May 27, 2026 at 9 02 a.m.

I'm Alderman Bauman chair of the committee.

We're also joined to my far left, Alderman Spiker.

To his right, Alderman DeAndre Jackson.

Uh Chris Lee is our staff assistant.

We'll be joined by Alderman Stamper and Alderwoman Cogs shortly.

First item is file two six zero zero five three.

Resolution authorizing the acceptance of unsolicited offer to purchase from the Max and Industries for the portion of the city owned Taxi property of sixty-six hundred North Titania Avenue in the first Aldermanic District, sponsored by Alderman and Pratt.

Morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Matt Hazley, Department of City Development.

This resolution supports the sale of a portion of the property at 6600 North Tetonia Avenue to Maxon Industries.

The City of Milwaukee acquired the property through property tax foreclosure.

Max and Industries reached out to DCD and expressed interest to acquire 1.6 of the six-acre parcel.

Max Industries was incorporated in 1972 and purchased its one-acre parcel at 3204 Westmill Road.

It's highlighted in red in your land disposition report.

In 1989, the company acquired an additional 1.5 acres for expansion purposes.

Pursuing a certified survey map and working with DPW and plans to install a new ingress and egress off of Tetonia Avenue.

The new curb cut will entail modifying the Tetonia Avenue median to accommodate a turning radius for large equipment.

Same name, different company.

They're out of California.

Oh, I say it's good advertising.

I see those on a lot of trucks, isn't it?

Yeah.

Oldwoman Pratt.

Um I'm just here to say I'm uh excited to for this sale.

They've been there since 72.

I'm happy they call the first district home and that they're expanding in the first district, adding jobs at our uh family sustaining wage with benefits.

Um, just a great development and great uh growth in the first district.

So I'm excited and happy to still have you.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Why don't you tell us what you do manufacture and what your employment is?

So um I'm third generation Max and was my grandfather before me, then my father.

Uh we actually have fourth generation on staff now.

Uh we're a small family-held company.

We employ about 30 people right now.

We have envisioned growth to around 45 to 50 people.

We specialize in manufacturing heavy construction equipment.

So, as an example, when I-43 was being built uh through from downtown Milwaukee going northbound.

Most of the contractors on that job were using our equipment to transport in place concrete.

Um we've been in the core business of supplying construction equipment to some of the world's largest contractors.

About 60% of our business is overseas.

We chase after large civil projects.

A typical project for us would be something like Panama Canal, where we supplied about 140 pieces of equipment over a five-year period of time and had not the original construction of the Panama.

Yeah, I can't claim it in the original one, uh, but the expansion that they put in place, and that would be a typical project that we would chase after.

Um we've found ourselves manufacturing some relatively large equipment.

Uh we bring in as an example, large caterpillar excavators, and then we modify them by putting special equipment on it.

And those loads tend to come in at uh 80,000 pounds, tend to have long trailer setups, and we're kind of um, it's difficult to navigate that turn on Bill Road where we're located right now.

So the idea was to be able to give us access to Tetonia Avenue to be able to come in and out with heavy loads.

Um, and our idea right now is to add another bay to our existing facility.

I think we're at roughly 30,000 square feet right now, adding another 12 to 15,000 square feet here in the very near future.

So you primarily do steel fabricating, machining, those types of trades?

Correct.

Heavy fabrication.

Okay, very good.

Any questions or comments?

Alright, this sounds great.

Thanks for staying in Milwaukee.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you for having us.

All right, Alderman Cogs moves approval.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Next item is file two six zero zero five four resolution authorizing the sale back of former owner.

Two former owners of the city owned tax D property located at 1318 West Ring Street at the 6th Aldermanic District.

Sponsored by Alderman Cogs.

Morning.

Good morning, Cindy Rice Smith, residential disposition manager.

Okay.

Any issues here we should know about?

No.

Alderman Cogs.

Anything?

Alderman Cog moves approval, hearing no objections to order.

Item three, file two six zero zero five six resolution authorizing the sale back of two former owners of the city owned tax D property located at 3769 North Second Street in the 6th Aldermanic District.

Same thing.

Correct.

Alderman Cogs any questions?

No.

Aldman Cogs moves approval, hearing no objections to order.

Item four, file two six zero zero five two.

Resolution authorizing the sale of the city owned tax deed property at four twenty East North Avenue in the sixth Aldermanic district.

No, there's no sale back.

We are here today uh regarding a vacant lot and the automatic uh sixth district.

Uh the it's the vacant lot, it's a small vacant lot on the corner.

Uh DCD acquired this property in um July of 1999 through tax foreclosure.

Uh we uh accepted uh unsolicited offer from uh Ryan Champaign who owns the building next door uh who would like to purchase that lot uh for grass space for his business.

The sale is uh fifteen hundred dollars, which is the assessed value for the lot.

I would like to turn it over to Mr.

Champagne so he can give you uh a little bit more information about his business.

Good morning.

Thank you.

It's was one of your typical vacancy.

The name address please for the record.

Oh, yes, the Temugaba Ryan Champaign.

And so property owner for that walk there and the uh Jason property owner.

Um, yeah, it's typical vacant city lot.

Um we I'll keep it clean it, clean up, make it a little nicer, clean up the business next door.

Used to be an old quickie mart.

I had a lot of um issues.

What business are you in?

Uh doggy day care.

It's going in there.

Carry on at that location.

That's what my wife is.

That's not for me.

She's very passionate about it and uh a lot of strong community support for that uh business there um from what it was.

Uh neighbors really like the improvement that we've done um to that area.

We've uh talked with all the business committee members there and and uh yeah, it's we're seeking for that to have a patio outside of the city.

North Avenue at Buffam.

Uh yeah, it's the alleys between Holton and Buffalo.

Okay, got it.

Very good.

All right, very good.

Any questions or comments?

Hearing none.

Alderman Cog moves the recommended adoption.

Are you no objections to order?

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Yeah, great morning.

Thank you.

Moving on to item five, file two five two one nine six resolution declaring Department of Public Works parking lot at thirteen thirty-five North Twelfth Street as surplus to municipal needs and authorizing acceptance of an unsolicited offer to purchase from Valite Street Lofts LLC in the fourth Aldermanic district.

Yes, Rosita Ross with DCD.

Uh the buyers are I know who they are.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh so um it's a vacant lot owned by the city since the the 50s.

It's been underutilized.

Uh the commission.

We did have a hearing on this on May 18th.

Uh City Plan Commission did approve the sale.

Uh we did accept we would like to accept an unsolicited offer for that vacant lot.

The purchase price is 21,000.

Um, this will be used as uh ancillary parking for uh the new loss on 12th and Vallee that are being uh rehab by the Gorman company.

Right.

Um they're gonna put in like over 50,000 for the parking uh with new uh street lighting pavement.

Uh the building which will be across the street, it's gonna be about a thirty million dollar investment to uh redo that building on 12th.

Well, it's actually not directly across the street.

Yes, it's in behind.

There's a row of storefronts on the south side of the lead, and it's behind those storefronts.

So it's behind the the storefront blocks and alley, and then there's the parking structure.

Yes, yes.

You wouldn't even know that there's parking back there.

Well, you'd see the tents.

Yes, yes.

Because it has become an encampment for uh homeless.

Yes, and we're excited uh the department of DCD that someone is taking that parking lot and using it in a positive way um for that community.

No, I agree.

That's a good that's a good use.

Okay, hearing no other questions or comments, all of rejection news recommended option, hearing no objections to order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item six, file two five two two four seven substitute resolution relating to a minor modification to the detailed plan development known as River West Apartments to allow additional signage on the mixed-use building located at 1132 East North Avenue on the north side of East North Avenue, west of North Commerce Street in the third Aldermanic district.

Good morning, Tanya Fonseca, Department of City Development.

Is this the is this the student housing?

This is the River West Apartments multifamily across from the student house.

Um the site was rezoned to a detailed plan development known as River West Apartments in 2023 to allow construction of a four-story mixed-use building with first floor commercial space for the River West Food Accelerator and 91 residential units.

The detailed plan development zoning is site specific and prescribes among other things, allowable signage for the site and building.

This file will allow an additional type A building wall sign above the Commerce Street commercial tenant entrance at the corner of North and Commerce.

And we'll clarify that window signs that are allowed for the general provisions of the zoning code may also be utilized to support the commercial spaces if needed.

I will note that the prior um minor mod includes a flag sign at the residential lobby, a wall-mounted sign at the corner of north, and commerce and temporary signs for construction and leasing previously.

Um let's see here.

The window signs, um, if needed typically allow 25% coverage, so we limit that.

Would also allow additional type A wall signs that are compliant with the LB3 zoning district signage standards, just as there's other tenants potentially in the building.

The additional sign request is support uh is to support Food Right Inc.

which occupies the River West food accelerator space.

Um representatives from Food Right are here today to speak more about their mission.

Um, but as noted in the file exhibit, um from this location, Food Right Inc.

will operate programs like the good school or sorry, good school food movement that partners with Milwaukee Public Schools.

They also lead many other programs and events to empower youth and families to eat foods that sustain lifelong health through gardening and culinary schools.

So this sign is all that's being requested basically.

Correct.

For that we've got to amend the we do, yeah.

Okay, very good.

Yep.

This is site the site is um within the third aldermanic district, and Alderman Brower has expressed his support.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Yeah, you want to tell us a little bit about what you do, that'll be fine.

It's giving up there, thousands of people watching TV.

Absolutely, thank you.

My name is Mary Kate Mullen.

I'm here on behalf of Food Right.

So Food Right is a Milwaukee nonprofit.

We empower youth and families to choose foods that sustain lifelong health through our hands-on fun uh culinary education, nutrition education programs and gardening programs.

So uh this space has been amazing for us already, hosting our good school food advocacy training, which is a training for Milwaukee public school parents and community members to become educated and empowered uh as strong advocates for healthier school meals and environments.

Uh we also offer our brand new family cookshop program, so bringing um our staple program, the U Chef Academy, into the community.

So we've been around for over a decade, but we've been really insulated within MPS.

Uh, this is like our first public-facing space, so we're really excited about this sign.

Um, and this is our first time that we've had our own space and been able to offer classes to the public.

So um we've taught over 10,000 Milwaukee public school children how to cook, um, and that number is just growing, and so are we.

So we're very, very excited for the stuff.

So you're a separate nonprofit that has a contract with MPS.

Yes, is that that's correct.

Oh okay, and then you work inside their buildings up to this point, their school buildings.

Yeah, so we have like storage spaces, and then we go into anywhere from like eight to fifteen Milwaukee public schools over the school year, and we're there for six to eight weeks.

So we bring all of our cooking equipment and our cantry items, and once a week we cook uh with students for an hour and a half.

So they get a little bit of nutrition education, and then they get to stand up and get a little messy and cook a plant-based meal together.

And what age students are we talking about?

Uh, kindergarten through high school.

Oh, really?

Okay, very good.

Any questions or comments?

Alderman Jackson moves approval your no trade control order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Item seven, rail 252192 resolution approving a project plan and development agreement authorizing expenditures and creating tax incremental district number one three three, which is at 2711 Westwell Street in the fourth Aldermanic District.

Uh, we actually heard this last cycle, but for technical reasons, uh, it had to be sent back to committee, reheard, and then referred back to the council for action.

So we told the developers we don't need a full presentation on this.

They received a full presentation at the last meeting.

So based on that, Alderman Spiker moves the recommended adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered moving on to items eight and nine, which are companion files.

Item eight is file two six zero zero four nine.

Resolution approving amendment number two to the project plan for tax incremental district number sixty seven, which is a PAPS brewery, the brewery project authorizing expenditures and authorizing approval of the land acquisition report in the fourth aldermanic district.

And item nine, file two six zero zero five zero substitute resolution authorizing the conveyance of 13 redevelopment authority of the city of Milwaukee owned vacant labs to the city of Milwaukee in the King Park neighborhood within the fourth Aldermanic district.

All right.

As the chair said, there's kind of two companion files here, and the first file actually has two components to it as well.

There's the tax incremental financing district, but then also a land acquisition report to acquire some private property with the TID funds.

Before we get into the amendment, I think it's worthwhile to just do a quick look back at the start of this district.

It's been a very successful uh district and a big commitment financially from the city.

So when the Pass Brewery was founded in 1844, you can see the photo here, and by the 1870s, it was the largest brewery in the country following the Great Chicago Fire.

They were servicing the Milwaukee and Chicago markets.

But by 1996, the entire brewery was closed, leaving us with 27 buildings over seven city blocks without any standard city infrastructure through the site.

In 2001, it was purchased by local developer, Jim Hurdle, and then in 2006, he partnered with the Zilber Company who became the master developer.

Also in 2006, that's when the city created tax incremental district number 67 to provide 29 million dollars in mostly infrastructure to create development sites within the district, but also to help with historic preservation and some selective demolition.

I was at DCD.

You're the only one left, yes, yes.

Um, but it's been it's been a resounding success creating over two hundred and forty million dollars in incremental value, and just a couple samples of the projects.

Um, these are historic rehabilitation projects.

We have a combination of apartments and offices and hotels and breweries, as well as new construction going in some of the the vacant land there, and it's become a true mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces like Zilber Park and Preservation Park and Green Infrastructure throughout.

It was one of the first lead certified neighborhoods in the country.

So just overall a huge success financially, architecturally from a historic standpoint from a tax base standpoint.

A few years ago in 2024, we did amendment number one to the district to fund about five million dollars in public infrastructure improvements.

Most of these projects are still in the design phase, with the exception being some of the murals on the riverwalk, which were completed last year.

So now we are before you for amendment number two to the district, which would fund over 22 million dollars in largely public infrastructure improvements, but also funds for property acquisition, housing, and commercial corridor programs.

And I'll go through all these in a little more detail, but we're really focusing on taking the success of the brewery and investing to the west of it on the other side of I-43.

In the King Park neighborhood, which was decimated by urban renewal and cut off from downtown by I-43.

And so if we go again back, this is 1963.

The red box is where King Park is located today, and you can see a completely intact neighborhood adjacent to downtown, and over the next 17 years, you'll see moving forward to 1967.

The clearing for I-43 has begun.

Go forward a few more years to 1970.

The interstate system is in place, and clearing has begun for King Park itself.

By 1975, King Park is now in place with a number of vacant properties nearby, and then you go forward again just 17 years later in 1980, Highland has now been widened, which required a number of housing units to be torn down.

And so what we're left with today is this area just a few blocks west from this very successful brewery neighborhood, but almost entire blocks of vacant land adjacent to King Park.

And so that's the focus of this amendment.

There has been some recent investment on the other side of I-43.

The county has built a new Marsha P.

Cog's Health and Human Services Center.

There's a new mental health emergency center.

The county has done some upgrades to the community center at King Park, and Gorman is getting close to starting the renovation of the former COGS Center into 65 housing units.

Zooming in just a little bit, there's a this is a kind of there's a lot on this map.

But the main portion of this amendment is 13 million dollars in street repaving and street reconstruction projects.

We know throughout the city, the quality of streets are in rough condition, but this neighborhood in particular, some of the streets are almost undrivable.

So that would be the biggest portion of this.

There would also be funds for traffic calming around King Park and around the COG center.

And as you know, using TID funds to support DPW's paving program allows them to use their limited resources in areas of the city where TID funding is not available.

The TID would also fund two million dollars of improvements to King Park itself.

The county is looking at upgrades to the athletic fields there, partial removal of the berm along 17th that kind of disconnects the park from the neighborhood to the west, reimagining the former skate rink there, and doing general path and lighting upgrades to the park.

I think the most important part of this amendment is focusing on those vacant lots to the south of King Park.

So when you zoom in to the street level, this is what it looks like at the street level.

We have very few places in the city that look like this.

One mile from water in Wisconsin.

One mile from water in Wisconsin and three blocks from the brewery district, where you've got almost an entire city block with one or two houses on it.

So the second part of this file is a land acquisition report, and that it's proposing to acquire the properties that you see here in blue, which are privately owned all by one owner.

The purple is city or rackham-owned property, and you can see that the private parcels and the public parcels are interspersed.

There's irregular lot sizes, and so it makes sense for all those to be combined under under one ownership where we can redraw those lines, bring in the necessary utilities to make those developable housing sites.

So the TID is funding 1.5 million dollars in acquisition and site work, and then another 1.5 million dollars to support building affordable home ownership opportunities on these properties.

And then the last component of the amendment would be $500,000 for our commercial corridor programs to help supplement the existing funding there to provide signage and facade grants for commercial redevelopment within the half mile of the district.

So that includes the brewery district itself, but also includes Fleet Street and portions of King Drive.

So in conclusion, um you can see the total TID budget with this amendment would be about $55 million.

Again, it's a very healthy TID.

So we are projecting it to pay off before it's legal life in 2033, and then at that point we could amend it for affordable housing throughout the city.

So happy to take any questions.

Um I know you also read in the next file.

Yeah, what's the time?

So the the acquisition of these uh privately owned lots, the purple lots, that's going to be happening like uh right away, basically.

Yes, uh Dave Miski, real estate director for DCD.

Uh we have an offer purchase that agreed upon purchase uh with a price with this uh single owner, it's uh Fountain Sierra LLC.

That's the 1.3 million.

Uh no, it's under uh it's it's uh it's under two.

Yeah, that's part of the 1.5 million, but the all 19 lots will be acquired for under 200,000.

Uh so we'll acquire that.

The offer purchase has uh I think it's a 50 days, uh so once the TID is approved, we have the funds to expend, uh, we'll be able to acquire those properties in short order.

Okay, and then the second file is simply conveying rackham owned vacant lots to the city of Milwaukee, so they're all under one umbrella.

Exactly.

So the the slide you're looking at right now, the purple is a combination of city and rackham.

So this would all be under city ownership.

Uh it would be basically 38 vacant lots that we could then reassemble.

Vacant lots, no kidding.

Yeah, between the two parties.

Yeah.

And then the next stage of this will be deciding what type of development will take place and what's the timeline for that, and what's the process for review and input and so forth?

Because that that's where I would get rather interested in.

Yeah, and so uh I'm not sure that Dan or I are both equipped to answer that today, except for uh that revive Milwaukee revive MKAE is is uh in the works.

So uh Larry Kilmer and his team are working with uh those developers.

One of the four selected developers is uh very interested in doing a development here with some townhouses as you're aware.

Uh, and so once we get that process moving, do the pilot or do the the initial step, we'll have a better sense as to how the rest of this development could be.

I see that the uh Highland Homes development is technically in the circle in the in within the half mile, half mile radius.

Are we are we contemplating anything that because that's a neighborhood that got half built?

That's housing authority ownership gardens.

Well, Highland Gardens is the apartment building, Highland Homes is the name for the single family developments, and that was a great project.

The homes really seem to be holding up very well, their assessed values seem to be very strong, but it only got half built.

There's a lot of vacant lots, which I think are completely buildable.

I mean, utilities are in place.

I mean, all you gotta do is is the connections, the street infrastructure has all been, I mean, that looks nice except for all the empty lots that still exist there.

I mean, any possibility of roping that into this exercise and working with the housing authority to finish that project?

Certainly.

I think you know the the is it one and a half million dollars?

Correct.

Yeah, for infrastructure improvements for residential development is certainly on the table, and so we're looking at all possibilities within that half mile.

Yeah, what and I say what's the what's gonna be the is that gonna come back to us, the final plan for the master plan, if you will, for these for this King Park neighborhood type of housing stock, mix of housing stock, single detached housing, attached housing, for sale, market rate afford.

I mean, when is the decision on how that's gonna be master plan going to be made?

So who's gonna make it?

Yeah, we're beginning that process, the department, but certainly we would like your input as the local alder.

Uh we uh so the first step was to acquire the land, try to reconfigure, yes, reconfigure how that layout could be with some certified survey mapping.

Uh, uh and so we're just beginning that process in the department, but we welcome yours or or your colleagues' input for sure.

Cause that's key, that's a huge 38 lots.

It's a huge all contiguous to one another now, soon after we acquire them.

Yes.

So it'll likely is as Dave said, require certified survey maps or subdivision plats.

It'll also likely require zoning changes because it's mostly zone plan development right now, and then obviously we'll also require approval.

So the plan development was some obsolete failure for from the 90s.

So there's several there's several points here along the way that will need further council action.

Mr.

Chair?

Uh oh yes, all one cog.

Um was not the revive program intended to be utilized to uh reuse the banking lots that were created through demolition.

Uh yes, I think that's true.

Uh I'm not I don't know a lot about the revive program, but uh a lot of vacant lots are being repurposed for that program exactly.

Many of these lots were demolished that are city of Rackham owned over the years.

Um yeah, but in the 60s.

Yeah, right.

She's talking about the buttons that we created last year.

But I don't want to happen.

I don't want you all to have rely on that program alone to do other housing stuff that also needs to be done.

Cause I also we one of the districts that probably has had some of the most demolition since the program was created.

And what I don't want is when we look back at the revive program that you look at the districts that had the most demolition during that time period, and they're not the districts that most of the revive homes were built in.

So it doesn't mean we can't build other homes, other places through other programs, but I don't want us to conflate the two.

Um I actually agree with her on this.

A hundred percent correct.

This should be a standalone real estate development given its history, given its unique set of circumstances, given given its location, which is why I don't see this as a revive exercise.

And I don't see this as strictly affordable either.

I and I also, and I don't know if you know on a mama's district, but the proximity to my cat and some other things, I think probably allow for some greater thought to be given on the type of housing than you would necessarily do with rebuy.

So I would just um put that out there.

Also, um I think when you being out for the revive developers, I think it was understood that it was for um a part of a program because of the demolition or whatever.

And I I happen to know that they may not want the lots that but so what they knew that was the program when it happened.

I don't want us to be trying to appease that by giving out other lots that were demolished 50 years ago.

You understand what I'm saying?

Um not that that can't happen at all, but that can't be what the program, what that program is again.

We can create others and do other things, but I don't want I don't want to have recent a whole bunch of demolitions during this revive program and then have hardly no, you know what I'm saying, um houses built over there.

That's all using that program.

Did you have some added?

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

Uh Larry Kilmer, Department of City Development.

Um, we got absolutely um hearing uh what you're sharing with us, um, and just as a reminder, um the idea here uh adding the TID funds uh for kind of any potential future revived development doesn't subtract anything from the revive program.

It only adds to it.

So um by implementing by having access to uh these potential TID funds, uh it'll help us grow the number of development teams we can work with and add sites.

Um so um I think that's uh that's a major piece here that we're adding to the pool of funds for revive through this effort.

Why why is this revive keep coming up in connection with this at all?

Sure.

We can make that linkage.

Now I'm starting to get worried.

Maybe we hold this file to just get this clarified.

How is how is revive even part of this?

Sure.

You can only spend the money within the the half mile radius.

Um, so when we launched the revive RFQs, uh in November, um, we hope to be bringing the final four and the top four scoring development teams, hoping to announce those teams soon.

They're part of this exercise.

So one of the development teams in their submission identified lots in this four three-block uh area just south of the park as their preferred location to develop.

But that's exactly what she's talking about.

We don't want that.

Sure.

But I think the I think the additional part is that this grows the pot of funds for revive, it's not taking anything away from revive.

What pot?

So we have uh 1.2 million dollars of uh federal home uh federal pro housing uh grant that we received a number of years back.

Um also in uh the 2026 budget um uh the mayor and you all uh uh budgeted for 1.6 million.

So we have a uh pool of 2.8 million dollars.

Um we had um set aside to uh work with the revive development teams that are being again still still being identified.

And those dollars would first basically first write or have a crack at this site uh where's that written?

No, absolutely not.

I don't want this being any part of the revive program, period.

This is a standalone operation where we should do a separate solicitation of bids, and maybe we piecemeal it out of multiple people after we do certified survey maps, which will somewhat control what we build there based because that'll decide uh lot sizes, and maybe we do a complete reconfiguration of the road system.

I don't possibly new alleys or no alleys, or narrowing, narrowing these, uh shortening the width, the depth of these lots because they're very deep lots and narrow.

But how does revive you get ever get involved?

So um I agree with but what she said the so-called revive program, which uh is a mirage in my opinion, but that's fine.

It's a program which a majority of us agreed to fund to the two of the three point, whatever two three point two million dollars was to was to provide new housing on demolition sites largely in the sixth and fifteen district.

Period.

How did how did this morph into it?

Because you want access to this TID money is what what we're talking about.

Complete um, so um through the RFQ process, we did ask developers if they are inter if they were interested in specific existing city own lots, which there are 19 here that are already city owned that aren't part of um what's being brought in front of you today.

We're gonna do we're gonna hold this file, both files now, and if you can clear clear this up, we can take them up uh and on the council floor.

Otherwise, we'll hold them a cycle.

This is not what I anticipated at all.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, Alvin Stamper.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh for clarity.

For the revive program, how many areas or lots have been selected and where are they?

And what's the budget for that?

Um so we are working with four development teams.

Each team is looking at a different district.

Um I have reached out, you know, Alderman Samper, we've had an early conversation.

I know Alder Women Cog is.

I know.

Yeah, no, my area.

I was just interested in you said I know my area, but how many lots is that and how many total, but I don't know the budget.

So overall, uh, we plan to subsidize each unit, about a hundred to a hundred and ten thousand, depending on the end sales price.

That will get us, um, aside from the TID dollars that you're considering today, that'll get us about 25 units at three to four locations.

If we're able to access some portion of the TID funds you're considering today, that will add to those 25 units, likely um probably four to eight more units.

Is um early on, I know uh we had mentioned uh over 30 lots uh in the King Park area, um, the development team that has expressed interest in the um existing city lots, we're really looking at four to eight units uh for kind of this initial phase of revive.

So, that's piecemeal operation.

Okay, so so they're given four to eight units, and now you've set down a a marker, if you will, of what's gonna be developed there.

This needs to be master planned as a comprehensive large scale development, like a subdivision.

Instead of all the four lots of I'm still looking for the I'm still looking for the budget amount for the 25 units.

And the areas of uh selection.

Um so we have not fully identified the areas of the selection yet, but the budget for the 25 units is the 1.2 million dollars from the federal government and the 1.6 million dollars from this year's budget.

So 2.8 million dollars.

Mr.

Chair.

All of them kind.

You uh stated early on, um, Larry, that it was four different automatic districts that the four teams um were looking in, and you mentioned six, you mentioned fifteen.

What are the other two?

Um so um the fourth uh and the other one um is the eighth, eighth district.

Of the lots that are being looked at by those four teams in those four districts, how are they all lots that we demolish the home in?

Right.

I um I can't answer that off the top of my head.

They are all city owned lots.

If you can if you can find that out and when those demolitions occur.

This was all in the 60s.

Because you've been vacant for 50 years.

I would um say in in agreement with um Otterman Bauman that I think it's a real opportunity just because of the sheer number um and the proximity of those lots to do something a little different than revive.

I think it's a huge opportunity um there.

That's number one.

Number two, um, you know, I was at the press conference, I remember, um, at a home, I believe it was either my district or Otterman, Rainy at the time's district, um, of the announcement of the whole revive um uh program.

And I think that um not only because of how it was initially portrayed publicly, and at least that was what I think m most of us thought it was gonna be, but also for the very neighborhoods that we demolished these homes in.

Um I think it's important that we stay true to what we publicly put the intention behind that program to be.

I think there's tremendous opportunity to do additional um housing uh programs based upon the need and the opportunity um that's out there.

I say that to say it looks like we might hold this today.

I I think you should do something.

You should, you know, whatever, whatever.

I just think it might be an issue of how you brand it, how you do it, and the exact approach for that as opposed to um revive, and then I don't want the communities that have dealt with these demolitions over recent years since the revive program has been built, and where neighbors have been sold the idea of at least we're gonna try um where we can um to to be able to get a short end of the stick either.

So um I just think it's uh it's great opportunity to do about through the revive where we did recent demolitions and do other more tailored programs for uh some of the other um spaces and places.

Could I uh appreciate all those comments?

Could I add that uh we're not selling any of these lots to any of the revived developers right now?

All of those files would have to come back to this council, whether it's this district or any of the other three districts, right?

So uh rather than hold it, I I would we would ask that you move forward with this these two files, knowing that any revived developments are gonna happen through this council.

And in the sense I got is we're launching the ship and off it goes and and enters the the oceans of the world and that the less we see of it the less we hear of it the less we have any control over the process.

I mean as Dan pointed out there are a number of other things that have to come through this council right zoning included uh but the land sales land sale in particular yes okay that's that puts a different cast on things okay that's fine because I don't want to hold up this acquisition of these uh privately owned lots that's a key piece of the whole equation but I don't want to hear the word revive ever used again in connection with this so with that all said Alderman Jackson moves recommend adoption of item eight and adoption of item nine hearing no objections or thank you thank you all right moving on to item 10 and 11 item 10 25 file two five one seven seven three a substitute ordinance relating to department of neighborhood services enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential buildings and item 11 file two five two two four zero an ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential nuisance properties these two files were heard at our last meeting uh there is a request that these be referred to steering and rules that that steering rules will take these up in the future and so Alderman Jackson moves to refer both items to steering and rules and hearing no objection to that so ordered bringing us to item 12 which is our last file of the day file 260086 communication from the Department of Compliance and engagement relating to the 2025 annual report of the residence preference program hello uh good morning uh Z and D committee thank you so much for hearing this report this is the 2025 annual RPP report to give you guys a pulse on the program see how projects that closed yeah last year performed and answer any questions you guys guys may have about uh this the program any questions all the stamper any questions um not at this time is she Mary Miss Marita are you going to present today or just what's in the file yes we are going to go through the entire 2025 annual report proceed then fine yes yeah yeah I would I would look for some the presentation first on the bar thank you I don't I don't care for the teacher okay okay no worries all right in the file the full reports in the file there's no okay all right thank you so much all right so during uh 2025 six private development construction projects closed out of those six projects that closed uh total project costs were one hundred thirty eight million nine hundred seventy three thousand with seven point two million of those being uh city funded tax incremental uh dollars going to those projects um I'll list those projects out uh bronzeville estates Corcoran Street and harbor drive uh 1887 Riverwalk which was best efforts uh five points MLK library and apartments and river walk development one oh three West Clydeborne which was also best efforts uh for the best efforts projects uh we don't typically report out on those quarterly but I thought it would uh appropriate to report out on those annually all right corporate street excuse me was just the street yes not the actual apartment building correct yes just the physical street structure yes okay thank you very good thank you for clarifying that yes Mr.

Chair yeah all in Stanford yeah hey uh miss we did you explain best efforts versus RPP compliance yeah so uh when a developer approaches uh the department of city development uh about uh potential potentially receiving city funding if that funding exceeds one million dollars they enter into a required uh human resources agreement where the 40% RPP, 25% apprentice, and some other requirements uh are just that requirements and they must uh meet those throughout the life of the project in order to qualify for that city funding.

Best efforts is for those developers coming in at receiving under a million dollars in city funding.

Uh we still hold them to the same standard, but if they do not meet the requirements, there is no adverse action, if you will.

Do they receive city funding under how much money do they receive?

Uh it could be the the amounts can range, but if it's less than one million dollars, then they will enter into a best efforts human resources agreement.

Yeah, and how do we judge the best efforts?

Yeah, that's a good question.

So uh we every project is different, and we look at a number of factors uh from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter, we see how the project is performing.

Uh, did they make efforts to do the bidding process to contract with small businesses?

We look at that.

Did they make efforts to reach out to first source staffing agencies to hire RPP workers?

We take that into account.

Um also uh throughout the life of the project, if those numbers are dwindling, are they continuing to follow up with first source staffing agencies in an effort to hire RPP workers?

Uh so there's a lot we take into consideration in determining best efforts.

There is no like one size fits all.

We certainly look at all of the circumstances surrounding the project.

Okay, uh, do you have that list or that criteria somewhere that you can send us, please?

Uh yes, please allow me to get to that and get to you guys uh later this week, if not next week.

Yeah, sure, whenever you get it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to page two, RPP participation, as you guys will see here uh in that uh table, table number two.

Uh the projects underperformed, and those that came in, they all came in under 40%.

I'd like you to focus on uh the three that are not best efforts for uh Bronzeville, Corcoran, uh five points and MLK, they were issued uh letters of non-compliance uh during the scope of the project.

Uh we worked with those development teams.

They did make efforts to achieve the 40% RPP, and where they fell short, uh they provided justifications, um, they showed us what efforts they made to come into compliance, they just were unable to.

Uh some of the developers uh even went so far as to uh contract more out on the SBE side, understanding that they feel short on the RPP side.

Any questions?

Well, will we be requiring future of future projects of theirs for them to make up anything?

Uh these developers did not enter into an RPP adjustment plan.

That's what it sounds like you're saying.

Where they come in short, they enter into a plan, and then for other projects not required under human resources, they make up the shortfall.

These developers did not choose to enter into an RPP adjustment plan.

Uh I would just we work very closely with DC DCD, and so that we just ask that if they do come uh for subsequent project that we look more closely at what they're putting forward for their plans.

Is there a reason that it's a choice?

That's an excellent question.

Um, so we don't date we have not required a developer to enter into a just an adjustment plan if they fall short.

Uh according to ordinance three five five, if they fall short, there should be some enforcement activity where uh a portion of their TIF dollars are withheld or they're unable to enter into a development uh agreement with the city for a period of time after that.

Uh, but but that's a good point, and I'll look at the ordinance to see if there is a if requiring an adjustment plan can be considered a part of enforcement action.

So the ordinance does provide for enforcement remedies, but we do not we choose not to you know, use them.

I won't say we choose not to.

Our uh department, we uh monitor for reporting and compliance.

Uh we report out on the the final uh re um participation levels at the end of the project.

So I can't I can't answer that facts, it's up to the other departments to do something about it.

That's what you're telling us.

That is correct.

Okay, fair enough.

And you're obvation of the of the ones that fell short um and the justifications and all that, um is there common things and uh do you have suggestions on how they may be addressed?

And it may not be your office's job to address all of it, but it may be some stuff in the industry, it may be DCD, it may be whatever, but based on your experience and in dealing with them and hearing the reasons why or whatever, and are there adjustments that we may need to be looking at for the program that might make it more realistic for more of them to actually meet the thank you for that.

We do have a very collaborative RPP work group, uh it involves uh our department, it involves Eco, DPW, Waterworks, uh the mayor's office.

So we we come together uh at least monthly, and then we have some breakout groups that meet more often, and we are putting our brains together, we're reaching out to industry uh professionals, we're reaching out to developers who uh understand the program, contractors who understand the program to see what the what the issues may be and how we can make those better.

We're looking through the ordinance to see improvements that we can make.

We hear different things from different developers.

Some developers may cite uh their margins or the the costs of doing this business that there is um an embedded cost in hiring RPP workers because those individuals tend to be uh less or not skilled at all, and so they have to spend time training those individuals.

Uh, we're hearing that uh supplies and materials have an increased cost, and so that cuts into uh their hiring activities and their ability to do uh subcontracting.

Uh what we heard from one of the industry professionals, and I also share this sentiment is that when a developer first approaches the city, and we're working on this as well, uh, that they have that they exhibit some understanding and commitment to the program.

So when they come either before Rackham or Z and D and they are looking for TIFF and City funding, that hey, do you know what do you know what this program involves?

And if so, are you committed to seeing it through?

Um, we find that those developers who do have their understanding who are committed on the front end, they do better than the developers who who who may not.

Um it's all about that commitment from the very start because we'll talk about it later about where the workers are coming from.

As you have to have the developer needs to have the mindset that they're going to be committed to doing business in Milwaukee, not just building the structure here, but hiring here and reaching out to the small businesses that are already here.

To me, that's about half the battle.

Uh a lot of the developers they have contractors that they're familiar with and they tend to not be city of Milwaukee businesses.

And so that also hurts the program.

Lastly, before I let you go on to the rest, does your office have like a relationship with the acre program?

Uh we don't, but I've reached out to them.

They are it's hard to get in contact with the acre program.

We would like to, we do not.

Um, because I look at the projects, um, many of them are by anchor graduates, and I think maybe a way um to get that commitment early on is to be a part of that program.

Um, I myself am an anchor graduate, and I'm more than willing outside of this meeting today to make sure that that connection does in fact happen.

I think that could go a long way in um helping to improve these numbers in the future.

I do too, and I look forward to that.

Okay, all right, I'll keep going.

Alright, so uh we talked about uh none of the projects had RPP adjustments.

If you go to page three, you will see worker residency, and again, that uh green bar, you will see that for the most part the majority of the workers are not sure.

No, that we didn't have a chair for a second, so that's why I wanted to uh uh is there a reason that DCD um doesn't come along for this presentation because when we ask not for the three that almost made it, but I guess for the three that missed it widely, it'd be good to know what the plan is um moving forward.

So you have your relationship with DCD is in charge of the future deals, so it makes sense for them to be here and give some sort of flavor to what they do in these specific instances, but more generally what their approach is.

Otherwise, um the program you know is an ideal.

I thank you for that, and I'll take uh the onus for not inviting them to this presentation.

I could have done that.

I would like to assure you that we collaborate extensively behind the scenes.

Um, and so I'll be more mindful to make sure that they're included uh so that they have the opportunity to join me during these presentations.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

Uh okay.

Let's uh move on to page number four.

RPP worker residency.

Here you will see a map and a listing of zip codes of the RPP workers for the projects that closed out in 2025.

And from that listing, you'll see right away that there are two zip codes that the majority of RPP workers uh reside, and that is five three two zero four and five three two one five.

And so uh our department is working on efforts to uh do more outreach.

We're hosting uh evening RPP certification events, and uh we'll work on collaborating with the alders of these districts to make sure that we're supporting uh these RPP uh workers and also for those zip codes that have lower numbers, right?

This is an indicator that maybe we could do better with outreach and those zip codes reaching out to see if those individuals are interested in this program.

Uh RPP, it's a great program, right?

It provides someone who with limited or no experience to get first-hand work experience on a construction site that could lead to a very uh successful career in the industry, and so we'll make uh better efforts to to do more outreach in those areas and to do targeted outreach.

So we we definitely touch most if not all of the districts throughout the year, but just being mindful of doing that targeted outreach so that when we are in those districts that we're focusing heavily on the RPP program.

Right.

Any questions thus far before we move on to page number five?

All right.

Uh page number five talks about uh RPP worker democratic.

Thank you, Ms.

Rick.

Can you give me an example of target outreach?

Because those zip codes indicated aren't the most needed zip codes of where RPP workers should be coming from.

All right, thank you for that question.

So we're we're usually out in the community uh for our our other programs, that being uh SBE engagement, uh DC MKE connecting uh job seekers and skill seekers to resources and other employers uh throughout the city of Milwaukee.

Also, we collaborate very heavily with the Equal Rights uh Commission and we're doing that outreach so uh I envision that when we are out doing that outreach, that we have lots of uh informational materials to share with individuals in the community and that we're prepared to uh potentially RPP certify someone on the spot.

Now I realize they can start the process, they may not have all the the documents needed to complete the process, but we can start that so that we can start getting more RPP certified individuals in those areas, add them to our active listing and share that listing with developers so that they have uh a pool to work with when they're looking to hire.

Yeah, I support that.

I just want to make sure you have the target outreach in the zip codes, like you'll have an event, or you'll have one of those things you mentioned in five through two oh six and five through two oh eight and 208.

And five through two five, three, two, ten, and sixteen.

Okay.

So the location should match out where the target outreach should be.

If you need assistance with that, I can I'll be more than happy to help.

Thank you.

I would uh welcome uh collaborating with you on that.

This is awesome.

I'll reach out.

Yeah.

Have you found like the zip cards with the highest um RPP?

Is there any correlation with um maybe uh how to work tradesmen?

Uh one of the pages we have here does talk about what the trades are for the majority of the workers.

Uh we can definitely dig into the data and find out what trades these specific zip codes are in.

This report doesn't drill down to that level of detail, but what we can do is go back, look at the data and pull a separate report, just put together something custom and share it with you.

Okay.

Yeah, that's page six.

Yep, we're gonna get there.

And then yeah, so what I'll do is I'll take that table and we'll plug in the zip codes.

Alright, uh, page number five, RPP worker demographics uh further.

Uh, just looking at this listing here, table number five, the majority of RPP workers that closed out for projects that close in 2025 were either uh black or African American and or Hispanic and or Latino, with a good uh group of these individuals also being um white.

There's a ton that are non-specified.

I can't speak to what those demographics are, but I think it's uh safe to say that uh this is a fairly accurate reflection of the city of Milwaukee and a good smattering of what the RPP workers um look like.

Alright, uh, and then a couple years ago we reported out.

If you guys look at table number six, RPP worker participation by gender, uh, you know, it it the industry, uh I don't I can't really speak to the why, but historically, uh very low participation by women.

Uh, but I would like to say that this is an improvement.

Uh, a couple years ago when we reported out, it was single digits uh for women on RPP um on construction projects, and so to see just reaching uh a double digits that that's encouraging to say the least, it's encouraging.

Of course, there's room for improvement.

Alright, moving on to page number six.

All right, so uh table number seven, the majority of RPP workers are laborers, right?

Uh, they they the majority just don't have that skill set, but built into the RPP program is on the job training and a pre-apprentice and apprentice uh aspect.

So we are working with developers and contractors to make sure that when they hire RPP workers that they put them on that track uh right away for on the job training, and then hopefully they can move on to pre-apprentip.

We realize how important that is in order for RPP workers to succeed and grow in the construction field.

Uh, but the majority laborers with uh in this I'll speak in terms of worker hours and not necessarily worker counts, so uh 26,000 plus hours by laborers, uh followed up with over 5,000 hours by sheet metal workers and coming in third are third and fourth are electricians and plumbers.

Is that include apprenticeship apprentices and trainees?

It does.

Okay, so those are not all journeyman electricians or licensed electricians.

No, but again, yeah, yeah, it's uh it's all RPP worker across the board.

All right, all right.

Let's go on to page number seven.

Uh wage rates.

Uh so the majority of RPP workers make between $20 and $29 dollars per hour, uh, with um a runner up at $30 to $39 per hour.

Uh one could argue that in this economy uh that's kind of barely scratching the surface, especially when we're talking about what uh cost of living is.

Uh, but we see here that um the majority of workers are over $20 an hour.

I don't know exactly, I can't say exactly right now what the solution or answer is to increase that.

Actually, I can't.

It's gonna be that training, right?

It's gonna be moving them into on the job training into pre-apprenticeship.

That's the path to increase uh wage rates, all right.

And then speaking of apprenticeship, if you go down uh uh to the bottom half of page number seven, uh forty-four uh point six percent of RPP apprentices on projects that close in 2025 are black or African American, uh, with a followed up by uh 22.8% being white and 19.8% being Hispanic or uh Latino uh individuals.

So uh this is good.

To me, of the approximately uh four to six hundred, somewhere around there, RPP workers that we see annually, to see a hundred of those being apprentices, that's also encouraging to me.

Is there any uh record count of RPP workers who go from job to job?

You know what I mean?

Like to leave, yeah.

No, they worked on this project here and now they move on to this other project.

You know what I'm saying?

Yeah, yeah.

I think that's the goal, right?

Is to um keep them employed.

Yeah, yeah.

We have not been tracking that, uh, but that has come up in discussion, right?

Because we definitely don't want these workers to be benched or unemployed, we want developers to make the commitment that this project ends, put them on your next project, call your uh you know, your colleagues who are you know maybe working on another project to keep individuals employed.

So while we're not tracking that now, it is definitely something on our radar.

As you um think about it on the radar, and you think about the challenges people say they face with uh meeting the requirement, maybe some credit could be given for continued employment of folks type body.

Totally agree with that.

I totally agree with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, and lastly, one last page, page number eight.

Uh, let's look at uh apprentices uh by race and ethnicity, and then we'll go on to uh new hires and that will wrap the presentation.

Uh actually uh table number nine figure nine is a continuation of the table we discussed about um race and ethnicity, so we won't go there.

But for new hires, we're seeing um ninety-five percent of new hires uh during the year 2025 were male, 12% uh were female, 53% of new hires uh RPP workers uh were black or African American, followed up by 33% being Hispanic or Latino.

I have taken note of all of the recommendations made today, and I will be certain to follow up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

All right, so uh all reduction moves to receive and place on file and hearing no objection to that.

So ordered.

Uh there are a couple of files that are no longer necessary.

I'll read them into the record.

Uh item 16, file 251097, item 14, file two five one one nine three.

File item fifteen, file two five one six eight five.

Item sixteen, file two five two zero one six.

Follow the spiker moves to uh place these items on file as being no longer necessary.

There are no objection to that, so ordered, and we're adjourned.