For Tuesday, April 14, 2026, I'm Alderman Bauman, Chair of the Committee.

We're joined at my front left by Alderman Spiker.

To his right is Alderman DeAndre Jackson.

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

First item on the agenda, item one, file 252114, reappointment of Leschwanda Vernon to the Brownsville Advisory Committee by Alderwoman Cog.

His reappointment.

I see the candidate is here, although she didn't have to be here because reappointments do not require personal appearance.

But please, good morning.

Good morning.

I assume you want to stay on the committee.

Of course I want to stay on the committee.

Yes.

You have anything to tell us, or everything looks good.

Sir, just happy to continue to serve.

Proud to be able to continue to support the development in Bronzeville and happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Okay.

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Alderman Jackson moves confirmation, hearing no objection, so ordered thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item two, file 252115.

Reappointment of Rahanio Boyne's to the Brownsville Advisory Committee by Alderwoman Cogs.

Again, no appointment, no appearances required, since there's a reappointment.

Alderman Spiker moves to recommend confirmation, hearing no objection to that, so ordered.

Moving on to item three.

File two five two one.

Oh, we just we just confirmed you, sir.

Oh, okay.

You're good.

Well we will recall it if you want to come up here and say some kind words.

Okay, Alderman Samford moves to reconsider uh Alderman Jackson moves to reconsider item two.

Well 252115.

Reappointment of Rahinio Boyne to the Brownville Advisory Committee by Alderman Cog.

Good morning, Mr.

Boyne.

Good morning, good morning.

How's everybody doing?

Sorry for my tardiness.

Nor normally a appearance is not needed on a reappointment.

Oh god.

So this is just uh gravy for us today that you're here.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

So anything you'd like to add or any comments?

Oh I'd just like to say thank you for the opportunity to serve and learn and grow more about the work that you all do.

I think uh it is not appreciated when you all are on the other seat.

So being able to be a part of this experience have been very uh altering for me and uh I appreciate it, and I'll look forward to continue serving and look forward to learning from each and every one of you.

There's been tremendous lessons learned over the past couple of years.

Okay, sounds very good.

Thank you.

Alderman Spiker moves a confirmation, hearing no objections to order.

Thanks for coming down.

All right, you'll have a go.

Happy for day.

Yes, indeed.

Item three, file two five two one zero three, an ordinance relating to fees imposed for the posting of an emergency order on a premise.

All right.

Good morning.

Morning, Mr.

Chair Committee members.

Thank you, Mike Basmanian, Deputy Commissioner for Neighborhood Services.

Um thank Alderwoman Moore for her support of this uh legislation.

Uh the intent is to recover the cost associated with the fees or the time that staff spends issuing following up on emergency orders.

So in response to life safety conditions at properties such as no heat, no electricity, sewer backups, plumbing defective.

Um we issue an emergency order uh in response to to those conditions, give a landlord generally time to correct.

Um that order generally comes after tenants have exhausted options attempting to reach out to property managers or property owners to to get these conditions resolved, and that's when we're we're brought in to issue these orders.

Currently there's no um method of cost recovery for the work that we do associated with these orders.

So if we issue the order, each one takes uh at least three inspections.

So we go there, we do the initial investigation, we follow up, we have to post the property, post the order at the property.

Uh we also have to send the order certified mail and then follow up to verify that it's been abated.

So there's an extensive amount of work that's involved that uh comes with no um penalty or or or action from the landlord.

The order gets abated if they correct the conditions.

Um and there's an extensive amount of staff time that it takes to to do the work involved with these orders.

So understood.

Any questions or comments on this item?

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

Alderman.

Are you maxed uh is there a max amount on the fee that you can impose, or it's you you it's up to you or the department to determine the fee?

The fee um should be a reflection of the cost it takes us to perform that action.

So we aligned it with our placard posting fee, so that's been long established.

Uh similar process for that, just that's the next step if if those conditions aren't corrected.

So by aligning it with that, we think it's reasonable and hoping to change behavior.

Yes, hopefully, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

Alderman Spiker moves to recommend Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to be at it as a co-sponsor.

Okay, excellent.

Uh Alderman Spiker moves the recommend passage and hearing no objection, that's the order.

Thank you.

Don't go away because there's a one file on here.

One of these sale backs.

Some questions have been raised uh from neighbors.

Item 16 to be precise.

Cushions have been raised by neighbors because this file re contains a restoration agreement agreement.

And the neighbors were wondering how that gets enforced after the property has been sold back to the original buyers.

So the tax foreclosure.

Okay.

And DNS is mentioned, and I'm just wondering how you enforce these and what's the consequence if there's noncompliance, I guess.

Okay.

Um either I or someone else from our team will be here to speak on that.

So we'll we'll take it out of order.

So I'm we you don't have to wait until 10 30 to hear this.

Okay.

We'll take this one out of order as soon as we get past these uh TIF items okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Item 4, file 252013, resolution approving amendment number five to the project plan for tax agreement district number sixty-eight, and authorizing additional expenditures and approving development agreement in the fourth and twelfth aldermanic district.

Morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, committee members.

As you just stated, this is the Fifth Amendment to TID 68.

We're in the area generally bounded by the Milwaukee River, Seabouth Street, First Street, and Southwater Streets.

The district was originally created back in 2006 for riverwalk development and to improve pedestrian amenities in what was at the time a transitioning industrial area.

The base of value, the base value of the district was established at 33 million dollars, and we have seen an incremental increase of 75 million dollars over the last 20 years.

This TAD has been amended four times previously to fund expansion of the riverwalk system with several new systems in the area or segments in the area, and in addition, we have funded traffic signals and intersection safety improvements.

Amendment five proposes to add 12 million dollars in new project costs, the majority of which would be used for public infrastructure projects located within one half mile of the district's boundaries.

More specifically, we're looking to add approximately $335,000 to fund the design and construction of two new riverwalk segments.

The first would be to fund up to $235,000 for a $29 linear foot riverwalk section at $350 South Water Street.

That's the photo at the bottom right.

This project anticipates breaking ground later this year, and it would build a five-story office building on an incredibly complicated riverfront site.

They have at the time at right at this time they have 41 linear feet of frontage, um, but it's encumbered by railroad infrastructure, which you can kind of see at the bottom left of the photo, and it will limit the length of the riverwalk to 29 feet.

It's our shortest stretch uh by far, um, but once it's constructed, it'll be a great amenity.

Uh this resolution also authorizes us to enter into our development agreement, which outlines our funding policy and will allow us to contribute our 235,000 uh dollars to the construction of the riverwalk.

It also includes the easement agreement, which will be recorded and in effect when a river walk is constructed, either to the north or to the south.

This is going to be our first riverwalk segment when constructed that will not have immediate public access.

But as you can see from this photo, the site is incredibly encumbered, right?

We have the railroad property um directly to the south, and we have grains hells to the north with a very uh narrow walkway that's going to be used for egress and not um appropriate for public access.

So we are going to wait until we have access to the north, uh, just in the interest of public safety and what's best for the riverwalk system as a whole.

Then on the north side or the north, the north, the top picture, the north picture, uh, is the Bruce Street boat launch.

Harbor District Inc.

Um is undergoing a planning process to create um improvements to the boat launch, including a riverwalk and make it more of a park-like setting.

So we are looking to add a hundred thousand dollars to this amendment so that we can assist in completing that design process and then hopefully um work towards a construction on what would be Bruce Street right-of-way, and then also the county-owned parcel that includes the boat launch itself.

So we've worked with the Department of Public Works and um Alderman Perez, the local Alderman to prioritize the number of needed infrastructure projects that could be supported by this amendment.

Near the top of the list, we're looking to provide approximately 3.8 million dollars to complete four street reconstructions, um, including various stretches of South Barclay, East Menominee, West Walker, and West Bruce Street, which you can see here a couple of them.

You'll see a map of everything at the end too.

In addition, high impact paving projects were prioritized as we need 11 roadways within the boundaries of the district, and we'll fund that at 2.8 million dollars with this amendment.

Various streets include West Pierce, East Everett, East Seabouth, South Third, West Virginia, East and West Oregon, West Florida, South Fourth, and East Pittsburgh.

Here we go.

The city is committed to building a network of safe and enjoyable bikeways for people of all ages and abilities.

I'm sure you're all aware of our efforts to improve the bikeways throughout the city.

Creating a safe and comfortable north-south connection all the way from Michigan Street down to the KK River Trail connection.

And then we also are looking to add an east-west connection at um Florida Street.

I'm sorry.

Just oh, I'm sorry, and Virginia Street.

Apologies, there's a lot of streets here.

And um provide the safe east-west connection on Virginia Street, right?

So and improve pedestrian crossings too at the intersections where necessary.

So this overall map here indicates the exact location of the proposed improvements.

The final infrastructure project that I'd like to point out specifically is the street lighting along South Florida and Southwater Streets.

I'm sorry, East Florida and Southwater Streets.

It's a priority of President Perez to ensure that the TID uh funded public improvements reflect the character of the neighborhood and of the 12th district, including the installation of the street lighting, uh which will make the neighborhood safer and more welcoming and visually vibrant.

So this corridor and um in particular in front of the theater and then also the development, like 350 South Water Street, is where we're looking to add the uh new specialty lighting at a cost of six hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars.

And then lastly, this amendment would make available approximately a million dollars to businesses located within the one half mile boundary of the district to utilize any of the commercial corridor teams' existing programs as shown here.

Uh such programs include the signage grant, facade grant, storefront activation, and retail investment fund, which are all in high demand.

So breaking it down, we are looking at 12 million dollars.

Really, that's uh just over 9 million for street improvements that includes the lighting and intersection improvements.

We have 335,000 for rural walk segments, a million for the commercial corridor program, and then um a million dollars for construction contingency, just given the volatility of our bidding world right now, and then we are looking to add $500,000 also for the administration of the TID.

When looking at the feasibility of it, the district's current value is $107, almost $108 million with an incremental value of just over $75 million.

We're generating uh slightly more than two million dollars in annual increment, and the future anticipated expenditures of twelve million dollars.

Uh, we can still um pay off this TID by 2030, or that's year 25 of the TID.

So I am available for any questions.

I also have Kevin Mews from Commissioner, or not Commissioner, from the Department of Public Works for any questions on the number of infrastructure projects.

Um, but appreciate your consideration.

Alderman Perez.

You know, uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I did want to thank uh both Laurie and Kevin and uh Lissa for just getting out ahead of this uh with some anticipation and talking about uh what could what could be used with these funds, uh division and the to put pencil to paper, uh taking our time doing that.

We really uh looked at the lighting in that area next that theater and how uh there's very little eyes over there, and so we needed some lighting to help uh they get a lot of traffic on weekends, and if they're just easy targets for a lot of the car break-ins.

Uh we tried to look at cameras and other infrastructure things, but the lighting was the most accommodating, and plus the foot traffic on um Pittsburgh and Barclay and Pittsburgh and uh Southwater.

Uh they've been in high demand from uh you know stakeholders and residents and businesses there.

So I just wanted to thank them for their cooperation and their um just just to get ahead of it and and and walk through this.

It's been a great team effort to do that.

Um I did want to um ask uh Mr.

Mews, the city engineer just just to be clear about the provide some clarity on the bikeway improvements because I I don't want anyone in the neighborhood to think because uh we're moving this money to do the improvements that uh were set on what the design is.

You guys have been very helpful with the neighborhood.

for their cooperation and their um just just to get ahead of it and and and walk through this it's been a great team effort to do that um i did want to um ask uh mr meuse the city engineer just just to be clear about the provide some clarity on the bikeway improvements because i i don't want anyone in the neighborhood to think because uh we're moving this money to do the improvements that uh we're set on what the design is you guys have been very helpful with the neighborhood we've got a meeting coming up uh in April and we want to make sure that um that this isn't tie us to a specific design for second street yeah I had the same question sure does this affects plankington in my territory and I patronize second street a fair amount and I'm curious is what so no design has been locked in no no yeah Chair and and Alderman Prez uh thank you for uh uh asking me to the table uh Kevin Mews City Engineer Department of Public Works um so to clarify both the bikeway projects but I guess I'll focus on second street uh for this um we are in the midst of the public outreach and design process on South 2nd Street we had one uh meeting last year where we got feedback from essentially everybody um as uh Alyssa mentioned that whole corridor runs from Michigan Street all the way down to Maple it's a very long stretch um there's multiple funding sources that are being combined to to kind of pull that off and there's gonna be multiple stages to the project um we do as as the alderman just referenced we do have our next public meeting on that um it's actually May 6th um which is about to be um announced along with the walkers point association um uh but where we are in the process is uh we are going to share a preferred concept for feedback um that preferred concept is only actually going to address areas south of what is included in this TID so it's only going to address from Florida Street down to Maple um we have already received fair amount of feedback from from the neighborhood and we know we need to do more work uh north of Florida and so this amendment actually is going to help us do what we would say a better job north of Florida because it's adding more resources um overall I I would say what we've heard from the public is a desire for safety a desire for making it easier to cross the street because it is such a vibrant business district in that area and then also a desire to preserve uh parking as much as possible um so we are the preferred concept uh I'm spilling the beans a little bit here but the preferred concept uh south of Florida will be a a two-way bikeway um on one side of the street which will allow us to save um a substantial portion of the parking um just due to the cross section of the current street because it's within the existing curbs parking on one side of the street only parking on both sides of the street both sides okay yeah there's there are some changes that need to be made combined because that street was was rebuilt not too long ago right south of Florida and north of Oregon yes 2010 11 yeah yeah and it was narrowed if I remember correct north and national two lanes it was too long it was it was too because there was a big fight about that I remembered in council with the alderman of the 11th at the time second street was the evacuation route from downtown and we needed four lanes in each direction to get the traffic out in case of disaster I guess well in all fairness even some of the stakeholders on second street had some reservation but once it was built and well the cab guy was uh went ballistic over that yeah he's I think yeah either way after it was built people appreciated it and very much so all the heavy traffic went the first and people who wanted to slow down and bike went to second.

Right.

There's one piece of significant infrastructure left out of the what's the status of the swing bridge which could have been addressed given the geography of this TID.

Where does that stand these days?

There's not another TIFF for that yeah probably would have been a bit yeah conversations are still ongoing well with multiple parties they we're we're actually still looking to confirm exactly who's responsible for it I guess that's the most recent um well the railroad is I think well they claim they're not there no no no there's some complications with that in terms of how long it's been abandoned and and that's the thing the the railroad the swing bridge is pretty complicated in terms of um what's going on there but we have we've reached out because we're interested in um purchasing the land side property and you know creating um like a trestle park point two two point oh right across the river um but they're willing to divest that piece of property along with the bridge um and so again there are conversations are ongoing I think that's what we have to we have to say about what what could happen you're leading those conversations or DPW or who's who's doing that exactly well the port is actually having conversations um with the Coast Guard to see who's responsible they do some pretty minimal maintenance and cleanup every year when if things are protruding or coming off um but Dave Miskey and I have been the two representatives from DCD who have had conversations with both the railroad and also Coast Guard um and Army Corps of engineers and so we're we're still putting all the pieces together to see how this might be handled in the future.

But we just gonna wait till it collapses into the river or what?

No that's why the conversations are happening now so ideally we wouldn't we wouldn't do that but this TID wouldn't have the the ability to support um what would be needed here.

We're anticipating if if a removal were to happen, we're looking at anywhere between like seven and ten million dollars to remove it.

Um it's also heavily contaminated.

Um that's that's part of the conversation.

Okay.

Very good.

All right, any other questions or comments?

Hearing that all the same.

Yeah, Alderstand.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh the one million dollars, was that standard or was that set aside for infrastructure around the boundary of this development?

The one million dollars for the uh business grants.

Oh, yeah.

That is that is specifically for um the commercial corridor programs that for businesses located within that half mile boundary.

Okay, okay.

What's the stretch for that?

What's the what's the stretch?

What's the boundary?

Oh, right here in this map.

Okay.

That is the boundary, the orange circle.

Yeah, but was that part of the T like did you set aside a million dollars for that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Did we usually do that?

We have been recently, yes.

Yeah, this is I think the seventh or eighth time that we've done that.

Okay.

And how do you determine the mile?

Uh we're looking at capacity of the TDA TID and then also demand within that area.

Gotcha.

So we work with Matt Regic and the commercial corridor team.

All right, thank you.

Okay, Elvin Samper move the recommend adoption and hearing no objection.

So moving on to item five, file two five two zero one four resolution approving amendment number two to the project plan and authorizing expenditure for tax incremental district number sixty, Milwaukee Intermodal passenger station project in the fourth aldermanic district.

Don't go too far, Kevin.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee.

Lori Levska with the Department of City Development.

I'm here to present to you the second amendment for TID 60, Milwaukee Intermodal Passenger Station Project.

This TID was created in 2005.

The city provided six million dollars in funding to fund a three-story galleria at the Aramodal Station along St.

Paul Avenue.

It also included 250,000 in admin administrative cost.

In 2019, the TID was amended for the first time to fund 170,000 for infrastructure and 25,000 for administrative cost and a contribution to the Century City TID 74.

Um at that point, it was estimated to be about 1.3 million, whereas we actually donated a little bit more than a million dollars.

Today's amendment includes street improvements.

It's much smaller than the previous file you heard.

Uh we'll be amending this TID for a little bit more than two million dollars.

And as Alderman or President Perez indicated, we worked with the local alderman, Alderman Bauman in this case, um, and the Department of Public Works.

We had a list of projects, and these are the projects collectively, collectively, we decided to advance.

So there will be improvements along West St.

Paul Avenue.

It will include a high high impact paving project from 13th to 16th Street, as well as traffic calming measures between 5th and 16th Street.

Along West Michigan Street, there will be traffic calming and bikeway improvements from 8 to 16th Street.

And then along West Canal, there'll be traffic calming between 6th and Ember Lane.

So looking at the feasibility cost to date are $6,569,000 seven dollars.

Today's amendment includes $2.1 million in public improvements.

If we could give them to date administrative costs, are a little bit more than $268,000.

This amendment will also include $50,000 for administrative costs and total donations to D to TID 74 Century City.

That was $1,056,821.

So in total, this TID supported a little bit more than $10 million a project cost.

With this amendment.

16th Street.

16th.

That's the further.

Okay, thank you.

So once we advance these projects, the TID will pay off by a year 2031, year 26 of the T ID.

It does allow for an extension to the TID to support housing throughout the city.

So with that, this is very straightforward amendment.

I open it up for questions from committee members.

Yeah, to the city engineer.

I hope we're not going to do a carbon copy of what we already did to Michigan.

Yes.

You see Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, Kevin Mees, City Engineer.

Uh thank you for the question.

Um at this point, uh unlike with the South Second Street uh conversation, we don't even have design started on this stretch.

So um we would work closely with you to uh figure out what that's going to look like.

I would say that especially west of uh 11th, the cross section of the road is quite a bit different than it is east of 10th.

Yeah, um, because it was built with the Marquette Interchange project um well, close to 20 years ago now, actually, but um not that long ago in some ways.

Uh and so yeah, we would look at uh what would be possible in that stretch uh and coordinate with you on that.

I wouldn't expect that we would need um to remove substantial amounts of parking if as part of this project there's a lot of room out there.

Okay, and what do we do in the canal street?

Because canal is not that old a street.

And the Alderman Stamper points that'cause that's 16th.

Uh north.

Furthest north it goes a state.

Alderman Stamper pointed out, and it's a decent says because he has to be you got speeding down on those streets and well actually on Canal Street there has been some history of street decor.

Yep.

And that's that's the thing where you go down or you'll see the tire marks.

Yeah, I I've never heard of the takeovers, some drag racing.

Precisely because it's deserted, it's a target for street take over, especially on weekend nights.

And so and that was the intent.

Yeah, sorry.

Apologies, didn't mean to interrupt.

That was the intent of of what you know of putting this in there again.

We still need to have conversations with folks to determine what exactly the improvements are.

Um, but we have received multiple complaints of takeovers and drag racing, especially at night on that stretch.

So that's legitimate.

And I'm I'm not saying that's what we're doing, but one concept would be a handful of speed tables just to discourage that type of activity.

So in St.

Paul, where I I remember we had a conversation about St.

Paul where you know they did some water main work.

Yep, water main relay, yeah.

And the road was in terrible condition before and it was a terrible condition after.

And you told me that the contract specs was that they had to return the road to precisely the same condition it was in before they started, so they had to make it a washboard.

Not exactly uh uh uh uh close, uh I would say.

Um it is difficult for them to match in and provide the level when the surrounding payment is in such rough conditions.

So, yes, there are one of the ways they level the asphalt is to match what is around it, and that did result in that effect.

Um so I will note uh Alderman, you know, to that stretch.

So similar to what you just said with Canal, east of 13th Street, St.

Paul is in relatively good condition.

So that would just be a again a traffic calming discussion with some of the stakeholders in the area.

Um west of 13th um is in much rougher shape and is and was unfortunately made worse by the project you just talked about.

And so um the paving funded by the TID would only stretch up to the boundary from 13th to 16th.

Um we would coordinate with you, but in the implementation year of this, um we could discuss using DPW funds to do a millen overlay west of 16th as well.

So that that'll be a discussion in the future.

Okay, yeah.

Um so you had two different amounts.

The one amount you say you gave 13 113,000 to the Century City.

And then on the Six and side, yeah, is less.

Can I still get that 200k?

That's for in Century City.

What do you have you had different amounts up there?

Well, because when we amended the TID, that was our projected amount.

And then as we donated to it, we actually use the actual increment that's realized.

The other thing is with Century City, we were we amended uh quite a few other TIDs to donate to pay off the 25 million dollars in debt.

Now with Century City, uh as it turns out with the uh increase of assessments, we are looking to schedule a meeting with you to amend TID 74 Century City for a like a uh four million about four million dollars, so we can work with you and you can help identify projects you'd like to see within that half mile.

So we have three TIDs in that area, um DRS, Bishops Creek, and Century City that are next on the list, and it's coordinating with the all all the Alderman or all the council members that represent those areas.

So it's not just you, as you know, it's Alderwan Pratt, as well as Alderman Stamper, as well as Alderman Cogs, because you all you all touch it.

Yeah, so we do like to be inclusive and meet with everyone, so everybody's on the same page before we come to committee.

Yeah, Alderman Stamper.

Lower.

So he's paid off.

Century City is paid off.

What when we pay that off?

Just this year, it just the last um donation, but then the 900 residential properties increased in value that it now is producing a positive increment.

It never had an increment before, quite frankly.

That's no celebration, no announcement.

You didn't say nothing.

I'm announcing it.

I'm announcing it right now.

It's been in debt since the building.

This TIDA TID60 was underwater.

And beer line TID22 donated to this TID, and then this TID60 produced started producing increments.

So then it donated to 74, but also received when this was created, I remember it very well.

It was not expected to generate a lot of increments.

No.

This was primarily a public purpose to fund our portion of the intermodal station improvements, which had been left up to the state would have been a very diminutive half-baked effort.

Like all their efforts that doesn't involve a highway, as we're now seeing with the security issues and maintenance issues down there, as you're well aware of, because we were on a little field trip not too long ago to look at some of the maintenance concerns, and then this sexual assault came up, and the state again is washing their hands of the whole thing.

It's not us, we had nothing to do with it, even though we own it, so on and so forth.

But so yes, it's been very interesting that this is actually generating an increment contrary to our expectations.

Correct.

So Mr.

Chair.

Yeah.

So part of the the original plan was to build houses around Citrous Cities.

Are you talking about new houses or the projection of new construction houses?

No, this is the passage of time.

Yeah, this is the passage of time.

These were the homes, the 900 homes that were there when the TID was created because that boundary is very big.

Um it's a large TID boundary.

And we we've done this throughout the city.

Um this is kind of before my time.

Um, but I do remember we created Mitchell Street was one another one that has over, I think, plus 400 homes, and when we had the in around two seven 2007, 2008 values plummeted.

Yeah, the Bishop's Creek was one of them.

All those values took the TID uh base value, reduced it significantly, and the TID really never recovered till recently.

All three of those TIDs are now producing increment.

Excellent.

And that was not there for so many years.

Neighborhood tits, Bishop's Creed.

So if I my recollection is correct, that was the last T that had debt, right?

Now we're all in a positive.

Well, we have a couple that um are they have small, small amounts, um, and then uh one other one that has a loan, but it's not producing increment quite yet because the development didn't move forward in your district.

Okay, um, but yeah, our portfolio overall is very, very healthy.

We have very most of our TIDs, we have over a hundred TIDs are above water, I would say that are yeah, are positive producing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, very good.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, well, we did that fresh blood and bring some more money to the area.

Excellent.

We're trying.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Hearing none, Alderman Jackson moves to recommend adoption, hearing no objections to the order.

Uh moving on to item six.

Who?

What's you want to take the item out?

Well, if Math Mania is still here.

No, like Jamaica.

Oh, okay, very good.

Uh yeah, but why don't we hold off a minute?

Uh the real estate folks, we want to take item 16 out of order.

16.

File file 252059 regulation authorizing the sale bag to Michael Lowry and Charlene Hinchliffe, former owners of the city-owned tax tea property located at 1847 North Second Street in the 6th Aldermanic District.

We've had some inquiries from neighbors.

This is the Brewers Hill neighborhood.

Uh there's a picture of this property in the file, and under the old regime, I doubt we'd be giving this property back to the original owners given its condition and that's absentee owned, correct?

Uh potentially.

So Kerry Smith, DCD real estate division.

Um there is uh um a raise order that was issued against this property, but it is uh I believe historically designated.

So raising it uh was a little bit of a complex issue.

Um and the former owner did express interest in purchasing the property back.

Uh we acquired it through tax foreclosure in November of 2024.

So that was after the state statute went into place.

Um although it's not single family owner occupied, so we still have the discretion as to whether or not we sell back to them.

So the sort of scenario that we had before us was either to um we attempted to put it on the the market and we began clean out of the property.

There's quite a bit of private uh possessions in the property.

And the former owner approached and asked us to cease removing his property um from the premises.

Uh so we began discussions at that time.

Our property.

Correct.

Um but when the former owner expresses interest, yes.

I mean, there's a human being involved, so we uh when they express no, but he came up and he asked us to cease and we begin discussions at that time.

We don't make a decision on the spot as to whether or not to sell back to a former owner.

So we began discussing with him whether or not he was able to pay it and be getting a better understanding of the situation.

Uh he did demonstrate the ability to pay the back taxes, uh, but there was still the concern that this had h before the acquisition by the city.

Um there was uh a long history of um DNS violations against the property.

Uh so uh the former owner is required to pay those violations back as a condition of reacquiring the property.

Um so we were kind of faced with the decision of whether or not to attempt to raise a historic building, uh sell it to someone else, um, or sell it back to the former owner and give them the opportunity to restore it.

But once we sell it back to the former owner, it's private property again, and DCD real estate does not necessarily have a lot of control over the property at that time.

We we can't just necessarily take it back easily without laying the legal groundwork for that in advance.

So DNS came in and they have um a pretty firm agreement uh that's required uh the condition of the sale back to the former owner, wherein there's a scope of work that we have for the property which is extensive.

Um so because DNS already has a raise order against the property, uh they have not removed that raise order, but they have agreed to cease proceeding with the raise until November 1st of 2026 on the condition that at least 50 percent of the uh scope of work is completed by August 1st of 2026.

So if the former owner does not complete his side of the bargain, then the property will uh proceed with raise, which DNS can do to a private property.

So they have a little bit more enforcement uh ability on a privately owned property that's subject to a COE from historic preservation.

Correct.

Yes.

That's sure.

This probably looks like it's in bad shape.

What's the scope?

Uh our scope of work was what a hundred and thirty hundred and thirteen thousand, uh, but the owner himself, I believe, has uh assessed it to be about a hundred and ninety-eight thousand or something higher than that.

So it's it's uh extensive.

Yeah, but is this looking at the exterior?

Is this stable?

Like this holes and windows coming up.

Is this is this stable?

So it was uh there is a raise order against it, so it does qualify for uh a raise, yeah.

Well about a raise order is somewhat of a question of mathematics to some extent, whether the cost of renovation exceeds the value of the property, correct?

Correct?

Correct.

Jamani Cheetham, Department of Neighborhood Services.

Uh good morning, uh Chair and Committee members.

The uh mathematics as you speak of is typically uh 50 percent 50 percent of the uh cost of repair uh associated with the assessed value of the property.

Right.

Okay, does it have a money?

Like I guess the question is is property unsafe in DNS's opinion?

So it there is a raise order based on the but based on that it is stable to to your point, but it definitely needs a hundred plus thousand dollars of of repair to bring it back into a co-compliant condition.

Mr.

Okay, I'll show you.

Does he have the funds?

So one of the things that we do is uh when we we have not executed this uh agreement as of yet is pending uh the sale back, so the two condom will work simultaneously.

Uh but one of the things that he has to show us is proof of funds and then put down a uh $7500 escrow uh payment and we will use that uh if in fact we wind up raising it the property that will go towards that upfront and then the remainder c remaining cost of that raise uh will be billed to that owner.

Okay.

This is an older woman cognitive district, she's on the big board, all the woman cogs.

Are you satisfied with this arrangement?

Uh yeah, as long as the agreement is attached and that we do have um a claw back if they do not do um the uh repairs uh that they're supposed to do, I'm okay with it.

I recognize that the um neighborhood that has suffered through this um property being in disrepair for quite some time, and I don't want to prolong that, but I also recognize that the previous owners say that they are able and willing at this point um to do the work.

Um I think the agreement allows them an opportunity, a reasonable amount of time to attempt to do it, and if they fail um in so doing, it it does allow for us to to be able to deal with the property um appropriately at that time.

So at this point I do I do something.

Okay, fair enough.

Yeah.

Yeah, that sounds good, but we have he expends his money that he loses it if he doesn't finish, right?

Correct.

No, they go ahead with the raise we don't get the property back.

No.

No, but I'll say he spends 50%.

And he doesn't finish the deal, then what happens?

Uh yes, the property would be raised, he would also be uh charged for the cost of the raising of the case.

And he would own the vacant lot at that stage.

He wouldn't own a regular lot of the which might be more valuable.

House in Brewers Hill.

And if he chooses to sell that then for somebody else to build new construction, uh if we get the COA to do the demolition, then are you the owner or a neighbor?

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to let me speak.

Jesse Baum Katzman, I live at 1843 North Second Street, right next door to the neighboring property.

Uh I make these comments on behalf of myself, also on behalf of with consent of my neighbors on the other side.

Uh Kyle and Lisa Sanafrac, and also there's a neighbor of Budding on the back side, uh Jameson and Suzanne Klinger, and I also make these statements on on their behalf and with their consent.

Um so first and foremost, you know, we appreciate what the city has done as of late.

Um this property has been on the um DNS violation and enforcement list for over a decade at this point.

Uh and frankly, we were uh we were very pleased to see that the property was taken over by the city.

Um some trends in the right direction is in the property being cleared out, which has been a significant uh safety concern for us because you know, not a derogatory inflammatory comment, but you know, the property is packed to the brim with stuff, right?

Hoarders um which creates a huge fire risk.

Um and I got a kid, right?

And I got another kid coming, and there's kids on every every house that surrounds that house has kids in it.

Um and there's significant rodent issues, right?

Big families of raccoons, big families of squirrels, rats, all that.

Um just not the conditions you want for your kids in Milwaukee, frankly.

Um and so look, uh second chances I'm about that, but at the same time, right, that there needs to be if if the direction that this council is going to go is going to permit a buyback, which it has the discretion to do, but is not a mandate, um, then there really needs to be some teeth in this agreement.

Um there was discussion about a raise order.

Um the issue that I think we are going to encounter is that the uh preservation commission has consistently said that they will not approve a raise of this house because Brewers Hill is in the historic district, and they traditionally they don't approve that and have not for I think over a decade.

So while the DNS is valuation and saying that this is subject to raise order, which one I agree with, um I think we're still going to encounter the same situation where the where we may where, for example, the property owners do not repair as they're supposed to.

There's supposed to be a raise order, but it's not approved.

Um, and then we're stuck in a position with what, right?

And who owns the property and what's going to happen.

And from our perspective, right, all we're looking for is just some clear guidance on that.

You know, and and some some kind of assurance that should should those improvements not happen that the property will be sold, that it'll be raised, or someone else will improve it.

Uh because frankly, you know, we pay a lot in taxes and we like we look out for the neighborhood, and and seeing it like seeing this property right next door, right?

Just feet next door, putting my family in in jeopardy is not is not okay.

I would hate that.

Mr.

Chair?

Alder One Congs, yes.

Is somebody from the city attorney's office around?

No.

Unfortunately not.

We can hold this to a later part of the meeting and summon them if you want.

Can I just add too that some of these things are um issues independent of whether or not we sell back to the former owner?

So um one, if the building does need to be raised, we would still have to get the approval of the historic uh neighbor commission.

Um and also uh while there's a there are some people who are interested in taking on historic properties that need significant repair, that is incredibly difficult to do.

Um I say that when we have properties the city owns that are historically designated that require a lot of work, they often sit empty and vacant for a very long period of time as we try to find somebody who has the appetite to take on a restoration project of that scope.

So um while I know we're focusing on the decision of passing the resolution to give the authority to DCD to sell the property back to the former owner, some of these issues that are brought up are still going to be uh persisting when we sell back to the former owner.

Potentially, yes.

So we could use uh funds for the exterior renovations of the property and the foundations and things like that, but we still have to find a person who has the appetite to do it.

The city could do some of that work.

But this is a valuable neighborhood.

I mean, you put in a hundred grand, this house is worth 300 right away.

Right?

I mean, did this is that's this is not a problem where you're gonna have a stagnant valuation.

This house will become I mean the date the count comparable is is with the wine stuff, the wine stock house of 34th and uh St.

Paul.

That we put in 170, it's now assessed at 400.

Yeah, but I think it's pointless.

He wants to see something happening.

So Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Chair.

And I'll say this uh to you too, Carrie.

Uh so my thinking and and my apologies.

Um that's why the reason I asked the city attorney was there is because being my uh um support of this is to get something done with it.

And the agreement um to me is our is our push is our ability to claw back.

But um, if there is an ability to not just um in in the event because in listening to the resident, in the event that they don't do what they're supposed to do, and we do take it back and we apply for a COA and don't get it, then we're we're stuck if that's all the agreement says.

I am wondering um if the agreement can say that we get to get it back and uh apply for demolition or um put it on the market for somebody to somebody else to redo it.

I don't want us to be stuck and not get a COA and be sitting there with this property and not also have the ability to re-market it.

Yeah, that would leave us the option of reacquiring it and then using HIPAA funds if the former owner fails to do the restoration.

Yeah, well, the agreement does allow for that the way it is currently written.

No, we would have to have the COA uh City Attorney's Office uh put that language in, yes.

And the agreement today's vote, does it solidify what that agreement says, or does that agreement get solidified just before closing?

Um sorry, one second.

So Mr.

Chair, I guess my point would be to ensure that there is a pathway for either you know the the previous owners do what they're supposed to do, or we take it back and either do the demolition, and if we don't get the COA um have an ability to you know put the hip funds.

I agree we we can do the one or two ways.

We can either hold this for the next cycle or hold it until council when there could be the opportunity to amend the agreement.

Agree, yeah.

And then all of them cards can offer the file at council, take it from committee.

Yeah, that seems like it gives keeps all options open as opposed to losing.

Let's hold it to I want to respect you know what the what the neighborhood has brought forward, and I think um it is reasonable for us to have pathways for um so yeah, I would I will want to um hold it to tell council to ensure that that agreement um has those options.

Okay, very good.

That's what that that's a plan.

Aldwan Cog moves the whole of this matter to the call of the chair and hearing no judges order.

Thanks for coming down.

We appreciate your concern.

I live in Concordia, which is a historic district as well, and I know how one problem property can be uh curse.

Yes, just to determine all right, we'll go back to our regular order here.

Okay, that brings us to uh item six six file two five zero nine six six substitute resolution directly department of city development to prepare a new request for proposals for the redevelopment of the city-owned market center parking structure site.

This is the title probably a Ms.

Nomer.

We're not directing it to do anything at this point.

We're just here to get an update on where we stand with the process of redirecting this project.

Sure, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, committee members, uh Lafayette Crump, Commissioner of City Development.

I see Alderman uh President Perez left uh probably because I was eyeing his sneakers, wanted to uh oh you're back, watch out.

Um I might come for those sneakers.

What do we have all the friends?

Yeah, he's got the 414 day sneakers.

Yeah, looking looking sharp as uh as always.

Um Mr.

Chair, um yeah, thank you for for noting that um you know it's a that your your request here is not really to direct us to reissue the RFP, but really to continue communicating.

Um, you know, um th thought it's appropriate to come and and talk a little bit about what our efforts are like and would ask if we come back in the future that it be uh communication file rather than uh the the direction, so maybe this matter could be placed on file.

Uh at any rate, we've been having uh conversations with uh folks in the development community, we've had conversations with the previous uh proposal proposers other than the one that we were uh going to bring forward to exclusively negotiate with.

We've moved moved on from that and are just kind of evaluating uh the market right now.

Um I think everyone knows the market is in a challenging space.

Uh about uh month ago there was an article um about 20 stalled projects in the area um in the Journal Sentinel um business journal just had an article recently about the challenges of financing uh office um right now.

So um you know our conversations are are largely about figuring out what's feasible, what it could look like at the site, what kind of um you know dollars might be necessary and what can really move forward.

Okay.

So that's where we're at right now?

That is where we are.

Okay, I assume you don't want to well you you've mentioned some of the parties, so that's fine.

Yeah.

All right.

Any questions or comments in the committee?

So uh one of our next steps, uh yeah.

So what are what are the next steps?

Yeah, my my goal would be that the next time we're here, it it's following um probably additional conversations um with uh potential parties, um, some conversations with uh with the Alder, um with other interested um uh council members about um what we might like to see happen at that site and then when we're back here, we have a a framework um uh for what's going to happen there and seeking approval uh for negotiations.

Any lessons learned that we're gonna do differently moving forward.

I think um, you know, we're always evaluating um how how detailed our request should be.

Um, you know, frankly, um, you know, we look back on all of the proposals that were submitted, you know, in in some ways um each of them had challenges with respect to uh what we asked for uh at the site, what we were looking uh to have happen.

Um I think um to the extent that we can include other voices in the evaluation process uh and in designing the RFP.

It's kind of a balancing test because um you know, we we included uh some you know high powered folks in kind of creating the RFP and it may have had some of them step away from responding.

Uh they were uh perhaps concerned about the conflict of having shaped the RFP and then being the party to come uh and win it.

Um but I think there are there there are ways that we can um you know go about seeking these parties, kind of getting some uh some clarity on what's truly feasible uh before we move forward.

Is there a timeline in place?

And I I asked because I know we have the uh CEO of the market center sitting in the back, and he's got a parking structure that's has has a clock running on it to some extent in terms of maintenance costs and capital improvements, and if this is an open-ended process of waiting till the market recovers, that could be years.

Well, I think um I would not want to state a a timeline that would uh would handcuff us, but I will note that we are moving uh with with great air urgency, not solely because of the market center, but that's that's a part of it.

But it's also um because uh when the market is in a challenging place, um investors are at a premium, investors want certainty um and uh we don't want to lose out uh on potential uh parties who can invest, uh uh partners who will be involved uh because they found somewhere else um to to put their faith.

So it sounds like it is open-ended to some extent.

I would say it's open ended.

Next month could be six months, could be two years before they move in.

So commission, so you say there's interest, or there's no interest.

There is interest, yes.

With probably conditions.

Right.

And interest to do what?

Put up a warehouse?

I mean I'm sure there's interest in something.

I'm not gonna bring you a warehouse.

All right.

Okay, I guess that's the best we can do without.

I mean, should we hold this?

I mean, we could go back to the original file and direct them to put an RFP.

I mean, that would get this off the dime to some extent, would it not?

Well, um thing you'd have to consider there is given where the market is right now, um, do parties want to spend 30, 40,000, 50,000 uh putting together an RFP uh with the potential to not get selected.

Um I think uh the So you're concerned is nobody to respond to an RP.

Uh my concern, I mean, we we talk to developers regularly.

Um, you know, that you you see this with developers, you see this with with contractors um who are not gonna go after you know their contractors who won't go after low bids, and there are developers who are not very interested in responding uh to RFPs.

And there are developers who are not very interested in responding uh to RFPs.

Uh that um, you know, they prefer to have uh some certainty before moving forward with each step in the process.

Well then why would we use an RFP in the first place?

I guess if that's true.

I mean if the RFP process is flawed in that way, why didn't we do use an RFP process in the first place?

Well, I think it makes sense um, you know, in in certain respects.

Um it can make sense um, you know, depending on what you're looking to see at a site, depending on where the market is at any given time.

Uh I would say not say an RFP is never appropriate, and I think um there was value in having um you know the opportunity to have multiple parties come to the table, respond to very specific questions.

Um it it's probably uh an appropriate uh first step um when looking at a particular site.

Um so that it's uh you know, so where we are now uh now that we have had an RFP uh for this site, um, despite the fact that we're reaching out to specific parties and having conversations.

If there are others who want to come to the table, they are certainly free to do so and and have conversations with us.

So we're open for business, but not too much business is coming in the door.

Is that the one way to describe it?

We're open for business.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

Yeah, Alder Jackson.

Did you already mention um how was the conversation going with the number two and the number three that were in the succession line?

We're we're having good conversations.

Um we can skip the RP process and you just stick with the top three people that you already had in the beginning.

Potentially that could be the case, yes.

Oh right.

Well, nothing more we can do today, I guess, uh, short of adopting the resolution.

Well, real quick, let me so commercial optimistic.

I'm gonna I can't read you.

Yeah.

I and what uh what I am um the the read is that I do not want to um I don't want to uh say anything that I have to backtrack, certainly, and I don't want to um impact any of the conversations that we're having uh at the moment.

Uh what I would say is that it is entirely appropriate to ask us to come back uh on a quarterly basis and let we know let you know where we are.

Um and I would say, you know, for for you all to decide when how many times is too many times, right?

So if if you've brought me back here uh two quarters from now and I'm saying the exact same thing, I would imagine this conversation is going to be quite different.

Well, who's all this is all this additional?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, just we can't.

Well we have been doing that, yeah.

Update him.

Yes.

We'll see when you've got some something substantial.

Absolutely.

All right.

All right, well then Alderman Stapper.

Right.

But basically, yeah.

All right, all the stamp removes the whole list.

I am going to call the chair hearing no objections to order that brings us to item seven, which is Bell 250969 communication for the Department of City Development relating to the status of the Edison SPC L L C project 1005 Edison Street.

This is our famous stop project, uh the neutral company.

Uh so where we stand with that, if anywhere.

Yeah, I I think and for this one, uh just think it's appropriate to level set for the public that this is not a city project, private private project that um just we're keeping abreast of an important site in the city, uh and we'd certainly love to uh to see something move forward.

Um, you know, been a lot of news coverage about what's happening with that.

Um, you know, the developer has had some challenges in Madison as well.

They recently sold off uh a development there that um I would surmise.

I have not had direct conversations about it, uh, but puts them in a better position to sort of resolve their financial challenges uh at the Edison site doesn't necessarily mean that you know that they're gonna move be moving forward with anything there.

Was that a fire sales sale or was that a arm's length market rate sale?

Um I do not know the answer to that, but um, you know, it's noted that it was sold for um about half the cost of um the the loan that was in place to purchase it.

So I think it was a decision to uh you know, probably a financially responsible decision to take care of um outstanding challenges that are gonna make life force.

So they sold it for fifty cents in the net dollar for their construction loan.

I uh I I don't want to go uh say things that are are not what are it reported in the paper, but yeah.

That's interesting.

You know, and just for people watching, uh, you know, the people who may wonder why is a construction fence still up on the public right of way on Edison Street.

And is there a good reason for that?

Because they violated their permit.

They re they they removed the sidewalk, so we have nothing to pull the fence back to the sidewalk's gone.

And that was not supposed to happen under their public way occupancy permit.

Just for that would be a DNS conversation.

Yeah, well, no, that's public work.

That's their that's their department, pretty much.

So that's why that fence is still up and the Jersey bears are still up because there's nothing behind the Jersey barriers.

Which he can see from his office, I'm sure.

Kevin Giglinko is in the bag, I guess I'm referring to.

Okay.

So that's where we stand.

There's been no suggestions of uh the general contractor coming in and buying the project or anyone coming in to restart or coming in to build half as big a building, or no discussions of any kind?

I have had uh or myself and our team have had a few conversations both with the um existing developer, the the owner of the site, as well as a few other parties about um you know, if they were to alter the site, if it were to be workforce housing, things of that nature.

So we've had um you know, preliminary conversations, but I would not um consider those to be any, you know.

Do you know if the taxes are current?

I'm not sure.

Because would we want to foreclose because a tax foreclosure takes precedence over all the other lienholders?

And you would essentially flush the other lienholders out through a tax foreclosure, which normally we give three year, but the law doesn't say we have to wait three years.

That's a collection process which we've adopted internally.

It's an interesting thought.

So if it was nuisance, you can do it.

Yeah.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Did you say did you mention who the current owner is?

Well, the uh the neutral.

Um they still won't yes.

It's just on the market for half, like you mentioned.

Well, that was referring to a project in Madison um that they they had sold off.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'd be I I I think we should look at the tax foreclosure issue and see if they're current.

I'd be surprised if they're current, but who knows?

Well, there's a lot of people who have investment in there, but probably pay the taxes for them, yes.

I think that that that would be the normal scenario, but at least we'd get our taxes.

That's basically yeah.

Okay.

Anything else?

Uh same question.

Any conversation with the number two and number three that was an original RFP?

Yeah, are you able to do that?

Well, on on that side again, pro privately owned site.

Um we have had conversations um because we understand they are having conversations with other partners that they would bring in.

I think they have they have contemplated a number of different things.

I would kind of leave it in their hands to talk about it because there's certainly um uh I don't want to suggest anything that would put them in any legal uh jeopardy.

Um, but I think it's it's pretty clear in the development community that they are uh exploring everything possible.

I mean they they are they have done uh value engineering to try to determine if they could alter the project um and they've had conversations with potential other partners um to come in and uh address the project.

Um you know, their one of their challenges was with their um you know their GC uh who was also on the Madison project.

Um hopefully that relationship uh improves with paying off uh what what was owed on the Madison project, so um we'll see where that goes.

Okay.

Very good.

Oliver Jackson moves the whole list to call it a chair, hearing no objection, so ordered.

All right, here we come to our buybacks here.

All right, very good.

Let's go to item eight, file two five.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, that's the fence.

Yeah, it looks like that.

Since September.

Yeah, okay.

Item eight, file two five two zero one seven resolution authorizing the sale back to the estate of Robert J.

Arts, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 1330 West Euclid Avenue in the 14th Alderman District.

Um Deborah McCollum Gathering D C D real estate.

Hi.

Hi.

Um spoke with um the state of Mr.

Arts and they're interested in uh repurchasing the property.

Um the property was foreclosed on by the city, and the state has the money to rehab it and um pay the debt that's owed for it to the state.

All right, we'll approve.

Well, I'm saying I think this is the gone.

They did all the pre work already.

Okay.

You did all you did so you did all the pre work and all the background work on these already?

Yes.

So we can rent them?

Yes.

Do any of these have these restoration agreements attached to them?

Like no.

Okay, so these are just clean sales of existing some cases, even occupied properties, right?

You spoke to the all the orders already.

I did.

All right, very good.

Well, then we'll slap so Alderman uh Jackson moves a recommended adoption, hearing no objection.

So order item nine, file two five two zero one eight.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Millionaire Enterprise Group, LLC, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 2839 North 21st Street in the 15th Aldermanic District.

You know these guys, they have millionaire enterprise.

No, the real quick, uh, these are in town investors, not out of town.

Yes, this particular owner is um she resi she resides here in Milwaukee.

The property she was rehabbing for her son, so once she regained ownership, her son is gonna move into the property.

Alderman Stafford moves the recommended adoption, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 10, file 252019, resolution authorizing the sale back to global estates LLC, former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 2845-47 North 27th Street in the 15th Aldermanic District.

Mr.

Chair, same thing.

The Yes, the same thing approval.

Approval has been moved, hearing no objections, so ordered.

Item 11, file 252021.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to E and K Capital Holdings LLC.

Former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 4177, North 19th place in the first Aldermanic District.

Yep.

Alderman Jackson moves the recommended adoption, hearing no objections to order.

Item 12, file 252022.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to ENK Capital Holdings, LLC, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 4516 West Keefe Avenue in the first Aldermanic District.

Well, since they're the same owners, they can't be owner occupants of both.

Um this particular owner, um, his father passed away.

Okay, and he inherited uh the properties from his father.

One is a four unit and the other is a duplex.

And no, he is not an owner-occupant, but he is a responsible umer.

Sounds good.

Alderman Jackson moves the recommended adoption, hearing no objections to order.

Item 13, file 252024.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Michael and Viviana Resnick, former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 5262 North 50th Street in the first Aldermanic District.

Alder Stafford moves the recommended adoption, hearing no objections to order.

Item 14, file 252057.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to global enterprises, global estates LLC, former owners of the city owned tax property located at 1408 West Concordia Avenue in the 6th Aldermanic District.

Alderman Coggs, any comments on this approval been moved, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 15, file 252058.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Shante S.

Haynes, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 3882 North Titonia Avenue in the 6th Aldermanic District.

Alderman Cogs.

Approval been moved, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 16 has already been heard.

Uh item 17 and 18, file 24153, and file 251723 can be placed on file.

Alderman Jackson so moves, hearing no objections so ordered.

That concludes our agenda or adjourned.

Could I be recorded as yeses for yes?

By all means, yes.

Thanks.

All right, we're good.

Thank you.