20] These will decrease over time, but right now we're asking for authority to execute the project

[9:28] And then here is a visual for everyone to see kind of like when those property tax impacts are likely to hit.

[9:36] So borrowing in 2728 then, you know, as we move through the consecutive GMPs, that obviously continues to grow to that average cost of about 137 on a $250,000 value at home.

[9:50] and then, of course, kind of as the debt falls off.

[9:54] And again, I would just caveat that the

[9:56] comptroller's offices are bonding authority per second.

[10:00] Saying they decide how to arrange that, what it looks like, how long it goes. So, some of these will change, but this is really just for information for the board to know exactly kind of what to expect from a scope and scale.

[10:16] Again, so we were looking to really, the recommendation is that we continue to use cash financing over the life of the projects, specifically during the construction to help ensure that the county capital program continues.

[10:33] should there be points where we do not have appropriate cash and the items in the project are

[10:38] not bond eligible. That would certainly impact the county's capital program. I know Chair

[10:44] Taylor mentioned there was a dip in cash funding available this year. Certainly if we do not

[10:49] continue to provide some cash for this project over time, you would expect to see that again

[10:55] in years down the road really pinching those projects that need to get done with cash funding.

[11:00] So the recommendation is to continue to fund it with the freed up funding that we currently have.

[11:08] And then after the bonds are hit, ideally we can continue to offset the taxpayer impacts by using that to pay off debt service and not hit property taxpayers.

[11:22] And then again, like this is just for clarity, you know, the scope includes status quo,

[11:28] IGCC approach from File 266564.

[11:32] Again, it provides that consistent funding framework

[11:35] for the capital projects to continue year over year.

[11:38] This project would occur outside of the annual budgeting

[11:42] process other than the cash appropriations year over year

[11:47] during the construction time frame and moving forward.

[11:50] So just as an generational investment,

[11:54] looking to build a building for 100 more years,

[11:57] And a building that is flexible and executes the justice system effectively and efficiently.

[12:05] Any questions?

[12:07] You committee members?

[12:10] Quick question.

[12:12] The,

[12:12] Would you come back to slide 23, the $137?

[12:16] Is that including us using the cash if we didn't, it's not correct?

[12:23] So this amount would be reduced if the board decided to continue to use that cash.

[12:29] Way was intended for from the state.

[12:32] So this is without a state.

[12:33] Correct.

[12:34] That's what we're asking the question here.

[12:36] So that doesn't include a track.

[12:38] So that number would come down if we're using for supplementing with the crash.

[12:43] Correct.

[12:44] Okay.

[12:44] That's what we're bound to do at all.

[12:48] All right.

[12:50] Do we have a motion from any one on committee?

[12:55] Sure.

[12:55] Chair Taylor, thank you, when it's appropriate or if it's appropriate now, I'd like to make a motion that the CIC committee recommends the project and then it would go forward to be considered by the joint finance and seed committee as well as the full board.

[13:12] Your motion.

[13:14] Yes, please.

[13:17] Discussion on that motion.

[13:19] Yeah, I guess my question is are we approving this then outside of the on funding that we are.

[13:26] that we're looking at for this many separate from that, correct?

[13:31] So do we not, we don't need to remove it from the project list.

[13:35] We can just vote for, we can just say that we approve it.

[13:41] We've already pretty much taken it out.

[13:43] I mean, when our previous page, we talked about that being separate in,

[13:47] we would stick with this process of capital projects.

[13:51] So, I don't think we have to necessarily do any about taking it out, but it's going to

[13:56] end up.

[13:58] Sure.

[13:58] Thank you.

[13:59] Chair and Vince Masterson, capital of budget coordinator.

[14:03] Two things.

[14:06] So, with the motion to recommend supportive IJCC project, and then when we get into item

[14:20] before when you look at the amendments that we have in there, you'll go through and approve

[14:28] the various projects. So the IJC, C, Cash and Bond amount is in there. You just exclude

[14:35] that or not include that as part of the overall project request list or recommended project

[14:43] list in item four. Does that make sense?

[14:51] If there hasn't been a second, I will second

[14:53] to motion. This is Mayor McBride.

[14:58] Well, we don't need a second, but thank you.

[15:00] We're doomed anyway.

[15:03] So, any other questions, any other discussions? So, basically, this committee would be saying to the administration and saying to take us out there that we support this project.

[15:15] We just are separate from the actual capital improvement process. It can't do it.

[15:22] And we've had that presentation before to both finance and seed of, you know, the cost of not moving forward with normal capital projects.

[15:33] Things just more, more emergencies come up, things get more expensive.

[15:37] And so I think what this committee has decided, which is what the Board pretty much, I think to say as well, is just continue to fund capital projects within a lot of the market.

[15:48] you're giving and then this is a separate board all together.

[15:56] All right. Please call the roll.

[15:58] And it's will be for item three obviously.

[16:00] I'm three. I'm two.

[16:03] On the motion by.

[16:05] Committee member of fanroom that item three be approved.

[16:08] Committee members, Robin.

[16:10] Capriolo.

[16:12] Sumner.

[16:13] Hi.

[16:14] Sunram.

[16:15] Hi.

[16:16] Layers.

[16:17] Bouquetless.

[16:20] Hi.

[16:29] McBride, McBride,

[16:33] and Mr. Chairman, eight eyes, zero nose, the motion prevails.

[16:40] Thank you.

[16:43] All right, I'm number four.

[16:47] Item four, Capital Improvements Committee Review of Department of Request for the 2027 through 2031, Capital Improvements Plan.

[16:55] The Capital Improvements Committee may take action for someone to chapter 36 of the Milwaukee County Code of General Ordinance is.

[17:21] We're ready.

[17:22] All right.

[17:25] So Chairman Supervisors, again, Vince Masterson,

[17:28] Capital Budget Coordinator, Office of Strategy, Budget and Performance.

[17:33] There was a memo that we did include related to the change,

[17:44] to an adjusted amount, do you have a brief power point

[17:49] that can kind of go through as an explanation?

[18:09] Great, so this will be fairly brief run through of the memo.

[18:15] But the original purpose of the memo has provided

[18:18] was to explain any potential variances or differences

[18:23] between the CIC's original cache basis,

[18:27] which is the 14.6 million and what may be the cash funded projects in the county executives

[18:35] budget that we're currently working on. So we have that natural overlap as we've worked

[18:40] through the execs budget over the summer and then the CIC review that occurs current now.

[18:49] So we have the 14.6 million again that the CIC uses as its basis, the 20% cash goal.

[18:57] the CX anticipated amount that we have right now is roughly about 7.7 million and that would

[19:05] leave about a $6.9 million gap for non-IGCC projects.

[19:17] And then we'll just kind of go over kind of the basis and some of the background for this.

[19:23] So again, the 20% cash goal, again the 14.6 million dollars, that represents the 20% of the

[19:30] county funded share of capital projects that's tried to reach.

[19:34] No, it's important to know that it is a county policy,

[19:39] but that it is a goal and a target, not a specific cash requirement.

[19:45] And it's not also a guaranteed amount, again, it's a goal.

[19:49] And it's really a planning tool that we use, essentially,

[19:53] the best practice framework that we applied during the capital planning process.

[20:00] Now, some of the reasons why the CIC has historically used this cash goal is that it gives really a predictable, stable benchmark year over year.

[20:14] And we also have used this over the last several years as the CIC cash basis. And again, for this year,

[20:22] 2027 that amount 14.6 applied to non-IJCC projects.

[20:32] Now, on the county executive's cash basis, it's done a little bit differently.

[20:40] They need, although the 20% cash goal is something that is tried to be attained during

[20:46] the execs budget basis. The difference here is that the executive's budget has limited tax

[20:55] delivery flexibility because we have operating capital budgets that are both competing

[21:01] for the same cash dollars. So we'll see for the 2026 adopted amount, we had about $23.5

[21:08] million, 15.8 of that was for the IGCC project and 7.7 for all other projects.

[21:16] So assuming that the 15.8 states of the IJCC, that 2026 space adopted amount becomes the

[21:26] 2027 amount, at some point seven for the county execs budget.

[21:33] Now, some of the challenges with increasing that levy amount is that, again, we have that direct

[21:40] competition between operating and cash capital, and that's mainly due to state levy

[21:46] limits that we have, restricted to basically net new growth or net new construction growth.

[21:54] So that really limits what we can move from operating over to the cash side because the

[22:00] cost to continue year over year essentially eats up any of those limited increases that we

[22:07] do have.

[22:10] So the end result again is that we do have that, we had the original goal of 14.6 for the

[22:17] 20% cash goal for the CIC, the county execs budget is 7.7 and leaving with the $6.9 million gap.

[22:26] We did revise the CIC cash amount as part of this third report to reflect the $7.7 million.

[22:36] So, community members, you will see that in the report that was provided and what we will go over today.

[22:43] So, hopefully that gives a background to folks so they can better understand the cash goal and then the reduction or rather the revision down to the 7.7 million dollars.

[23:02] So, just to recap a little bit, the last meeting is a two weeks ago.

[23:08] We said here, we talked about what projects we were going to remove, and then we knew

[23:14] we'd have a dollar amount available, and just like the previous year, Surreys are

[23:18] rolling with then kind of take a look and do some, you know, a lot of work, frankly,

[23:24] appreciate that, and come up with some recommendation based on rankings and talking to staff.

[23:31] And really, you'll see it pretty much it's the entire county and these different projects.

[23:35] We also heard from transit that we received some money as well, so that we could actually take out some additional dollars that were to be covered by federal grants.

[23:49] And that would give some money in cash, which is where you can't really be able to use to add some more projects that we heard from.

[23:57] Clerk of courts, I'm sorry, the county clerk,

[24:02] election commission, we've heard from the sheriff's department,

[24:05] CRC, so we, we were going to tackle some of these other projects

[24:08] because we had some additional freedom space.

[24:12] And then we left.

[24:14] And then in between that, we found out that we went from 14.6 to 7.7 million.

[24:23] And that changed a lot of things.

[24:26] We were wanting to present and hopefully what this committee could do and and staff had to work over time

[24:33] I think we had I had a Friday morning meeting then you worked over the weekend

[24:37] There was late emails Friday night

[24:39] There was a Monday morning meeting. We were trying to figure out this agenda yesterday even at 830 in the morning

[24:45] So I like I said it became this the staff worked very hard to get us to this point where I think we have some really good recommendations

[24:53] I mean they're still so much. I need to be done

[24:56] But this is the least I think, uh, puzzles.

[25:01] So, would your recommendation be that we first up we have questions?

[25:09] Prior to receiving the allotment for a highway patrol from the State Government, what was our cash,

[25:17] what did we normally have for a cash amount for cash finance projects?

[25:24] Chairman Supervisors, it would still be the 14.6, where you would just lay around the 15.8 plus the 14.6.

[25:33] So I think at this point, we were looking at, because we were in that 15.8, and cash kind of held separately for the IGCC,

[25:44] and that 14.6 then represents the calculated goal to reach the 20%.

[25:51] So if you added the 15.8 on top of that, you'd be at, you know,

[25:55] it's probably 20% percent, or Sun, you're doubling that.

[26:02] Okay, I guess I'm just slightly confused about exactly how this number was arrived at.

[26:07] Like, because the state highway patrol money was going to be an additional amount of money, right,

[26:12] that we received, so shouldn't that be on, that should be on top of.

[26:16] How is that affecting the cash amount that we have to spend on capital projects?

[26:22] Chairman of Supervisor, it's now, we're basically looking at non-IGCC projects here.

[26:29] That's why we kind of split off the 15.8 from the 14.6.

[26:35] So, here's kind of a...

[26:39] Maybe I'm just not understanding how you get to the 7.7, then.

[26:44] Great.

[26:44] So pretend that we're going to prevent the 15.8 that express mine.

[26:47] But that doesn't exist.

[26:48] That doesn't exist.

[26:52] Right.

[26:55] So then I think your question is, how do we lose 6.9 million?

[27:00] Correct.

[27:01] That's the question that she's asking that needs to be clearly laid out to people in her stand.

[27:08] Chairman Supervisor.

[27:09] So the adopted amount was for cash capital Lester was 23.5.

[27:14] 15.8 of that was for the IJCC.

[27:17] 7.7 is for non-IJCC.

[27:21] That $7.7 million is essentially what the county executive has to work for, as is base available cash in the 2027 budget.

[27:35] So, when you take 14.6, which was the calculated amount of the cash, the 20% cash goal for 2027, less the 7.7, you get the 6.9 million dollar gap.

[27:53] one other way to look at it is what and so what's the 7.7?

[27:58] I think the speakers muted

[28:05] so I'm going to do kind of a quick calculation here to say

[28:12] illustrated

[28:21] so our cash cap we can't hear well it's like

[28:29] a testing testing can anyone

[28:32] hear me

[28:59] we're checking out some what sounds like some technical difficulties I see

[29:02] Justin Blinsky's hand is raised, but we'll get to you once we get this question answered.

[29:08] I don't know if he can hear us.

[29:09] Yeah, I think he can hear us.

[29:11] No, the problem was we couldn't hear you for about five minutes.

[29:18] Dan was.

[29:20] Yeah, okay.

[29:22] So, do you can hear us now, right?

[29:26] Yes.

[29:27] So, were you guys missed?

[29:28] What did you guys miss?

[29:33] They said everything after the Controllers question was muted.

[29:38] Okay.

[29:38] We're going to get ready. Yeah, all right. So we're going to guess the answer to.

[29:45] Okay, so I think I'll blow this up here

[29:52] So the total available county funding for twenty twenty seven is and it was presented at the first speed is

[30:00] 7773.1 million dollars. That's cash, cash and bond. So there's a bond amount, the point

[30:09] about 80 percent. Our 20 percent cash goal is right here, the 14.6 to get us there. So that's

[30:20] how that is calculated. It's our total amount as a 73. It's essentially you take 80 percent

[30:30] of that, of the bond amount, and then the remainder percent is the 4.6 gets to the 73.14.

[30:39] How we develop the 20% cash, is that, is that it?

[30:46] No, I think ultimately what the answer is is that we just, we don't have a full $14 million

[30:51] to put towards the cash financing.

[30:54] And the money that we're getting from the state is what it is, but all that we're left with is this amount of money.

[31:02] And so there's no, I don't, I think what my question is is probably just irrelevant. This is what it is.

[31:09] Chairman, committee members.

[31:13] There's a formula.

[31:14] There's a formula to get to it.

[31:16] So then what would next year be?

[31:17] Would next year be 7.7 or next year be 14.6.

[31:20] You're looking at two things.

[31:22] So when you back up, the 20% goal is the cash policy.

[31:28] We try to get to the 20% cash goal each year, right?

[31:32] So it's a goal.

[31:33] It's not set determined dollars that the board has earmarked

[31:41] with the county expectations.

[31:42] Earmarked that we are going to do this, right?

[31:45] We are operating within statutory,

[31:49] or within state statutory constraints for our tax levy limit.

[31:53] So we are limited in terms of how much we can raise our levy.

[31:57] That levy is competing with operating services and cash capital.

[32:04] So we can only increase it so much.

[32:07] So although we want to reach that 20% cash goal,

[32:11] we're limited to essentially our starting point

[32:16] is that $7.7 million, let me back up here, that $7.7 million that was adopted in 2026.

[32:27] Now the county executive in the county board can choose to say, we really wanted to

[32:34] obtain that 14.6, but we're going to reduce some services over on the operating side for

[32:40] at 6.9 million gap and move that on over into cash capital to try and meet that goal.

[32:48] So the exact can do that and the board can do that in October and November.

[32:54] We could recommend that too.

[32:57] Correct.

[32:58] Right.

[32:59] And that's essentially the CAC has been doing that the last several years.

[33:06] And kind of a positive way and because it lists out kind of the priority of projects,

[33:12] you know, if you have additional money, let's say in this case, if the exec says,

[33:17] you know what, I think we can get maybe $9 or $10 million instead of the 7.7,

[33:22] we can refer to that list during the exec phase as kindergarten board and say,

[33:27] okay, these are the next ones about that 7.7 million that we're highly recommended.

[33:32] let's look at that. These might be good, good fits, and we can fund those, because we found

[33:37] an extra $2 million or $3 million in cash.

[33:40] And you'll see that in the recommendation that's guy will present, so if we can build a

[33:46] present, it's like $700,000. There's a project that puts it $700,000 over. That we're saying,

[33:53] it's a priority. The executive can find $700,000 or cut elsewhere, or we can just take it out

[34:00] and then we can deliberate at the board level

[34:03] whether we add or not.

[34:05] But essentially, it would come out operating,

[34:09] anything that we go above and beyond the 7.7,

[34:12] there'd be more additional cuts to the operating side.

[34:15] You essentially, yeah, that's your main lever.

[34:18] Well next year, being a different than this,

[34:20] what is this 7.7 going to be the new number moving forward?

[34:23] I think Chairman Supervisor, it depends a year to year, right?

[34:27] I think when we did the July report related to the IJCC and we were projecting out, available

[34:36] cash funding for non-IJCC projects, our current estimate was probably anywhere between 7

[34:44] and 1.5 to 9.5 million dollars, over the next few years, over the next several years.

[34:51] You know, it's hard to determine what will change in the future, but

[34:56] I will say that based on, you know,

[35:00] Current state statute, and we're ending up with operating in the cost of continuing. We're probably going to be around that range.

[35:11] Any other questions? I suppose we're blinsky.

[35:16] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess one option that we haven't considered here is, I mean, we could theoretically take that state money and use that to plug that $6 million gap, right?

[35:33] Well, anything's possible, but I think the reality still is whether you like it or not, that that's not the intent of it.

[35:40] We can, and you and I have argued this over and over many times and just we're never going

[35:45] to agree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this,

[35:50] but yes, you could.

[35:56] That's all

[36:01] good.

[36:02] Mr. Chair, I just also wanted to point out that the value of that $14 million goal is

[36:07] that that's, you know, a prudent goal because it prevents additional borrowing.

[36:11] And so we are also achieving that goal by dedicating the 15.8 million to the IGCC project.

[36:18] So I just wanted to make sure we don't lose sight of that.

[36:21] that that positive that the committee has done in terms of meeting that cash goal in another way.

[36:31] Are there any questions from all committee members? Anybody in the audience have a question?

[36:37] All right.

[36:37] Seeing none.

[36:38] We should then hit probably airport.

[36:41] Is that would be the plan?

[36:42] That would be great.

[36:42] All right.

[36:43] So let's take off the airport bond first.

[37:02] Everybody can see that okay, hopefully.

[37:16] So there's three projects.

[37:18] Three projects.

[37:20] I'm sorry, yep, these are the three bond projects here for 21.7.

[37:28] I'm just thinking about this now, the airport never showed up for this.

[37:33] The airport never, no one from the airport was here.

[37:36] Do we spend more than, this is the most time we're going to be spending on the airport,

[37:40] is right now, and no one spoke on it.

[37:45] We have multiple.

[37:46] Just a Chairman, the recommended projects were on the list and there was nothing outside

[37:51] of the list.

[37:52] That wasn't recommended.

[37:53] I believe there was someone available online the last meeting.

[37:56] There was no, typically what departments, departments can present on whatever they want, but

[38:04] the main purpose of presenting would be if you're from a department who has a project

[38:09] that's below the line, you want to come make the case for that project and the airport

[38:14] didn't have any.

[38:21] I'll

[38:24] make a motion to approve.

[38:28] Any discussion?

[38:29] See none.

[38:31] All right.

[38:32] On the motion by.

[38:36] Committee member Lamers that the airport wants to be approved.

[38:40] Rowling.

[38:41] Hi.

[38:41] Capriolo.

[38:43] Sumner.

[38:44] Hi.

[38:45] Sinram.

[38:46] I.

[38:47] Layers.

[38:48] Okay.

[38:49] Let's.

[38:50] Aye.

[38:51] Make bride.

[38:52] Aye.

[38:53] Mr. Chairman.

[38:54] Aye.

[38:55] Aye.

[38:56] Eight eyes.

[38:56] Zero knows.

[38:57] Demotion.

[38:58] Prevails.

[38:59] All right.

[38:59] We'll take your poor cash.

[39:11] Any questions?

[39:14] Your motion.

[39:18] I'm a good option.

[39:19] Thank you.

[39:22] Please call the roll.

[39:25] On the motion.

[39:26] Buy committee members.

[39:27] Sumner that airport cash be approved.

[39:31] Committee members.

[39:31] Rowland. Hi. Capriolo. Hi. Sumner. Hi. Sinram. Hi. Layers. Hi. Bucharest. Hi. McBride. Hi. Mr. Sharon. Hi.

[39:47] Eight eyes, zero nose, emotion prevails.

[39:53] We're going to take up now. Now, they're the fun begins. We're going to take up the bonding.

[39:59] And I'm not here.

[40:00] And that will be summarized. Well, if you don't have this amendment in front of you, I believe it is posted in the legislature as a link for anybody to take a look at.

[40:12] Number one, thank you to the chairman for a clear verdict. So, well, I think how we got to this amendment,

[40:21] we kind of set up sites, a sense of like what are our values, what are the guardrails, right?

[40:26] Number one, any kind of amendment needs to be fiscally responsible.

[40:30] It has to address what we've heard in these CIC meetings.

[40:34] It has to solve advisor challenges that have been brought to us.

[40:38] Inside and outside of these meetings, we have to follow the rankings that have been established

[40:44] that the board has approved and the county executive has adopted to stick with that scoring

[40:49] system as much as we can.

[40:52] Make life better across the county, obviously, don't put the thumb on the scale for any one

[41:00] particular area, just be fair and thoughtful and strategic, and don't add too many

[41:07] projects that have continuing costs, like huge continuing costs in additional year in

[41:13] later years.

[41:15] So future county boards would feel like they can't possibly get to every significant cost later

[41:22] So those were the guardrails and we got to work working with the administration, work

[41:26] with departments that were part of that submitted bond related projects, worked with

[41:33] members of the Comptroller's office to identify, you know, both strategies and risks

[41:38] that are associated with different ideas that were posed and we ultimately or I ultimately

[41:46] arrives on a amendment that would do a number of things. One we heard from MCTS that their

[41:55] number one need was barriers for better bus safety, this amendment funds it. We have more

[42:03] than 20 playgrounds across the county that are due to be replaced. They're aging, they need

[42:08] to be replaced with something else. And in past years we've made a replace two or three annually

[42:14] of this amendment would rebuild 12 across our county and resurfaces even more.

[42:20] It fixes tenants and pickleball at Brown Deer, those of new splash pad at Willoway for kids

[42:26] with disabilities to enjoy. It creates a lot of good. It fixes roads. It brings improvements

[42:32] to our senior centers and our zoo that we heard from in committee. It finally fixes some of

[42:37] our pot-hole parking lots at Cooper Park, and at Scout Lake, and in a big picture I think what

[42:45] people often say to me is they wonder whether their tax money goes because we're often

[42:50] fixing a lot of things that are like back-of-the-house problems, like laptops, and age-back

[42:55] systems, and electrical equipment, and all the stuff that they can't see, this event would

[43:01] invest money where people live their lives in their parks, in our buses, in our senior centers

[43:07] that our families use every day. And it also keeps us $9,000 under the traditional bonding

[43:12] cap. So I'll move approval or adoption of this amendment and happy to take any questions.

[43:21] Can we have questions for?

[43:24] Yeah. So we're on the bonding items. Okay. So there's quite a few on the bottom there that

[43:32] all say new. So they weren't considered in our current list of capital projects. I guess I just

[43:38] to understand how those projects were chosen.

[43:41] I think it's also important to note that part of the charter of this committee is that we include

[43:46] a racial equity criteria component when we are evaluating projects and I'm wondering if that

[43:55] component was taken into consideration in addition any of the other scoring criteria that are

[44:01] to rate projects. And if they were, then that's great, but if not, I guess I'd like an explanation

[44:08] as to how we're supposed to take these into consideration then. I will also note that of the projects

[44:15] here I've calculated out about $32 million in out gear costs.

[44:23] So just an explanation on that,

[44:25] And then I would also like to hear from the departments and then also any supervisors that

[44:31] would be affected by some of the change in the remove reduced areas as well.

[44:39] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[44:41] Thank you, Madam Comptroller.

[44:43] So let me take it as one by one.

[44:45] A number, I would say almost all of the projects that are marked new are part playgrounds

[44:53] that were part of the 2 to 5 year, like, outlist on the Capital Improvements list.

[45:00] And reaching out to Deputy Director Tarantino and Executive Director Geist Smith, reached out to them to say,

[45:10] what are the playgrounds that are next up on the list based on the scoring criteria that we have?

[45:17] What are the next in a 10 or 15 that would be on the list that didn't make the 2027 list,

[45:25] but could have just didn't for whatever reason.

[45:31] So Deputy Director Tarantino put together that list,

[45:33] sent it around to me in a couple of other us to say,

[45:38] this is the playgrounds that we would recommend

[45:42] in the order that we would recommend them.

[45:45] And with the money that was available

[45:46] with some of the reductions that were available,

[45:50] we were able to find all of the ones on the list.

[45:53] I don't know if you'd like to speak to that.

[45:55] Any greater detail if I can, if I can just ask one other question to, it's, it's unclear to me if, if all the full criteria was taken into consideration.

[46:04] So if Mr. Masterson could speak on that as well.

[46:07] The full criteria.

[46:13] Chairman committee members, so out your projects don't typically go through the full scoring criteria that we have,

[46:20] roughly 10 criteria that's reserved for year one projects.

[46:23] So, any of the new projects which again are out years that were submitted as part of the

[46:29] 2027-2031 Requestion Parks that was did not go through that scoring process.

[46:35] The scoring that is available for out-year projects are the department priorities that

[46:41] are assigned to each project that is the only scoring methodology that is applied to the

[46:53] Thank you.

[46:55] Just a good morning.

[46:57] Chair Supervisors, Jim Tarantino,

[46:58] Deputy Director for Milwaukee County Parks.

[47:00] Just want to confirm and reiterate with

[47:02] Supervisor Rowland was saying that

[47:04] High level of communication on

[47:06] Halley's projects were selected.

[47:07] These were from our next top 10 of

[47:10] playgrounds that need replacement based on

[47:13] age and condition of those sites.

[47:16] And they were pulled from our five year

[47:19] capital improvement plan.

[47:20] anything with the TBD in the project number, but those costs, those expenses are reflect

[47:28] accurately what the cost of a Class II Class III and a playground, as the case may be.

[47:35] We had one of each of those in our 27 requests already, so the costs are accurate, whether

[47:42] it's green noise, matelin, cut a hay, grant park beach, or hails corners, or a little

[47:49] those are good stand-ins from existing playgrounds that were on the list, Jakoba Sublaki, etc., etc.

[47:58] So I just want to, I think that was in your question about, you know, how are these

[48:02] scoped or how are the budgets established?

[48:07] Playgrounds are, they're not all exactly the same, but they are relatively similar.

[48:13] Can you also speak to the removal and the reduce on the Washington Park Building and Service

[48:19] start in the Wittner golf course irrigation?

[48:22] Yeah, so again, high level of coordination and communication

[48:25] with us, we knew that that was coming.

[48:27] We discussed the last meeting too,

[48:29] that the Washington Park Service Yard, while our staff

[48:32] do need a better working environment in Washington Park.

[48:36] We understand that at $13 million roughly,

[48:39] that that is just a high dollar amount

[48:41] for a project of that kind.

[48:43] And this is now multiple years of asking for that

[48:47] finding it a hard fit for where we're at with other competing priorities.

[48:52] So we knew that that was coming and the communication was, this was a parks project so

[48:58] other parks projects would get funded by its replacement.

[49:02] We will have to take a hard look at that project if we've spent several years designing

[49:07] service yards and there is a sunk cost and in that so we know what service yard reconstruction

[49:13] should look like, but finding out that the end result, the construction phase is 13 million

[49:19] and that, as through conversation, been deemed just too much to pay for a project like that.

[49:24] I think we're going to have to take a look at what we do to re-approach that project in the future.

[49:29] For Whitnell golf course irrigation, the original request was for roughly 3.9 million for the first phase

[49:38] of a project that included, replacing the irrigation system and selling car paths,

[49:44] teas, bunkers, and greens, and some other hard-scape improvements at Whitnell Golf

[49:48] course.

[49:49] The total cost of that project over three years is 9.1 million, similar conversation

[49:55] that that's just too much to fit within the county's capital budget.

[50:00] We were asked to prioritize what's the most urgent need within that project, and it is the irrigation

[50:04] system that, from our staff's perspective, they are digging handholes and repairing piping

[50:11] our golf staff are on a daily basis. So that is the most urgent need. We understood that

[50:16] we need to rescope that entire project with some redesign of the irrigation system, but that

[50:23] reduction of 900,000 would leave the balance of 3 million. And that in our estimation

[50:28] would be able to fund the replacement of that irrigation system, which again was the highest priority

[50:33] as part of that whole project.

[50:35] So the 900,000 is for design?

[50:38] That 900,000 is a reduction of the 3.9 million, that the 3 million would remain.

[50:44] We need to redesign a portion of that project, but we do know that that would be enough to

[50:49] should be enough, never know until you actually go out to bed, an implement a project.

[50:54] But it is changing the scope of that project

[50:57] to remove those other elements.

[50:59] The cart pads, the T's bunkers and greens,

[51:01] and other hard-scape improvements,

[51:02] leave the irrigation and combine two phases into one phase.

[51:07] So the three million would just be for irrigation.

[51:15] So this further five million out your expenses,

[51:20] you're re-evaluating that plus the three million?

[51:24] We had a design project that had these multiple

[51:28] phases with the out-your-cost that total 9.1 million, we are now re-evaluating the whole project

[51:35] based on the feedback from this committee, and others that irrigation needs to be prioritized,

[51:41] we can't afford to do all of this cart pads in particular, which are several million.

[51:46] So I think the intent here is to fund the irrigation and eliminate those other future phases

[51:53] of the project.

[51:58] And then I guess it sounds as though the new projects have not been evaluated for the right racial equity scoring criteria.

[52:07] So I guess what I'd like to know is how you proposed I guess that we overlook that particular mandate for this committee.

[52:17] I'm open to ideas, it's just with the amount of funding, again trying to prioritize projects

[52:26] that don't have that out-year cost, a lot of those kinds of projects are playgrounds,

[52:32] But there were only a handful of playground projects that were on the 20-27 list for us to

[52:38] be able to evaluate, so that's why we went into the 28 list in 2009 to look for possible

[52:46] playgrounds that we could get done. Again, they're all up for redoing. I think there certainly

[52:55] could be a process to, you know, if there's a top 13 list or 15 list and it runs through

[53:03] that criteria, I'd certainly be up for doing that. I don't, we're not going to be able to do

[53:08] that today. Again, a lot of this works is we had like a week and a half to be able to pull

[53:15] this off. If there's a separate process between now and when the counting executive reveals

[53:22] this budget that does include that criteria that maybe moves some of these in, moves some

[53:28] of these out, I'm very, I'm not tied to any of these play. I don't care. To me, it was just

[53:33] more important that we get as many of these playgrounds done because of how many that we have

[53:38] languishing on the list and because of how much good it can create in the lives of families and

[53:45] quality of life, so my preference would just be to get playgrounds done, but I don't have

[53:52] a particular, you know, interesting getting any particular one done if there's a different

[53:58] way to reorder rack and stack.

[54:00] I mean, I guess, you know, part of it is that this is $5.5 million with a project and, you

[54:04] know, if there's a $3 million gap with this project at Whitnell, I guess, you know, I'm

[54:14] Is that something that, you know, is that a swap that can be had?

[54:19] I mean, I, you know, I'm just, I don't know.

[54:26] I had a question.

[54:27] Basically, we took the next playgrounds that were in line,

[54:31] and those are based on the age of playgrounds correct.

[54:34] So it's not like we picked and choose what, you know,

[54:36] chose which community gets and we just went down the line,

[54:40] based on your schedule.

[54:42] That's correct, and ours, our priority ranking,

[54:45] includes the racial equity lands. We have our park equity index which includes racial equity as a consideration

[54:51] as well as age and condition of the site and these were the next ones up on the list.

[55:00] So I just want to make sure you heard that. So I did not. They're listing of the next parks that were included, include a racial equity scoring. The parks does that.

[55:10] Right. We use our park equity index agent condition to prioritize what's up next and these were the ones that were up next. So it's a different racial equity.

[55:19] Consideration and how CIC scores projects as I understand it with Park Equity Index versus

[55:24] zip code based equity data, but I just want you to know that we do use that as part of our own prioritization.

[55:36] Part of the I think part of the flaw maybe in the process is you know when you have a project that's $13 million.

[55:46] And it's been rejected, you know, more than once.

[55:51] It would have been nice to have more included in the 2027 that we could have drawn from,

[55:58] instead of having to go to 2028.

[56:02] And I think what's where the Rowland did, working with parks,

[56:07] I mean, playgrounds, I think we always wanted to do like five.

[56:10] And I think last year we did two, two, and then we moved, we did get

[56:16] able to do one in this year with money that we had from other projects.

[56:22] So, okay, so this year we should do seven to get to two year average of five.

[56:28] I mean, and we know what the cost.

[56:30] So we had to, in a short period of time.

[56:32] And the greatest thing is this is a recommendation to the administration.

[56:34] So they can look at this and they can follow it, or they can make changes.

[56:38] and then it's in the board's hand to undo what they've done or stick with what they've done.

[56:43] We're living it on time, but I think when you take a look at the projects that were moved forward,

[56:52] they followed a list in order that Parks Administration put together, that hits certain criteria.

[57:01] I understand, there is a process to the whole committee though, right, and then projects

[57:05] do end up above the line or below the line, and so I'm just trying to understand exactly

[57:10] how we arrived at this year's situation in this proposal amendment.

[57:15] Which is evidence that we don't coordinate with everybody outside of these meetings, right?

[57:20] We only do this in the public meeting where we can really share all of this method to the

[57:25] on this in a public meeting.

[57:30] For Deputy Director, Tarantino,

[57:32] there are a lot of parks and park projects on this

[57:35] to be approved for 2027.

[57:37] We don't have the manpower to get this all done, though, correct?

[57:40] We will find a way.

[57:43] The playground construction projects are managed

[57:46] by our landscape architect team at parks.

[57:49] Everything else we do in collaboration with A&E.

[57:52] Project managers, capacity is definitely an issue

[57:54] and something that we need to think about, however, the needs are real and need to be addressed.

[58:01] So we'll find a way to prioritize it, but appreciate the consideration about staff's capacity.

[58:06] Are you talking about the new projects overall?

[58:10] Just overall, all the ones that we're adding. It's a lot of work.

[58:14] Well, they've asked for, I guess, number one and number two, the ones that we're adding that were

[58:18] pulled ahead are basically playgrounds. I mean, and Cooper Park parking lot has already been

[58:24] designed. So I just want to know if residents are coming to me and saying, hey, we see

[58:30] we're on this list. Does that mean it's going to get done in 27? I want to be able to give them

[58:34] a realistic answer that it's going to be funded but the actual work might not start until the

[58:39] end of 27 or at the beginning of 28. I just wasn't sure how that worked.

[58:45] No, that's fair. I think we can be in conversation about how to message that to residents,

[58:50] the timing and how long these projects tend to take.

[58:54] You have to get another role, Ribbon.

[59:00] Any other questions from the community members?

[59:03] Thank you.

[59:03] I just want to say sort of for the record.

[59:05] I had the same questions that comprol us on your head about the new projects.

[59:10] I feel pretty satisfied with the response, you know, Washington Service Yard is basically

[59:16] deprioratized here. It did seem like a lot of parks. Playgrounds on the list. But, you know,

[59:23] the one-time cost is an important factor, I think, there, and I think when the exact and the board

[59:29] prepare their budgets, you know, if there's needs to be funding from somewhere, those projects could

[59:34] potentially be looked at. But right now, I feel comfortable with that recommendation here.

[59:40] And then just from a MacDOT perspective, sharing a couple items, the bus limit replacements are now

[59:45] funded by the build grants so we don't require those funds through bonding anymore and I

[59:53] appreciate the inclusion of the Fleet Central Boiler replacement just for director that wasn't.

[1:00:00] So, somebody has a minute.

[1:00:03] The boiler replacement wasn't spoken to at the last meeting, which was something we caught and raised to the administration that we're having boiler failures at the garage there.

[1:00:13] And if we continue to have issues, we might have to go without heat. So appreciate the inclusion of that project as well as the concrete yard and the driver barriers, which was discussed at the last meeting. Thank you.

[1:00:35] anybody else from committee, anybody audience, I do have one signed up, Mary Beth, on item four.

[1:00:46] I pointed at you and, and then after she realized them then I got a Mary Beth.

[1:00:54] Is it checking?

[1:00:57] Dory Court.

[1:01:00] Thank you chair. Thank you committee for letting me speak. I just would like to make a couple comments.

[1:01:05] I understand why they had to take the deduction in the amendment for the wet no golf course irrigation.

[1:01:13] The wet no golf course needs to be maintained.

[1:01:16] I thank you for putting it in as number 26 in the capital improvements selections this year.

[1:01:24] It is a great revenue maker.

[1:01:26] It's a great decision to put money into something that we're going to make money.

[1:01:30] So I thank you for that.

[1:01:31] I also want to thank Supervisor Rollin for this amendment because a lot of our communities,

[1:01:38] municipalities around Waki County, all would like to see something be it small, done for

[1:01:45] improvement in their community.

[1:01:48] And with those summers that we've had recently and the hot weather, I feel it's very

[1:01:53] important, especially I'm going to specify we're not opening in the health corners pool,

[1:01:58] But we have on the DACA to close the waiting pool.

[1:02:02] So having this splash pad on here that the spray ground

[1:02:07] I call them now, I'm thinking you for that.

[1:02:10] Because these are things we have to look at.

[1:02:13] We have to weigh things out.

[1:02:15] And I appreciate you balancing everything out.

[1:02:19] I'm not sure if we are allowed to be requests to be

[1:02:23] co-sponsors for amendments so, but if we could,

[1:02:27] I would, you know, do that because I do appreciate you including a lot of the different

[1:02:32] municipalities.

[1:02:33] Thank you for your work.

[1:02:37] Do you know for co-sponsors, is that something that's only a committee?

[1:02:40] It's like a committee.

[1:02:42] Thank you.

[1:02:44] Mary Beth.

[1:02:58] Here you go.

[1:02:59] Hi.

[1:03:00] Everyone.

[1:03:01] My name is Mary Beth Chekai.

[1:03:02] I'm from Franklin, Wisconsin.

[1:03:04] I've never been to a meeting like this, so thanks for this opportunity.

[1:03:09] I'm here to talk about Milwaukee County pools.

[1:03:11] I've been swimming in Sheridan, Poleski, and Wilson Park pool since 1981.

[1:03:18] On the positive note, the pools are maintained beautiful.

[1:03:22] They're lovely facilities.

[1:03:23] Don't close them.

[1:03:25] However, I'm here to make a complaint, a concern, since I've been swimming so long.

[1:03:31] Poleski, pool, which is your indoor pool, Wilson Park, which is a beautiful,

[1:03:36] I'm unloved, exciseable, and Sheraton,

[1:03:38] there have been no improvements since 1981.

[1:03:42] You've studied it, but you haven't done anything.

[1:03:45] I've compared that to the Waka Shows City of Waka Shows,

[1:03:49] Bookter Pool.

[1:03:50] They have a capital improvement for their city,

[1:03:53] which is smaller than Milwaukee County.

[1:03:55] They studied the pool in 2020.

[1:03:58] They enacted what they put while your board is talking,

[1:04:02] a brand-new pool, they tore down their existing 1968 pool, which I think the county pools

[1:04:08] are older than that, and built a brand-new state-of-the-art pool with a splash pad, with

[1:04:17] lounge chairs and umbrellas, with Olympic-sized lapse swimming.

[1:04:23] I don't understand in 35 years how you can't put on your committee and get something done

[1:04:30] to at least upgrade the entryways, painting, lockers, bathrooms for people who would love to swim

[1:04:43] for exercise. Your county executive on his political platform has to improve employee health

[1:04:51] and residents health. This is certainly one way to reach

[1:04:56] his goal and the community goal.

[1:05:00] For jobs and for health.

[1:05:03] Thank you.

[1:05:05] Thank you very much. I mean, we've heard this before and I guess I'll make my comments. We have a half

[1:05:12] a billion dollars in deferred maintenance, easily in parks, the system alone, and you can't

[1:05:18] get to everything. We have a lifeguard issue, problems, so that's why some pools are not

[1:05:21] open. If you sat here at this entire meeting, you've seen what we've gone through. I don't

[1:05:28] even know where that is on the five-year capital and proven list, but there are so many priorities

[1:05:33] more than pools that need to be taken care of.

[1:05:37] And when we heard about, you know, a witness of golf course, the reality is when next year

[1:05:42] when irrigation's done and maybe even to the second year, depending on timing, you're going

[1:05:47] to be down to nine holes.

[1:05:49] So when parks is already asked to come up with $800,000 in revenue, we're actually on top of

[1:05:55] Now I'm going to close a Porsche cars half the golf course and lose a good amount of revenue and that's one of our busiest golf course

[1:06:02] So, you know, we have to take a look at all those things the golf courses pay for a lot of what goes on

[1:06:09] The beer gardens of the golf courses those make money pools are million dollar losers when the season starts a million bucks out the door or down the drain

[1:06:16] So we when we're literally looking at cutting year after year after year

[1:06:20] So guys around us talk about the pie keep shrinking because the mandates stay the same and the expenses go up and the dollar amounts are receiving

[1:06:28] Doesn't get any bigger

[1:06:29] So that means less money for seniors less money for parks less money for roads. That's why we're in this situation. So pools

[1:06:37] It's not a list. I'm sure

[1:06:39] down the road. We've done a pool study. We've done a plan. And what is that?

[1:06:43] demolishing closing, putting up cheaper things like spray pads

[1:06:47] At some point pools will be no longer funded, period, just like the parks, just like the parks.

[1:06:56] But we just put a lot of money into the parks.

[1:06:59] So, sure,

[1:07:02] you can fill it, you can fill it, you can fill it out after it.

[1:07:06] Yeah, you can, yeah, give me two minutes, that's not a problem.

[1:07:09] Just fill it a card.

[1:07:10] Let's see if it makes sense.

[1:07:12] Let's see if it makes sense.

[1:07:16] to

[1:07:24] do that, I get it.

[1:07:26] We all have budgets and all of your budgets and government.

[1:07:29] Unfortunately, somethings have to be cut.

[1:07:31] Is it necessary to have all of the market parks?

[1:07:35] All of the law, of course, is we have a lot.

[1:07:37] I'm a golfer, I go foot with them,

[1:07:39] and I go up all over the work we're coming.

[1:07:42] We have got all these playgrounds,

[1:07:43] except that we have at least three playgrounds

[1:07:46] in Franklin alone that I can come just like that.

[1:07:49] It doesn't influence the school playgrounds.

[1:07:54] unfortunately, something's have to be cut.

[1:07:56] Is it necessary to have all the more people started that?

[1:07:58] Can't cities in the county combine resources

[1:08:01] to use the tables to use the pools,

[1:08:04] to cut the cost of being a dollar deficit?

[1:08:07] You are the county's going to be millions

[1:08:09] and millions of dollars in debt.

[1:08:12] We can't keep doing everything everywhere.

[1:08:16] We have to start to cut.

[1:08:18] Franklin doesn't have a pool, but heels for his does.

[1:08:20] But it's closed.

[1:08:21] Do we combine cities resources so instead of having 20 pools we have 10?

[1:08:30] There are a paper and also called

[1:08:31] Has there been a study of what is actually used by combining resources could cut 50 cost by 50 percent and we quite

[1:08:39] Like travel a little further

[1:08:41] Microphones and non-non by the way, but that's okay

[1:08:44] But put turn it on now though. We're not starting over. Okay, have you heard me though? I heard it no, okay

[1:08:50] In Franklin, we have at least three playgrounds.

[1:08:53] There are schools with playgrounds.

[1:08:54] Why add more?

[1:08:55] There's such a deficit.

[1:08:56] I understand, I sympathize and empathize with your decisions that you have to make.

[1:09:00] However, we all have to be on a budget.

[1:09:02] My household run a budget.

[1:09:03] You guys have to be on a budget.

[1:09:05] I don't want to be paying more taxes.

[1:09:07] We don't have to have a surplus of playgrounds in a surplus of pools.

[1:09:11] Let's consolidate and I mean, I got to drive an extra few miles and I don't have a few

[1:09:15] extra miles.

[1:09:16] That's my, thank you.

[1:09:17] Thank you.

[1:09:18] You guys are Vincent.

[1:09:21] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all this conversation today and listening in.

[1:09:28] I wanted to just comment, I do appreciate Supervisor Rollins Amendment.

[1:09:33] I do think that all of us, all 18, Supervisors have residents that are asking for ways in which their text dollars are being spent.

[1:09:44] and these parks in particular in local neighborhoods do fit the equity lines in my opinion

[1:09:51] because they are right at the heart of where people in our community live. So I just want to support

[1:09:58] that I'm hoping will

[1:10:00] We'll be able to move forward with these suggestions in the amendment. I think that's part of the reason why we

[1:10:06] are tasked as county supervisors to have input on this budget because it directly impacts the residents

[1:10:12] right within our district. So I just want to thank you for the robust conversation today. Thanks.

[1:10:17] Thank you, Supervisor.

[1:10:18] All right.

[1:10:20] So you know, there are hands raised.

[1:10:22] And we're questions that's called the role on the bond non-earport.

[1:10:27] On the amendment.

[1:10:28] On the amendment.

[1:10:30] On the motion.

[1:10:31] By the amendment committee member Rowland.

[1:10:33] To recommend.

[1:10:35] CIC amendment one.

[1:10:38] Bounding non-earport for approval.

[1:10:40] Committee members Rowland.

[1:10:41] Hi.

[1:10:42] Capriolo.

[1:10:43] Hi.

[1:10:43] Sumner.

[1:10:45] No.

[1:10:45] Thank you.

[1:10:46] Sen Ram.

[1:10:53] Layers.

[1:10:55] Buchayowitz.

[1:10:58] Buchayowitz.

[1:11:05] Mid-bright.

[1:11:07] Aye.

[1:11:08] Mr. Chairman.

[1:11:11] Six eyes.

[1:11:12] One, no.

[1:11:13] The motion prevails.

[1:11:15] And now we have a few seconds.

[1:11:16] Oh, I know we have a motion.

[1:11:19] Sure, I'll move to a dappet as amended.

[1:11:26] On the motion, by committee member Rowland,

[1:11:28] that bonding non-airport be approved as amended committee members

[1:11:34] Rowland Capriolo, Sumner, Sinram, Layers, McBride, Mr. Chairman, six

[1:11:55] Okay, seven eyes, one no, the motion prevails.

[1:12:02] Okay, thank you.

[1:12:04] We will go then to the cash.

[1:12:09] Not near court.

[1:12:10] So, rise of capital.

[1:12:12] All right.

[1:12:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:12:13] And as a first year member of this committee,

[1:12:17] I really appreciate my colleagues for including me in these discussions.

[1:12:20] And this has been a learning curve for me.

[1:12:23] and I hope that I will be able to take this and share it with other supervisors and

[1:12:28] any residents.

[1:12:29] But looking at the cash, the beginning of this meeting we went through how we started,

[1:12:34] the CIC, started with 14.6 million cash projects.

[1:12:38] That's what we thought we had.

[1:12:40] Then after our last meeting we were told, no, we need to go to 7.7, which left $6.9 million

[1:12:48] gap that we had to get rid of in our cache funding. So that's obviously a really tall order

[1:12:55] and a gut punch to say the least, especially for projects that ended up getting removed.

[1:13:02] We were able to look at removing a couple of projects with MacDOTs. I believe that the lighting

[1:13:11] improvements in the MCTS fleet maintenance lighting upgrades. Those were two things that were

[1:13:16] also that were removed, hopefully to be taken over by the build grant, I believe. Okay.

[1:13:23] We wanted to add in the following, the Whitnell Club has HVAC replacement and kitchen bathroom

[1:13:28] improvements. We realized that Whitnell golf course is one of the gems of our park system and that

[1:13:35] making improvements to it is critical to create a wonderful environment for people to choose,

[1:13:41] Wittmill to golf at rather than going somewhere else and we know that it's a popular place.

[1:13:46] Last meeting, and this is considering all that we're talking about today at 480,000 that's

[1:13:53] almost nominal, adding that in.

[1:13:56] Our last CIC meeting, we heard from IMSD that they needed money for technology life cycle replacements.

[1:14:04] So we wanted to put that in at 1.75 million, and then we heard from our county clerk about election equipment replacements.

[1:14:12] And we did not fund the full value.

[1:14:15] We were hoping that the department would go out to municipalities and since then they have,

[1:14:20] and they've gotten commitments from municipalities to cover 30% of it.

[1:14:24] We put in a partial approval in the amendment of 1.445 million.

[1:14:31] That's just shy. I think it's about 260,000,000 shy of what our 70% commitment would be.

[1:14:37] But we feel like this is a really good commitment to say, we want this to happen.

[1:14:42] And we'll send it to the county executive like this,

[1:14:45] and see if you can figure out that extra 260,000 or we,

[1:14:50] in October when we're talking budgets, we look at it back then again.

[1:14:54] Some of the cash that projects that remains that I thought were really important

[1:14:58] was replacing B-

[1:15:01] The cameras in the jail. That is something that they came to us with last year saying that the cameras were in the end of their life cycle. I think they lost five of them last year. So I thought that was really important to continue to have in there. So that fits within our 7.7 million dollar cash allowance. One thing that we do think is very important is the retrofitting of the suicide watchrooms, which was recommended in our October 2024 audit of the jail.

[1:15:28] And so we're keeping that in it, it puts us 728,400 dollars over that 7.7 million dollar budgets.

[1:15:38] But we want to send a message to the county executives team and to our colleagues that we do think that's an important thing.

[1:15:45] We're spending 896 million dollars on a brand new building.

[1:15:49] And much of that money does not even touch the jail.

[1:15:52] And I've been through the jail many times, and I work with, through my work on jail eggs and just personal interest.

[1:16:00] I've been in the jail, and I work with people that run the jail, and I think we need to show that we're equally committed to the people that are in our custody to the people who work for us, that they are getting some imprisonment as well.

[1:16:14] So I would make a motion to adopt the amendment and open to questions and if my colleagues would like to add to anything that I missed.

[1:16:24] I don't need to reach out to summarizing it.

[1:16:28] Yes, very well.

[1:16:29] Thank you.

[1:16:30] I know we talked about the election equipment.

[1:16:32] I know we got the memo from the clerk's office about their attempt to get matches from the different municipalities.

[1:16:39] Can you talk a little bit about the match that this amendment would allow for, you know, percentage wise?

[1:16:47] Or do you know?

[1:16:48] I don't know.

[1:16:49] I know we were looking at originally doing 70 percent, but I think this gets us closer to 60 percent.

[1:16:56] But I don't, maybe, Vince, you would have the numbers in front of you.

[1:17:00] I don't have the updated calculation.

[1:17:12] I believe we're shy of 261.

[1:17:19] Mr. Chairman, the memo from the clerks shows 30% contribution would bring in 740,000 with a county

[1:17:27] contribution needed.

[1:17:28] It's 1.7 million, so this comes to the short by about the amount that's so far as a capital

[1:17:35] or just mentioned.

[1:17:36] I think you're asking the percentage or what's percentage.

[1:17:41] I think even what we're even paying here is too much, I mean, you know, we're on the

[1:17:47] state, and we have to handle these elections, but yet what percentage of them are actually

[1:17:51] municipal, you know, we do the stuff that's required by state and federal, and then once

[1:17:56] well, Clancy got crazy, a referendum or two, but we're not the ones that, you know, why

[1:18:02] should we put the whole bill? So, I mean, I had that conversation with Georgia yesterday,

[1:18:08] but I appreciate the county clerk, you know, appear in here, and in a few weeks ago, getting

[1:18:14] this commitment and at least helping. I mean, I don't think it's enough, but at least you

[1:18:18] got us the money, but I really do commend his effort and his team's effort to get us something.

[1:18:23] I did look at it, it's 281-742 that we would still be shy.

[1:18:29] Right. Right, wrong?

[1:18:31] So I guess just maybe as a follow-up for the clerk, just if we were able to prove this amount,

[1:18:38] what would be the next step would you go back to the missfalities or,

[1:18:43] And then I guess the second question I guess is for the, why don't we go there and then we can come back.

[1:18:52] Clerk, yep. Good.

[1:18:55] Just wanted to make sure I was able to speak.

[1:18:57] Sir Chairman, I remember, thank you.

[1:18:59] George Chris is in Milwaukee County Clerk.

[1:19:01] Yeah, I had some remarks prepared.

[1:19:03] I think supervisor Capriola stole my thunder.

[1:19:09] But we were able to secure a commitment of 30% from every single municipality, including the city

[1:19:16] Milwaukee, so we're very proud of that.

[1:19:18] We had been working out for a number of months, and it really came through fruition after the

[1:19:23] last CIC meeting.

[1:19:24] I was able to utilize the chairman's remarks and the committee's, you know, you know, and

[1:19:31] you're really sort of a mandate to say, get out there and try to get that.

[1:19:35] to really light the fire to some of these municipalities and get more of the just a verbal commitment.

[1:19:40] And so I appreciate the committee's efforts in working with me.

[1:19:44] I also appreciate the committee's commitment to this point.

[1:19:49] You know, if we're a 281,000 short at this point, I'm not too concerned about that.

[1:19:56] We'll figure something out.

[1:19:57] And the county here we always do.

[1:20:00] And so, I think from there, I'm happy to sort of follow up on Sean, I'm supervisor Ron's question, if you could just repeat it if I haven't answered it.

[1:20:09] Yeah, I guess just if you're comfortable with, I mean, I'm not going to say you're comfortable, one of my even asking.

[1:20:16] How much heartburn would it give you if we were funding at this, maybe 50 to 60% amount versus the 70% of amount?

[1:20:24] I guess the big picture I worry about right we've got twenty twenty eight coming out and

[1:20:29] You know the eyes are gonna be upon us as they always are and

[1:20:33] I just don't want to be the reason that like the nation has to go through some whole horrific thing

[1:20:43] Because some election equipment didn't work so especially if it's just like a little bit of money that we need to figure out

[1:20:48] so

[1:20:49] As you're thinking about this how

[1:20:51] challenging what to be for you to fill that gap or do you feel comfortable with that there's a way and you would figure it out

[1:20:59] Well, I think you know chairman members. Thank you. It's a question

[1:21:03] My goal is to eventually come up with that to anyone somehow some way and let's let's put it on the administration

[1:21:09] Let's let's see what the administration can do

[1:21:11] I think the committee here with its recommendations has um I care it a lot of way and

[1:21:16] I care a lot of water and I appreciate that

[1:21:18] We'll figure it out.

[1:21:20] I am comfortable with what the committee is recommending at this juncture and will continue

[1:21:28] on with this effort and go from there.

[1:21:30] I think anything less would be not possible.

[1:21:35] We had had the municipalities commit 30% back in 2015, 2016 whenever we purchased these.

[1:21:41] or original, a round of tabulators, if you will, in voting machines, but I think right now I'm

[1:21:49] very happy with what the committee has done, and I do appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:21:56] Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks.

[1:22:12] Thank you. Just to make sure we're covering our bases on the IGCCC project, although we don't have it included in here,

[1:22:21] is being funded on the bond and cash side.

[1:22:24] We may want to have someone make a recommendation again,

[1:22:28] just to the fact that it's not included in the CIC funding

[1:22:33] processes here, but the CIC supports the project overall.

[1:22:39] Just to make sure that there's no issues in terms of,

[1:22:47] So was it funded in item four or was it not funded in item four?

[1:22:52] Does that make sense?

[1:22:53] So what we did in two and three that doesn't suffice.

[1:22:58] Remember the amendment that we made basically, or the motion that was made to say we support

[1:23:01] the project.

[1:23:03] So I just want to make sure that it's covered on both items.

[1:23:14] We have to make a motion that we got a motion on the amendment, let's take care of that.

[1:23:20] On the motion by committee member Capriolo that the cash non-airport CICM and one be approved committee members Rowland Capriolo

[1:23:36] April 0.

[1:23:37] Sumner.

[1:23:39] Sandram.

[1:23:39] Aye.

[1:23:40] Layers.

[1:23:41] Aye.

[1:23:42] Okay, let's.

[1:23:44] Aye.

[1:23:45] Make bright.

[1:23:47] Aye.

[1:23:48] Mr. Chair.

[1:23:49] Eight.

[1:23:49] Aye.

[1:23:50] Zero.

[1:23:50] No.

[1:23:51] The motion prevails.

[1:23:52] Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adopt as amended.

[1:23:58] It will be a session.

[1:23:59] We'll do an air motion after this.

[1:24:01] Or do you want something language as well?

[1:24:05] In this motion.

[1:24:07] I would say let's probably roll it in here and then in terms of excluding the IJCC.

[1:24:26] Do you need a amendment on that?

[1:24:27] Or is that just-

[1:24:28] Excuse me.

[1:24:29] Excuse me.

[1:24:31] I can read it into.

[1:24:32] All right.

[1:24:34] Chair, if it's appropriate, I was just going to hopefully address the administration's concern

[1:24:38] and just highlight that or make a motion to amend that while the IJCC project is not funded

[1:24:46] in this item, the CIC committee does recommend the project move forward through the other

[1:24:53] identified processes.

[1:25:00] So we take this amendment, no. Take it, no. Take it, no. Take it, no. Take it, no.

[1:25:03] We'll roll that and then we'll take the amendment for the members.

[1:25:08] On the motion by committee member, siram that the Capitol Improvement Committee does recommend

[1:25:16] approval of the IGCC, projects, and it is not included in this cash, 9 Airport funding committee members,

[1:25:27] Rowland.

[1:25:29] Hi.

[1:25:30] Capriolo.

[1:25:32] Sumner.

[1:25:34] Hi.

[1:25:34] Sinram.

[1:25:35] Hi.

[1:25:36] Layers.

[1:25:37] Hi.

[1:25:38] Bouquet Woods.

[1:25:40] Hi.

[1:25:40] McBrite.

[1:25:42] Hi.

[1:25:43] Mr. Chair.

[1:25:44] Eight eyes.

[1:25:45] Zero nose.

[1:25:45] The motion prevails.

[1:25:47] Okay.

[1:25:47] So now I would like to make a motion to adopt as amended twice.

[1:25:53] All right.

[1:25:54] That sounds good.

[1:25:56] All right.

[1:25:57] He's called roll.

[1:25:57] On the motion by committee member Capriolo that the CIC cash non airport

[1:26:03] Excluding the IJCC project be approved as amended committee members Rowland. Hi, Capriolo. Hi, Sumner. Hi, Sinram. Hi. Layers. Hi, bouquet with.

[1:26:18] Hi, McBride.

[1:26:21] Great. Mr. Chairman. Hi.

[1:26:24] Eight eyes zero nose the motion prevails.

[1:26:28] All right, now you need time to do anything?

[1:26:32] Yeah.

[1:26:34] Chairman Supervisors, give us just a few moments to make sure we got everything right?

[1:26:38] No, okay.

[1:26:39] Should we cut?

[1:26:39] Could we take a quick to e-commerce in the meantime or should we wait to make sure we're

[1:26:43] good to go?

[1:26:46] Yeah, let's take out e-commerce as a right now there aren't any if any come in, they'll

[1:26:51] be attached.

[1:26:52] And I'll just read it and sort of read it.

[1:26:53] Yeah, go.

[1:26:54] E-commerce submitted to the Capital Improvements Committee via the County Legislative

[1:26:57] information center click

[1:27:04] I'm a good option we need to do that we don't need

[1:27:08] well okay that's done so we just have to wait a few minutes yeah

[1:27:14] press release just hey did well you guys are in it I took you like copy and

[1:27:19] pastures stuff thank you here allowing me to be a part of this process oh yeah yeah

[1:27:24] I just want to note that my amendment has dropped in anyway.

[1:35:20] All

[1:35:24] right, we don't need it. We didn't take a recess. We just kind of typed out. So, yeah, right.

[1:35:30] Director.

[1:35:35] Committee members, thank you. We're good to go. We tied out with the amendments here.

[1:35:47] We need to read any thing or read a number four.

[1:35:53] Item four, capital improvements, committee review of Department of Request 4, the 2027 through 2031, capital improvements plan,

[1:36:00] the Capital Improvements Committee may take action for someone to chapter 36 of the Milwaukee County

[1:36:05] Code of General Ordnances.

[1:36:08] People tuned in.

[1:36:08] People tuned out and look at me all these changes.

[1:36:11] We cut a bunch of stuff.

[1:36:12] All right.

[1:36:14] You're up.

[1:36:17] All right.

[1:36:18] Chairman, committee members.

[1:36:19] So we are tied out with the bond amendments here.

[1:36:22] You have the $9,000 and $2 just under the bond cap.

[1:36:28] And we have all of the added projects here, as we go down the list, this will pop this open

[1:36:40] here real quick,

[1:36:45] so the ones here we're showing the amended items, the line obviously

[1:36:51] goes away here, and then this will be the final report that is sento, as amended, about

[1:36:59] here are the out-your-projects that were added and on the cash side, same setup, we tie

[1:37:09] out to the just over $728,000, a valuable cash amount

[1:37:20] and the report will reflect the

[1:37:26] amended items that you see here, and then you can see the 1.75 for technology, 1.4445 for

[1:37:36] the election equipment, and all the other items that were included as well.

[1:37:42] All right, while we're going to wrap up here, I want to thank the mayors for taking time

[1:37:48] these three meetings, out your busy schedules, you know, you're running a municipality,

[1:37:58] and

[1:37:58] I want to thank the committee for, you know, there's an August recess, you know, but yet we're working

[1:38:05] and really the efforts that were put in really appreciated. Allison, that's my number one right there.

[1:38:13] She's, she's, she's, she's that wouldn't be on this, finance. I mean, she does this on seeds. So,

[1:38:17] she knows how I operate and in my crazy ways. And if I really want to thank Vince, Pam, Justin,

[1:38:24] for all the work you've done behind the scenes to make this happen. I know it's a lot

[1:38:29] and I know we're throwing a curveball but I think we should all be proud of what we've accomplished,

[1:38:34] what we're going to recommend to the county exec and we'll wait and see the results of our labor

[1:38:41] on that October 1st. We are adjourned.

Capital Improvements Committee on 2026-08-26 10:00 AM - This meeting will be held in Room 201-B, and will be live-streamed on the County Legislative Information Center: https://milwaukeecounty.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Agenda

Transcript