2026 at 905 a.m.

I'm Alderman Bauman, Chair of the Committee.

Alderman Stamper to my right is here as vice chair.

Alright Woman Cog will be joining us shortly.

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

To his right is Alderman DeAndre Jackson.

And our staff assistant is Chris Lee.

We're also joined by Common Council President Jose Perez.

First item on the agenda, we'll call these together items one and two.

Item one, file 25173, the substitute ordinance relating to Department of Neighborhood Services enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential properties.

And item two, file 252 240, an ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential properties.

Okay, how we're going to proceed.

Well, basically, these two files are a follow-up to commitments made by many members of the council at a press conference held about uh two months ago at the uh Concordia 27 location, 27th and Wells, and that uh promise was that we would work on uh some enforcement mechanisms and some ordinance amendments which would deal with the problem of chronic nuisance landlords, basically landlords of multi-unit buildings that seem to be uh immune or unable to deal with uh the orders that are issued against them.

Uh these ordinances take two approaches one to give DNS certain powers similar to the 80 10 chronic nuisance ordinance, only this would apply to the case of multi-unit landlords, and the second is a provision that would impact municipal court in that we would allow judges to apply penalty enhancers to cases normally before them that the uh housing us that the Department of Neighborhood Services brings to Muni Court, and uh similar to what happens in state court uh under the criminal code where you can provide a penalty enhancer to an underlying offense to increase the potential incarceration fines and so forth.

Uh these are complicated, these are bureaucratically intense.

So I think the way we're going to proceed today is have LRB who drafted the text of these ordinance basically explain what they do and what and how they'll work, and then have the Department of Neighborhood Services explain the municipal court process, the prosecution side of their activities, which I think is a little less well known to not only citizens but probably council members as well, because it's kind of an inside baseball process that doesn't get a lot of visibility.

Uh so I think that's and then we will hold these two files because the city attorney wants to do some additional uh legwork and research, which is fair because these are complicated matters, unless other people are here to testify.

We'll take testimony if people are present on these two files.

But they haven't been publicized yet.

There's been no news releases, so I don't think word is out.

Although Brada knows because their lawyers already sent in multi-page letters objecting to the files.

So that's fine.

That's their rights, free country, they're entitled to be heard.

So why don't we proceed uh starting out with Mr.

Chair?

Yeah, all just at the appropriate time, I want to be at it as a co-sponsor.

You you're on.

How about anybody else?

Yes.

Yes.

All right, good.

Alderman Spike, sure.

All right, good.

Gunnar.

Good morning, Chairman Bauman and members of the committee.

Gunnar Rosh from the legislative reference bureau.

So I'll start by explaining uh common council file two five one seven seven three, um, and then I'll explain how the second item on the agenda differs from it.

Uh so this ordinance begins by defining a multi-unit residential nuisance.

There is one standard defined in the ordinance uh in the original draft of the ordinance, but based on uh conversations with DM DNS, we have worked to refine that standard with a substitute ordinance.

Uh the original standard um would apply to any building with four or more dwelling units uh that has more than one code vi or more than one order to correct a code violation per dwelling unit on that property.

Um the way the uh item number one would work is DNS would designate properties that fit that criteria as a multi-unit residential nuisance.

Uh the owners or operators of those properties would have an opportunity to either submit an appeal or they could submit a course of action, which the commissioner could accept or reject.

Uh if the commissioner rejects that course of action, they would provide a reason as to why that course of action is insufficient, but it would allow for a process for owners or operators to avoid the special penalty assessed in the ordinance by following that course of action and remediating those issues.

Um this ordinance would provide a new special penalty range that is three times the uh original penalty range provided in section 200 19 1.

Um so that does not mean uh that any or that any uh violation could be assessed to the maximum of um that range.

The way that typically works is every individual violation that is covered under the penalty section of 200-19-1 has a forfeiture amount, which is provided in the non-traffic deposit schedule, which is provided by the municipal court and approved by the common council every year.

So this would provide a range that is three times.

Um the council, if passing uh this type of resolution could indicate to the municipal court, administrator T Norfolk, uh, that the intent would be to have penalties that are three times as high for each individual violation, but those would not actually be set until that non-traffic deposit schedule is actually approved by the common council.

The second uh item on the agenda, two five Mr.

Chair, yeah.

Just based on the first one, do you in your research did you kind of uh estimate that entire process that you talked about, the time frame on it?

It's it's hard to assess a specific time frame, and that might be more of a question for DNS.

Um, but I imagine it would depend on the specifics of uh what the issues are at the property and what what would be a reasonable time for those to be remediated Mike Basmanian uh deputy commission from neighborhood services.

Um we haven't really thought about how we would operationalize this quite yet.

Um but I I think um a process similar to any of our other appeal processes, providing you know, anyone that receives this notification with their by to appeal, and then um I think following a similar timeline to that would probably be the way it would work.

Um that doesn't provide any definition, but I think something similar to the processes that we already have in place would would probably be there.

LRB has been working with your office, correct?

Correct.

In fact, quite a quite a bit, which is why this has taken a little longer than I would have liked.

We want this to be workable because uh an amendment which seems to have a lot of teeth, uh but no bite is is just paper.

We want to make sure your department is able to administer this aggressively and and yet fairly, and that so it has some impact rather than just something on the books that no one figures no one can figure out that's just too cumbersome to use.

So are you are you comfortable we can get to that point?

And also it doesn't overburden staff to require you to hire ten more people to administer this thing.

Right, no, that understood.

Um we did talk about that, you know, um making sure that the the way the ordinance was crafted is something that we can easily report on track and administer so that it's not overly cumbersome or something that's going to get lost because uh you know, in order to produce the metrics that we need to make this determination is is so intensive that it's it's just not workable for us.

So we did work quite a bit.

Uh I think we came to a good place with a number of orders that's easily reportable from our system to find that designation and then we haven't worked through you know how that would work with the communication for property with property owners, that appeal process.

Um that's kind of where we're at with it.

Okay.

All right, good.

So the the second item on the agenda 25240.

Um the difference with this ordinance is that it would still create these subcategories of of violations.

So for every violation covered under uh 219-1, um, there would be a subcategory underneath it where DNS could issue a citation for that violation as a multi-unit residential nuisance.

So rather than having the Department of Neighborhood Service Services uh designate a property and then having an appeals process or allowing for a course of action, it would be something that is handled within the municipal court.

So DNS would simply charge um an owner or operator of a building uh that they have uh that with an order that it uh there's a violation committed as a uh multi-unit residential nuisance, and then the status of that would have to be adjudicated along with the outstanding violation uh in the municipal court yesterday.

We discussed the non-traffic forfeiture, what did you call that?

The non-traffic deposit schedule.

The non-traffic deposit schedule, and while we had thought that applied to housing and building code issues, the administrator for the court said no, it doesn't.

You should listen to that tape.

You said that does it it really should say the non-traffic non-housing deposit schedule?

Because there is no deposit schedule for building code violations.

Are you aware of that?

I was not aware of that.

Why don't you explain how how a property gets to housing to Muni Court?

I mean what's that process?

Uh sure.

So um basically we go, we receive a complaint or make an observation of violations at a property, we issue orders to correct those violations with some stipulated timeline.

Um if they are not corrected at that point, we can either charge a reinspection fee, provide an additional timeline for compliance, or forward that order to municipal court.

Um so if we send the order to court, um uh it then gets into our court system, it's handled by our court.

It's into the court system how is there a summons and complaint?

Is there a uh what what what exactly triggers municipal court jurisdiction over the over the matter?

Yes, and how many reinspection fees or months before it goes to court?

So the the reinspection fee piece is is somewhat discretionary.

If we have contact with the owner and they are working towards compliance, we we always want to go that route.

If they have not responded to our attempts at contact, um are not responsive to any correspondence, then we could just send it right to court.

So um and I apologize.

A month, two months, three months, what is it?

Some reflection of the um timeline for compliance for the order.

So if if it's to no just strictly neglect, they're not responding.

Right.

No, I mean, in in those cases, if we haven't had any correspondence, then generally I think those would be sent to court.

You say sent to court.

How long it varies.

So it varies based on so if you have an exterior order to paint your house, you generally get 90 days for exterior code violations.

So uh something more severe or interior, sometimes we have a 30-day order, so it the the timeline for compliance varies depending on what's the same.

Is it time for go to court right after that?

Yes.

So if we determine that the orders come due and there's not compliance, we'll then forward it to our court section.

Court say and then what do they do with the order?

So then, yes, I believe you're correct, they would issue a summons for this individual to appear before court.

They they get served with notice of date for appearance.

Um they can appear.

Well, generally there's correspondence with our court administrator on the front end with these individuals if we're able to contact them.

If not, um if they don't show up in court, it's typically a default judgment.

Um at that point, the order that we have issued uh gets dismissed, we reissue a order as litigated non-compliant, so the order don't take any action to bring this property in compliance or address the violations, and then that order gets sent to our monthly reinspection program.

So we'll then go out every month and charge after a judgment been entered.

Yes.

And and is is and then does the court impose a penalty, a monetary penalty?

Yes, so forfeiture in essence.

I I believe so, and I apologize.

Our court administrator couldn't be here today because she's in court.

Um but yeah, that I believe the court charges a fee related to the court costs, um the same thing with a citation.

So it's a a amount identified from the deposit schedule.

Um what I understand, if if the individual is there and they're willing to work to resolve the issues, the judge will then reduce that amount, sometimes cut it in half.

Um, even that even what you just described, that process, what in just in general, what does that look like?

Six months, nine months before it gets to that point?

I think it depends on the volume of cases that are are in the court system as to when we can get a hearing.

I think generally it's three to s to six months.

Yeah, okay.

Is this processed down anywhere?

I mean, I can go to the rules of civil procedure for state court and have a clearly defined roadmap of how to file a summons, how to file a complaint.

I mean it it's all laid out pretty precisely.

Of course, people go to three years in law school to figure that out too.

But at a practical matter, one can pretty much follow that roadmap.

Is there any roadmap as of how this all works in in our ordinances?

Is there a handbook?

Are there are the municipal court rules of that they that they abide by that lays any of this out?

I mean, how would a lay person ever figure out how this works?

Yeah, I I can't speak to whether or not there is a roadmap.

We have SOPs for our processes.

You do yeah, related to how an order gets to court and what needs to be done in order for it to be a valid order that we can then prosecute.

Um beyond that, the actual court proceedings, I can't speak to the legality of of that.

Is is there any worse people can view the docket, view what cases are pending, what what landlords are in court?

I believe that's publicly available, but I I can't say what's the point.

Is this connected to LMS or a sell up for every property?

So an order that is pending court would receive a status that that notif that indicates that it is pending court action.

So a seller can can you look up a property, all this should be readily available.

Yes.

Or if you wanted to see how many orders are pending court action, you could search by that record status and it would be.

But if you if you have to if a landlord has to submit a plan, put the plan on a cellar.

Well, put the property.

This is what we're proposing to do.

I mean, I don't uh unless the police send us a letter, nuisance letter, and we keep them in a file, which I do a hard copy file.

Hey, there's no central log that you can go to and see what chronic nuisance and that should and that should be connected to a cellar.

So it is um when the when a property gets notified, we receive a copy of that letter that generally prompts us to perform an inspection so that if if we understand that there are behavioral problems at this property, we go out and do an inspection to see that they automatically.

Yes.

So when we receive that letter, it prompts us to make an inspection.

That inspection or that record is noted as being related to the nuisance action.

Um the police copy you on their chronic nuisance.

But the police uh when the police are doing it right, they usually take inspectors with them to do some of these investigations.

Yeah, that's true.

Should be at the same time, yeah.

But uh Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, yeah.

So what's the ultimate result though?

The city take the house back if they get fine after fine after fine, and they decide not to pay them.

Is that a good goes towards the taxes when the city takes the property?

So I I think that that is it a court order.

I I think it could go uh a number of different ways.

Um I can't speak to all of the the legal options that we have once an order is has not come due.

If we continue to charge reinspection fees, those do get placed on the tax roll, and then eventually that property would get taken in foreclosure.

Um how that gets initiated, I think uh there are a number two.

But you said judgments are entered.

Judgment is a magic word.

Uh judgments can be entered.

A transcript of judgment can be sent over to the Milwaukee County Clerk of Court.

That transcript of judgment can be docketed, and upon docketing it become the lien on the property.

And in fact, it becomes a lien on all the property that the judgment debtor may own, which gives the judgment oh holder, namely the city, certain collection powers to garnish bank accounts, to uh execute and levy on personal property, to foreclose on real estate.

And I'm just wondering if any of that ever happens.

Because there are tools out there, believe me, that every collection lawyer in Milwaukee can tell you what those tools are, and they use them very effectively.

Are we doing any of that?

Is the question?

I guess I'd have to defer their question to the city attorney's office.

Yeah, this a lot of this has to be cleaned up.

I mean, we we gotta we gotta know what the baseline is here as a parallel effort to change the process.

We gotta know what the current process is.

Isn't that fair?

So you don't know.

I I'm to what question?

To what is the judge the judgment issue?

The judgment of whether we can accept the property or the ultimate result of it.

Well, I think we can.

I think it's a matter of how that legal path gets pursued, but I don't think that happens in everyone.

This is a classic case where the the little guy, Mon Pa Barker, who have a duplex that they rent out, uh they're the ones they can't they can't hire lawyers, they they aren't familiar with the statute books, they aren't familiar with any of this.

They're the ones that seem to be the easy target, and we'll go after them with aggression.

The guy that owns just picking a number, 10,000 units with armies of lawyers, seems to be I wouldn't say off limits, but we were more timid in those cases.

Well, just a Ben properties, period.

Or like high schools over and over and over again and just sit there.

The high growth situation, there's got to be, if some of those properties aren't chronic nuisance properties, I'd eat my hat.

Yet I'd be curious what the outstanding orders are.

Where we are in a couple of years.

How many confirmed calls for service directly?

I think we can provide you with that information.

Or S1, the Sam Stairs guy.

I mean, we just saw there was a story in the journal center today about the wretched conditions of some of his properties in Chairman.

No, I I appreciate you bringing these files up.

We've talked about them and um I just now I have three communication files that's steering your rules on June 8th.

They're very specific around hearing from departments, and they're all geared towards getting the information we need to improve the system we have.

I have no problem this is this is you know the the Samstair case is the second time on the near south side.

We have property owners that have several many, many properties that are run drug empires.

It happened back in 1617 with Churchill now, Sam Stair, and these mobile enterprises just we gotta tighten up our processes to prevent these from happening.

People are calling, inspections are happening, police are showing up, and the the rest of the system has to work to tighten this up.

It's just right now it's not working if we if if landlords can have mobile drug empires and the impact they've had, and ask about a time frame because the damage that happens leading up to getting it to court to getting it into a plan to actually billing status if that's the case.

Um there's just way too much that happens in neighborhoods, and people are fed up with it.

Okay, so I think we really need to get a clearer picture of what what happens now.

And apparently we have incomplete information here.

So I mean I'm happy to if you want to move this file the steering rule, that's fine with me, and then consolidate them all.

I I I agree.

But your presentation is seeming clear enough to me.

So in getting what you need clearer, we can at least get that get these going.

The nuisance well, the nuisance one is separate the the the court one, yes.

I I hear what you're saying.

So that was clear.

So you're talking about after after that happens.

And the city attorney wants us to make a more detailed record of justification for doing this, which means we have to bring in maybe busloads of tenants of affected properties so we can hear their litany of complaints and grievances to make that record.

Because right now we have two city employees, high ranking, albeit, but two city employees before us, four aldermen, five aldermen, and nobody else testifying as to the need.

Now we all know there's a need because we hear from our citizens constantly.

But our our knowing it is not a record per se.

We need actual testimony in the record, and maybe we can enlist common ground to uh round up those folks and bring them in.

Well, the testimony comes from the complaint, and then the complaint is there.

So the complaint is the testimony in the record, and the amount of them makes it sufficient enough for a court case.

And we'll need that data, which is a big data.

I hope that I hope that's not no pushback regarding that.

No, but that's a big data guy.

I mean, that's that's coming up with a lot of information.

I mean, we we have a monthly report that comes out which outlines each outstanding order in each aldermanic district, correct?

I think we still all get that.

I get that.

Yes.

I mean, that's a record right there.

Yeah, plenty of records, man.

You just need to be in order and take it to court.

Yeah, we I got residents near commercial corridors and neighborhoods that can provide whatever you need, so exactly.

All right, so any anybody else want to testify on this today.

Come on down.

I don't know.

Hello, neighboring.

Yeah.

I am Kirsten Pazouski, I'm the new attorney for the rental property association of Sanson.

Okay.

Kirsten, I have submitted a letter which should be in front of you.

That's right.

I I believe so.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um Heiner Ghizy is in the process of retiring, so I'm trying to fill this up.

Ah, you're his replacement.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Got it.

Yeah.

So forgive me, this is a new arena for me.

I don't really know what we're doing as well as you do, so please bear with me.

Should have brought GC with you.

I'll bring anybody with me if it'll help the property.

I'm here today because number one, we were hoping that we would have some additional time to take a look at these and try to figure out how we make ordinances and help you make ordinances that are something that landlords can be compliant with and something that enforcement can be done in a just and fair way.

Um Alderman Bauman, you had mentioned mom and pop, and very largely our organization is is mom and pop's.

Um with people who have been very small landlords, and when you get one offense, sometimes when they come out to take a look at your property, those things kind of mushroom.

And when I look at things like this and the numbers of violations that you can have in 36 months, you can have somebody who's not really a terrible landlord who can rack these things up.

You've talked about exemptions in here, and you're talking about painting the house.

So there is recognition that there are categories of the ordinances, which are not really what you're trying to target.

But I think it would take some time to figure out exactly where we need to look at what what it is we're not trying to do.

You have an introductory section in here, and forgive me, I was out of town until last night, and I worked on this till one in the morning.

So it's complicated.

You've you've mentioned that you think it's complicated as well.

I do too.

Um you've got an exempt exemption section, it's very limited.

How do we go through the ordinances and try to craft language that really talks about what we're trying to get at here?

Your introduction is talking about the and I agree with you, we shouldn't have people using their ovens to heat the premises.

This is a safety hazard, we don't want that.

But how do we make sure that this is something that we've got a workable statute?

We're not throwing the baby out with the bath water, we're not painting with an overly broad brush to try to solve problems that obviously we have here with high grove.

Uh we need to take some care in drafting this.

I have to stand up in front of if all of my members show up, uh nearly 900, 888, I think is our current number.

Statewide or just in Milwaukee.

Um we are spreading through the state, and I can't tell you exactly the demographics, but we have a lot of Milwaukee presence.

And I have to explain to our members what this means and what they need to do, what they need to be worried about.

We do have some big ones, we have a lot of small ones.

So the fire disclosure ordinance one, that was a real head scratcher, gentlemen.

Um trying to figure out how to be compliant with that and how to make that work.

We're still working on that.

And we've been working with DNS, they have some wonderful people there, they come to our meetings, we really appreciate them.

And they didn't really have the guidance they needed either in order to figure out how to hit the ground run in.

So there are problems, and we need to work together to try to try to figure out how to fix them.

And anything that we can do to be your partner in that, we would like to be your partner.

Okay.

So I understand that we're we're not making a hard and fast decision today, so I don't need to keep pounding on the table.

I just wanted to let you know that we're here.

I want to let you know that we're looking at this as well, and we hope to give you some more feedback and maybe some helpful guidance.

So you've appeared in Muni Court then on housing matters.

It's been a while.

Okay, maybe you can explain the process because apparently nobody else here.

There is a summons and complaint that's issued in the municipal court process.

Okay.

So I thought the municipal court process it seemed to me like it worked pretty well, but my information is pretty much and does the complaint specify a dollar amount that is being sought as a forfeiture.

I believe that it does, and I believe that they also add the court costs on top of that.

And they the last time I went, I didn't see the it was like a ghost town in that building.

I don't know what's going on there now.

But when I used to go, it used to have a packed hallway, and you were talking to somebody from the city attorney's office and trying to figure out not only how to get a forfeiture and make it a little pit painful for somebody who didn't follow rules, but also making sure that the job got done.

The gentleman to my right had talked about, and this is another thing that I was having trouble with in here.

He talked about you have an interior problem, and it's something that we need a more aggressive time frame versus 90 days for painting the house.

That's something also that isn't recognized in this.

Some things, yeah, you need to get I've got a duplex if my heat goes out.

I want somebody there, I want them there as soon as I can.

I can't fix it myself, I'm dependent upon outside contractors.

But I also don't want my own pipes to freeze.

So I have a lot of skin in the game as well.

So yeah, you you can't have people doing that, you can't have open oven doors.

But you also have to understand that sometimes the first go-round, you may not be able to get a contractor in there and get it done, but the ordinance doesn't recognize that.

So there are a lot of legitimate to me.

I I appreciate all at least we learned something today that there is a summons and complaint which asks for a certain dollar amount as a as a fine.

That's something.

I've got to be able to do that.

So we've got progress.

All right.

I believe that is correct.

Yes.

And that munic court doesn't seem to be very busy these days.

It was it was hard to find somebody who could answer a question, and I couldn't even find anybody to take my paperwork.

It was really something, Alderman.

Well, it's funny you mentioned that because back when I practiced and I practiced for many years, although not the last 20, uh Muni Court was a cauldron of activity when you'd go in there back in those days.

So right now it's the hallways, the waiting area all empty, basically.

Take a walk, it's shocking.

That's very interesting.

Um, thank you for for being here today.

How do you do you how's your membership divided?

Do you divide them up by all the matic districts at all?

That is a question that I wish I could answer for you.

I don't know.

I can't even tell you the division between people who have properties in the city of Milwaukee and those who don't.

They're they're all members.

Well, because you know, you talk about um understanding some of this more.

I'd sit down with the landlords in my district any time.

Anytime.

And what my district, like several other either closer downtown central city districts, have a different makeup of the amount of rental properties in districts, and parts of my neighborhood are 60, 70 percent rental.

Would you want to come to one of our meetings?

I want to specifically talk to the landlords of my district first, and I could tell you have a name plane.

Can you remind me your name?

Jose Perez.

12th district.

Near South Side.

So I'll talk to the entire group if if necessary, but I do want to start with the landlords in my district.

We can walk the neighborhood.

Yeah, I just want to be clear what the what the point of this is so you can convey it back here.

Require on that.

I'd like I like to offer that meaningful 15 district landlords as well.

15th district all the heart of the Great North Side.

That is you.

As is Alderman Jackson, the other the other heart of the Great North Side becoming downtown.

Yeah.

I'm going to follow up on that.

I appreciate that opportunity.

And just to convey back to your membership that the whole and and for people in the listening, the thousands that are listening online here.

The whole the whole goal here is to get landlords' attention.

Because there are some large landlords for whom that the fee schedules and the penalty schedules that DNS hands out are drops in the bucket.

That's a cost of doing business versus trying to get that contractor to come out in the middle of the night when it's below zero and the heat fails.

They just don't bother because they'll absorb the fine.

When you have 149 million dollars in revenue coming in, a 200 fine, a thousand dollar fine from DNS is water off a duck's back.

Just the cost of doing business, and it doesn't cause anyone to modify their business plan whatsoever.

To a small operator, yeah, that is a big hit.

And it that will get their attention.

Absolutely.

But to large operators, it's irrelevant.

So we wanted to put mechanisms in place that would get the attention of big operators like the stairs, like the high groves, and all the other corporate and uh and corporate landlords that have moved into Milwaukee.

Are any of them members of your organization?

I believe some of them are, yes.

Okay.

Would you let us let us know?

Would you let us know?

Absolutely.

Who's part of that organization?

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, I mean, I I get what you're saying on top of that, but part of the problem we're having is that we feel like we're managing these properties.

We don't we can't.

I don't know how often I I do neighborhood walks or get complaints from constituents, and I can't believe the conditions some of these properties are in that a landlord can c collect the rent and not, and this isn't everyone.

Uh we've got some good landlords.

I don't want to do too broad of a brush, though, but I've seen enough where I don't understand how these guys aren't walking in to their properties and saying this is unacceptable.

I need to repair it, or in some cases, evictions are necessary.

I get it, but it just seems like we're managing these properties, and we shouldn't be.

And we understand there's issues with tenants.

And I'm sure that's what we'd hear if we ever went to one of your meetings.

There are issues with tenants.

But the bottom line is anyone who is gone in who goes into the landlord business, that's the business they've chosen.

And if they don't know going in that there can be issues with tenants, there can be behavioral issues, tenants can cause damage, tenants can destroy personal property, tenants cannot pay their rent, the eviction process is expensive, it's lengthy.

When they leave, they throw the refrigerator out the window or take it with them.

We understand all that.

But this is the business they've chosen to enter into.

They could have gone into the restaurant business, they could have gone into the plumbing business.

They've chosen to become commercial landlords, and comes with that a certain responsibility to the public because the public is the ones calling us, and then we're required to act in the interest the the health safety and welfare of the citizens of Milwaukee.

So that's the context here.

We understand the challenges, especially small landlords face.

The big landlords can institutionalize all those problems.

They have the eviction department, then they have the property recovery department, they have the clean out department.

You don't see the owners of these big operations out there rolling up their sleeves with their loading up their pickup truck.

No, of course not.

They're huge, they're institutionalized.

They have bureaucracy.

Just take care of your property.

That's all we ask.

I have the same problem that you have.

The only issues that come into my office are for bad tenants.

I can have somebody who's got a hundred, two hundred, five hundred units.

They don't call me up and say, I have four hundred and ninety-nine gray tenants.

That's right.

I I we we we actually do recognize that.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

So I I I understand and I sympathize with that because people don't call you up to say I got a great landlord.

You're not gonna hear that.

No, I guess they don't.

And that's the issue.

When you have a 40-unit building, it only takes one or two problem tenants to really uh destroy the character of that building and the good tenants leave, the ones that pay on time leave, the ones that keep their property that keep their apartment in good condition, leave, because they don't want to live in chaos and disorder.

And so now you start replacing the good tenants with more problem tenants because they're the old because the a good tenant will now want to come in.

There were other things we looked at a grading system, and I thought, oh my god, go to it like the restaurants do.

I said now that would be problematic in my mind.

But that's still on the table.

There are probably members of the council that are interested in doing a grading system, like at a restaurant, A B C and D or F.

For for the for the landlords?

Yeah.

Well, we used to work when I first got elected before the state took away, was you had to have a license to uh to rent.

And the license was for a year or three years.

If you were a good landlord, you got to put three years.

If you were a landlord uh negligent, you got it for one year, and it would be subject to a drug deal, a drug bus, drugs.

It would always it was always related to they did some type of legal activity at the house.

So we did a pilot in my district and it was successful, and we were getting better uh results, and the state took it away.

So we've tried, and now that's why that organization was so against me when I was running, because I wanted the building to have landlords keep their properties uh compliant.

So that got re reversed and taken away.

So this is where we are now.

So we're gonna continue to do what we can.

Uh and we would love to work with you and provide as much help and support for those good landlords, but we would also in turn ask you for us for your support and for the bad landlords.

I think that's reasonable because we need to have the ability to deal with both sides of the problem.

If either side of the equation isn't working, there needs to be an ability to people have to understand that if they don't do it the right way, that they're gonna lose opportunities.

That's just reasonable.

Okay, well, you have some uh line, older older woman tailor.

Yes, thank you so much.

Um yes, I have a ticket a couple of the uh sessions that um that she's held.

Um I'm sorry if you do remind me of your name.

I apologize that curses position.

Yes, thank you.

Um, and they were really good sessions.

Um I I agree a hundred percent with what you guys are saying.

Um, and with the legislation.

I don't know if I can sign off as a co-sponsor, not being on a committee, but I definitely would like to.

Uh I think it is oh well then yep, if you could add me as a co-sponsor.

Um because I think there does definitely need to be some regulations because we don't want just housing.

This is our year of housing, we don't want just housing for people.

But we need acceptable housing, housing that's being taken care of as it should be.

So I appreciate um the legislation and thank you for letting me sign on as a co-sponsor.

Excellent.

Okay, if there's no other uh comments, we will accept the substance.

Oh, yes, yes, yes.

The Alderman Stamper moves to amend the file by introducing the two well by introducing the substitute on file two five one seven seven three and also moves to amend the file by introducing the substitute on file two five two two four zero, hearing no objections so ordered sub A's sub A is before us on both items.

Alderman Stamper moves the whole this item to call it the chair, hold both items to the call of the chair and hearing no objections so ordered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to item three, file 252012 substitute resolution relating to a minor modification to the detailed plan development known as Saint Rita Square to allow additional building signage on the existing building located at 728 East Pleasant Street on the north side of East Pleasant Street east of North Van Buren in the third Aldermanic district.

Yes.

All right.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Tanya Fonseca, Department of City Development.

I'm here to talk about St.

Rita Square today.

And the applicant team is joining me.

So the subject site was rezoned to a detailed plan development in 2018 to allow the construction of a senior living facility as well as a new church for the St.

Rita congregation.

And the senior living facility includes a six-story building with independent living, assisted living, and high acuity assisted living and memory care.

This is a minor modification relating to allowable signage for the facility.

And currently the DPD allows signage near the main entrance drop-off area along Pleasant and at the corner of Van Buren and Pleasant.

The sign will approve a new.

Oh, sorry.

The sign will follow the provisions of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances with respect to not projecting more than four feet into the public right-of-way and being no less than ten feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.

The goal is to add um visibility and awareness that this is a senior living facility.

And the site is within the Northeast Side Area Plan and is consistent with the recommendations of this plan.

The site is also within the third aldermanic district, and Alderman Brower is supportive of this file.

City Plan Commission heard this item at its April 27th meeting and unanimously recommended approval.

And representatives from St.

Rita Square and the signage company are available for questions.

Okay, well, this uh sounds to be pretty non-controversial, so I don't think we need to hear from you.

You're here to see Alderman.

So Alderman Spiker moves recommend Alderman Jackson moves the recommend approval hearing rejection for ordered.

Thank you.

Thank you, Garmin.

Item 4, file 251867, a substitute ordinance relating to the change in zoning from industrial heavy IH to industrial mixed IM for the property located at 2156 South 4th Street and 2166 South Fourth Street on the east side of South Fourth Street, South of West Beecher Street in the 12th Aldermanic District.

All right, good morning again.

Um so now we are uh within the harbor district.

This uh site, 2156 South Fourth, is currently zoned for industrial heavy.

Um, and it is within the Harbor District River Walk um uh spras or the the zoning overlay for the riverwalk.

This uh site has a multi-story building with a surface parking lot and a city-owned lot uh to the south is currently vacant.

The drum company owns 2156 South 4th Street and was requesting a zone uh request uh requesting a change in zoning to industrial mixed to allow a wider mix of uses within the existing building on their site.

Uh the multi-story building no longer functions as a heavy industrial facility.

Um, and they're uh they've received interest in the space within the building for uses such as schools, daycares and studios and office.

This was a school, wasn't it?

It was St.

Anthony's.

Yeah, right.

I thought so.

Okay.

About half of the building is currently occupied by a daycare facility currently, and that was approved by our board of zoning appeals.

This zoning change also includes the city-owned vacant site to the south at 2166 South 4th Street for continuity.

And it is anticipated that this site will be utilized in some fashion as part of the river walk extension.

The sites are located within the harbor harbor district water and land use plan, and the proposal is consistent with that plan.

This is also within the 12th Aldermanic district, and President Perez um is here uh if if he has any remarks on the file.

He's not stated any objections to date.

City Plan Commission held a public hearing during the April 27th uh meeting and recommended approval of the subject file.

And uh Bill Sinski from Drummond Company is here if you have any questions.

We uh including a presentation to share a little bit more.

Hold on press.

I have no objection.

Okay.

Uh floor is yours.

Good morning.

Chairman Bowen and committee members.

Bill Sinski with the drumm company.

So this doesn't one thing I want to make sure you know it doesn't uh exclude industrial use.

So it just uh opens it up more to other uses.

They still have to get permits, go through the permitting process, so there still will be control.

But the likely users, of course, aren't heavy in industry?

So the daycare has uh done very well at I don't think anybody's here from Ebenezer, but a great location for them.

Um so these would be users, such as some specialty schools, uh possibly offices.

There's some photos in the packet of the build up that uh drone company has done.

It's yeah, it's terrific.

So um okay, no, it looks like I'm familiar with the building.

Everybody's familiar with the building.

You've ever driven on the interstate on the door.

Mr.

Chair, um it's kind of tucked away and it's difficult to get at because Fort Street's a one way.

Yeah, yeah, so you you gotta take the long way to get there, but um G hard to get to.

Yeah, it's right on the river, and um you know, I'm I'm in I have no objections to the zoning change in order for the building to be maximized state's use.

Okay, this is technically a public hearing, so we'll open the public hearing.

Anybody of anyone anybody here wish to testify on this item?

No one stepping forward to the public hearing is closed.

No other questions or comments.

Alderman Spiker moves a recommend passage, hearing no objections so are thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to item five, file 251606.

The subject ordinance related to the change in zoning from single family residential RS2 to multi-family residential REM3 for the property located at 11919 West Bradley Road to allow multifamily residential development on a portion of the site located on the south side of West Bradley Road east of North 124th Street in the 9th Aldermanic District.

All right.

Okay, great.

Um, so the subject site we are reviewing today is approximately 15 acres in size and currently zoned for single family residential.

The site currently includes a church, which will remain.

The applicant, Scott Crawford Incorporated is requesting a change in zoning to multifamily residential uh RM3 specifically to allow a portion of the site to be developed as housing.

The church will remain as uh will continue to be an allowable use in RM3 zoning.

Since this is a base zoning change, specific plans um are not part of this zoning change file.

However, the applicant will share an overview of their concept plans in a moment.

Um just a quick overview though, it will um they're proposing a hundred units of housing for seniors that will be within a series of townhouse style flat buildings.

The RM3 design standards will apply to the residential buildings, and the Board of Zoning uh appeals will be necessary to allow for multiple principal buildings on the site.

Future phases of development could include a new school attached to the church and a memory care facility.

This site is within the Northwest Side Area P and is consistent with that plan.

Um the plan encourages residential and other compatible uses along commercial corridors and in areas where resident where excuse me in areas where retail and commercial activity as a primary use are no longer supported by the surrounding residential densities.

Residential land use policies also recommend locating residential land uses adjacent to compatible non-residential uses.

The site is within the ninth Aldermanic district, and Alderwoman Taylor has expressed support for this file, and City Plan Commission held a public hearing regarding this file on April 27th.

Alderwoman Taylor was present and testified in support of the file, and City Plan Commission unanimously recommended approval.

The development team is here to give a brief presentation and also can touch on community engagement that has already been done.

Okay, floor is yours.

Please identify yourself and name and address, please.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Mark Martin Morgan.

I'm the vice president of development at Scott Crawford.

Okay.

Um so at Scott Crawford, our mission is to build holistic, holistic communities through financially and environmental environmentally sustainable developments.

Um so part of the reason that we feel this development is very important is because not only are we adding housing to uh a 15-acre vacant site, but we're also um in partner strong partnership with Kingdom Faith Fellowship Church.

We have uh Pastor Randolph here.

Um so not uh this organization is already deeply rooted um in the community.

Um so it allows us to expand the impact of kind of what's already existing.

Um our proposal um is actually uh 101 units.

Um so we uh in the unit mix will be spread between one, two, and three bedrooms.

Uh we believe that this allows us to um it gives the senior wait, hold on one second.

Yeah, so yeah, so this creates uh universal housing for seniors that uh that are all kind of going through different stages.

So whether they're downsizing, living alone, or still supporting family members.

Um we kind of have an option for everybody as far as uh um our intentions um around like the income income requirements.

Um we wanted to intentionally be a mixed income income property.

So we are proposing 80% market rate, 20% workforce housing.

Um and the thought behind that is to make maintain long-term financial sustainability, provide access to quality housing for seniors, and um also to avoid any over concentr over concentration of any one uh particular income group.

Um this development also uh addresses a lot of the needs that we're facing currently in Milwaukee, um, the growing senior population with limited new housing options, um, lack of quality modern units designed specifically for you seniors with private entry, um, the need for stable mixed um mixed income communities, as well as the opportunity to activate under you underutilized land uh for uh an existing community anchor.

So those are uh just some some of our plans.

The reason that the rezoning is needed um is because I mean obviously single family is currently zoned for single family housing, and it's not sustainable for uh us to develop that large of a site for seniors.

Churches are permitted.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Um, and then just kind of speaking of some of our uh long-term plans on the site outside of the housing, housing will be phase one.

Um so our plan will kind of be to get that our plan will be to get that uh get that portion of the development um started under construction sooner than later.

Um but then other phases that we also mentioned would be uh somewhere between the 60 and 80 unit memory care center as well as a build out of the existing church.

Uh they currently have a large gymnasium on the side of their on the side of their church, so we can kind of build off of that space, um, build off that space, we can add additional classroom space and kind of build off of the gymnasium as well.

So those are kind of some of our long-term plans.

So the church is a school as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so the church like we'll like we'll kind of do like an addition off of the church uh to build the school that way, kind of connecting it, connecting it through the gymnasium.

Pastor.

Good morning to everybody.

Um I want to echo my colleague here and say how excited we are uh to be partnering or co-sponsoring this project.

I think again, one of the um most important aspects of what we're doing is addressing the need for memory care, and that's in our phase two.

Um you may or may not be aware that 120,000 people in the state are living with Alzheimer's right now.

So this is not an optional building project, this is an infrastructure project.

This is something that you know essentially will address the needs that are not coming, but that are.

And so one of the things that I'm most excited about as it relates to this project is not only the community investment, but also the fact that it allows us to address this population and allow them to age in place instead of downsizing and then having to be scattered in all of these various places throughout our community.

How long has the church been there?

We've been at this site for two years.

Did you so you acquired this location two years ago?

Yes, sir.

15 acres, really?

Yes, sir.

Very good.

That's a big truck of land.

Absolutely.

So was the was the church.

So you built a church two years ago?

No, the church isn't in operation for 18 years.

Um we acquired this particular building two years ago.

You were in other location, yes, sir.

I see.

Okay, very good.

How big is your congregation?

Uh about 250.

Okay, very good.

All right, any questions?

Yeah, all in Snapper.

So, Pastor, you move your church.

I've been in your church.

Yes, sir.

You moved?

Yeah.

I haven't been in two years.

It's been that long.

Hey.

Congratulations.

This looks great.

Okay.

This looks great.

Uh, you got a swimming pool on there?

Was it a lake?

No, that's uh that's a desert river that runs uh adjacent to the property, but there it does no lake.

Sure.

Okay.

He needs some uh napkins, right?

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, very good.

Uh please, gentlemen.

Uh Tim Walizing Berg Anderson architects were here for any of the plans or go through any of it.

Very good.

Felipe Nelas with Angberg Anderson architects as well.

Um very good.

Okay, excellent.

Uh this is a also requires a public hearing, so we will open this matter to public testimony.

Is anyone here really interested in testifying, providing any input?

Seeing no right.

Oh, yeah, wait, no, she'll okay.

We also have all other women Taylor online, although we lost her well, we lost sight of her while we had the screen probably by the slideshow.

Oliver and Taylor.

Oh, great, thank you so much.

Um I'm pretty excited about this project.

Uh they brought it to me when they first moved over there.

Uh, and I was excited and um just patiently waiting for them to come forward with it.

So I'm I'm really happy that um we're at this point now.

Um, and I know it was mentioned too by Tanya that I did support it during CPC, at which time I mentioned that our district has 13 senior homes.

Um, but what makes this one really special um and being being our 14th one is that it's bringing that memory care aspect to it, and so thank you so much um to Pastor Randolph for that.

Um, seeing that need and addressing that need in our area.

Um one of the things that I hope uh for with them is that because I did um lose my dad to dementia, and um that is quite uh you know uh devastating, and so uh having support a supportive system around, and so being a district uh I always call us the district of opportunity but what that means is that we are uh a place where people can have opportunities, but also a place where um we could support individuals for a better life, and so a memory care center that will pres provide support for its residents and support for its family, uh I think definitely speaks to that idea of creating a better life for individuals, and so I'm appreciative of that.

Um also I'm appreciative of the style uh because we have little a lot of seniors and many times uh I guess because we kind of categorize 55 plus um not knowing 55 plus still has a lot of energy, very energetic, um physically uh can move about and and are still working, um having direct entry still gives you that privacy feel, um, but you still have that community feel.

So I appreciate the design as well.

Uh I think that's really important to respect that seniors, um, although they may want to be more involved in a community, but they still need um some privacy as well.

Um so I I appreciate the project in its entirety, uh, and I appreciate them coming forward with it, especially in an area where um was once designed for a lot of retail and commercial use, um, but has been sitting um for quite some time.

Uh, and so to have this kind of use come forward in that area uh I think is um is a plus uh for the ninth district.

So thank you so much for taking this on uh and utilizing that 16 acres in this very positive way to be an asset to District 9.

Okay, very good.

No other testimony.

We'll close the public hearing.

Any other questions or comments on committee?

Oliver Stanford moves a recommended passage hearing, no objection so order.

Good luck, guys.

Congratulations.

Okay, let me get an inbite past.

All right, moving on to item six, file 252191, resolution approving amendment number eight to the project plan for tax incremental district number 56, Erie, Erie Jefferson Street to allow donations to tax incremental district number 89, Garfield and North, and tax incremental district number 106, McKinley School in the fourth Aldermanic District.

Wow.

All right.

Good morning, Chair Bauman, committee members.

Alyssa Remington with the Department of City Development.

As you just stated, this is the Eighth Amendment to TAD 56.

It was here not that long ago.

Um this one though is a strict donation amendment.

There are no new project costs.

We've done this in the past where surplus increment is taken from well-performing TIDs and allocated toward um TADs that may not generate enough increment to cover their debt by the end of their life.

So just a quick recap.

TAD 56 was created back in 2004, primarily for the purpose of facilitating riverwalk development, public infrastructure involved development, um, and streets, plazas, such as that.

It was amended seven times since 2004.

And we have just under 75 million dollars in approved project costs, uh primarily for Riverwalk construction, again, public infrastructure improvements plazas, but also donations to other districts as well.

The total revenue received from this district as of 2025 is 77,664,000, and it continues to perform according to our projections.

That said, this TAD is in a position to provide increment to two districts that are struggling a bit to pay off their project costs.

So the first the first district we'd like to donate to is District 89, better known as Garfield and North.

It was created back in 2016 to support the redevelopment of city-owned uh of the city-owned former Garfield School into affordable housing, and then it also included the construction of a mixed-use affordable housing um development on adjacent properties, as you can see here.

Specifically, that project plan comprised uh two major project components.

The first was the adaptive reuse of the Garfield School into 30 houses 30 housing units for um families earning less than 60 percent of the area median income.

The second part of that project was the demolition of buildings along fourth and north, and the construction of then the mixed-use building that you see here that included 41 housing units and 8,000 square feet of commercial space, 6,000 of which is occupied by the Black Holocaust Museum.

The TID provided 1.4 million dollars to assist in funding the total project costs, and construction was completed in 2018, and property values have increased um a little bit more slowly than projected at the time that the district was created.

The district has generated about six hundred and twenty thousand dollars in incremental revenue, and we are looking to recover one point five million dollars by the in the next 20 years, according to our projections.

It's unlikely to generate sufficient increment um to cover that debt.

The second district we're looking to donate to is TAD 106 or the McKinley School, which was created back in 2020 to assist in the adaptive reuse of the McKinley School, located at 2001 West Vleet Street.

This included the creation of 40 affordable um rental units in the former school and then also four single-family new construction homes located along Bleet Street to offer new home ownership opportunities.

That district provided a total of $950,000 mostly for environmental remediation, but also um for site development infrastructure and construction costs related to the development of those single family homes.

Construction was complete in two, I'm sorry, 2023, and we have generated about 156,000 in incremental revenue to date.

Project costs remaining to be recovered though are 1.3 million dollars, and while that district is producing increment, it is producing it um just slightly slower than needed to cover its debt by the end of its life.

So in an effort to protect the city from any future dips, right, in the housing market, and we would like to amend TID 56 since it has the capacity to do so at this time to um assist and pay off the debts of both of these districts at this time.

In total, we're looking to donate $1,514,000 to TAD 89 and $1,294,000 to TID $60, I'm sorry, $106,000 in the next year.

Yes.

Have those single families been sold all four?

They're all occupied.

Yep, they are all right.

That was great.

What about the occupying of the building?

Is that full as well?

Yeah.

Um well, we have the McKinley School is at about 94%.

This is just in conversations, right, with the developer, and then the Griot and the Garfield are at 74% occupied and 81% occupied.

So we put a brand new Bleach Street there.

Right.

Yes.

So what will be the balance after you pay it off?

Well, once we pay this off, there will be no balance.

Yep, yep, we would fully recover its debt and then allow that TAD to exactly.

And it is it is producing um just modestly, right?

Um, but you know, provide an opportunity in the future to use that government.

Like it was yesterday, yes over your project.

And and the developers has has stated that renovating that school was the toughest nobody would do it.

Have they ever nobody would do it?

The McKinley or the Garfield.

The remote.

This is really an example of how remediation of a million dollars just to demo it.

Is this incredible?

Remember that?

Yeah.

I mean, TID 56 only encompasses four properties.

Right.

Hanson's landing, harboring the Domus and the marine terminal law.

So three condo projects and one high-end rental project.

And Hanson's Landing and Harbor Front is the highest assessed residential property in the state of Wisconsin.

Yes.

It's right on the end of the Erie Street.

I fly by uh first time.

No, no, we're going closer to like the home bridge.

If you're going to the third board.

Oh, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

They're condos, so owner-occupied.

About 130 units, I believe.

Assessed values is over 100 million dollars overlay.

That TID is generating over $6 million in increment every year from those four properties.

Yes.

And that allows us to fund central city projects which have less market of less market potential.

This is the second time we've used this TID to donate.

So we did a seven time.

We've amended the document.

We've amended this TAD seven times, but we have only donated to other districts once before in those seven amendments, if that makes sense.

We have used this to do all sorts of infrastructure improvements in the third ward area, uh streetscaping, protected bike lanes, the boulevard on uh Milwaukee Street was funded through this TID.

So, yes, this has been an engine of progress and an engine of investment.

Correct.

Yeah, Park East, maybe, and uh possibly, yeah.

I'd have to look at that, I'd have to actually look at the numbers.

Yeah, the beer line, the beer line TID was also very successful.

This is successful.

Well, good work, thank you.

I mean, as long as property values continue to increase, these are basically perpetual motion machines.

Right.

This one is reaching the end of its um expenditure period as of September of this year.

No new projects uh can be added.

So that's one reason why we're here too.

Right.

Well, very good.

So uh all Alderman Jackson moves to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered.

Moving on to item seven, file 252192 resolution approving your project plan and development agreement authorizing expenditure and creating tax increment incremental district number 133 at 2711 West Well Street in the fourth Aldermanic District.

All right.

Larry could I'm new.

Okay.

Um I am Diana Cantor with Department of City Development.

I was hired last May and have started doing TIFF.

Okay.

Um I was I'm doing other compliance work for DCD as well.

Okay.

On some other programs.

So this is sharing.

Just gotta make it full screen.

So yeah.

That's what we're looking for?

Okay.

Um year anniversary is coming up, but uh this is my first TID to present to you your illustrious body.

Um TID 133, 2711 West Wells, um, is located on the southwest corner of 27th and Wells.

Um to set the stage for the um location on 27th Street.

Um, which is why there's a build all a large number of commercial buildings.

In about 1947, Harold and Laura Dvorick purchased 2711 West Wells to open a hospital with their own funds.

They uh built the nine-story building that you see in the forefront in the 1960s.

Then in 1975, they purchased the Tower Theater and uh they remodeled the Tower Theater for use as an employee cafeteria and an admin offices to support the hospital.

In about 1993, Milwaukee County purchased the campus to use it for medical and social services purposes before selling it in 2015 when they moved out to the medical grounds in Wawatosa.

Um in 2016, Rick Wiegand bought the Liberty Tower and the Doctor's Hospital, and um added the properties to the National State and National and State Register of Historic Places.

So the photos you see up on the screen, uh one is looking eastward, the doctor's hospitals in the forefront, the nine-story building.

In the middle of the block is the Liberty Tower, which is a five-story office tower.

In order to get that name.

I'm sorry?

Whether it get the name Liberty Tower.

Um, I'm not sure.

I never heard it used.

That that I I lived two blocks away from here for 27 years.

I've never heard of this.

The historic report that I saw from um when they did an architectural inventory from the histor for historic purposes, called it the Liberty Tower.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um the Bauman Tower for all I care.

Careful.

He might.

You might just have narrowed it.

Um, um the bottom tower, uh, bottom picture is looking west on Wells at the um Tower Theater, which is not part of this project, but is part of that former campus, which is why I'm just giving the context.

This is the proposed TID boundary.

Lot three is where the doctor's hospital of Liberty Tower and Tower Theater are located.

Lots one and two will be used for um about 125 uh parking stalls.

I'm gonna give the next two slides over to Pat O'Brien from Milwaukee Development Corporation.

Good morning.

Thanks for having me.

Morning.

Uh so we're a nonprofit civic-based developer, we're an affiliate of the chamber.

We've been in business for 51 years supporting the city.

Uh our thing is to do catalytic community-based projects in the city that to support city efforts that the city can't do, and the private sector won't do uh because there's just not the dollars in it.

So number of other projects, downtown area, the av the Grand Avenue.

They're reconstituted the Avenue were both projects that we did.

The old Park East Freeway sites with Barry Mandel, uh Yankee Hill Apartments, uh we're involved in the Milwaukee Theater District, uh helped support some financing for the Bucks Arena, the the Bradley Center to help buy up some land to keep it out of the hands of speculation.

And in the last seven years or eight years ago, we were basically a downtown development agency.

Maybe eight years ago, we actually moved actively into the neighborhoods.

And so we do a lot of support work and financing, you know, short-term financing for low-income family homes, uh, single family homes, and also uh development projects like tech housing, etc.

And we support the emerging developer program and other catalytic community-based.

So we do things from $50,000 to $3 million.

We help support the uh uh the schools, uh UCC's Early Learning Center, and uh Dr.

Fuller's uh new high school and junior high school.

Excellent.

We provided financing for that, bridge financing.

So this project, uh 2711.

Uh we've got a uh a lot of good help on this, but we're gonna own this project.

Bear development is uh one of our development partners and you know in ownership.

EUA, Baker Tilly, uh Wiegan, um Mandel Cross Management Services, uh CG Schmidt is like very likely to be our contractor.

So a lot of Grafe is involved, uh, and Fit Investment, which is a newer company, Michael Adatoro.

Uh he's supporting the project as one of our fellows.

Gotcha.

Near West Aid Partners, Jewish Family Services will provide internal services to us, and General Capital Group uh uh David Weiss has been a consultant for us and helps us out and get through things.

So the project itself is a hundred and twenty-four units of senior housing.

Uh you can see the description there.

Uh the senior housing, the the uh 30, 50, and 80 percent units is what I call on the low end of the low-income housing spectrum.

And we also have uh social services and community services to be provided on site as part of this project.

Uh veterans, people with disabilities, both mental and physical, will be part of this project.

Uh we don't expect us our to reach that 80 percent of market rate because the uh the area just won't uh support that, so we're estimating somewhere around 70 percent.

But we've got room to grow.

Um we hope to close uh July 22nd, and we have uh 14 month construction start, so we hope to be up and open for leasing sometime in the fall of 2027.

So who will be the you will be the developer?

Yes, we we we'll we'll own 70 right now 79 percent of the we're we're the developer.

And the own and the owner with the equity partners.

Okay.

So so do you basically have title to the property at this point?

Yeah, we will.

We have a purchase agreement with Rick.

And Rick Wigan currently uh owns the real estate?

Yes.

Okay.

So you will step in in a developer role and he will basically step out of the deal in essence.

Uh yes, from a legal perspective, but he'll be we're working Rick's working hard to make this project happen from uh you know.

So he won't okay, got it.

All right, excellent.

That's good.

Any further um it'll be a 50 point seven million dollar investment in a property that's been vacant for about 10 years.

The capital stack is listed, it's anywhere from our first mortgage to state and federal um low-income housing tax credits and historic tax credits, including money from the equity partner, deferred developer fees, seller note, reinvestment income, and a pending home ARP.

Um you should see that hopefully at a council cycle or two out from uh Mario's team.

It'll be uh up to $2.6 million developer finance TIFF, up to 25 years at a two percent interest rate.

There'll be a cost savings provision, human resources requirements of 40% RPP and 25% SDE, and 20% of the units will also be set aside for um residents of the 53233 zip code through the energy displacement neighborhood preference policy.

This is actually in a 53208 zip code.

I'm sorry, 53208.

Oh, okay.

Sorry, my bad.

I've been doing a lot of compliance work on that program recently.

Okay, very good.

Uh any questions or comments on this?

No, this looks good.

This is uh a strong project.

Very welcome.

It is indeed very welcome project.

This building has been basically vacant for years.

And even before the county sold it, it was still vacant.

So this is indeed uh great progress in the corners of 27th in Wisconsin and 27th in Wells are finally seeing revitalization, which is which is uh extremely extremely beneficial.

So any of that Alderman Snapper moves around Mr.

Real Quick.

Yeah.

Hey, are you guys is this how close is this to the uh near West Side Partners?

Across the street.

Yeah, you didn't mention them.

They didn't mention them.

They're in the slide.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, as long as you're partnering over there.

Absolutely.

All right, cool.

No no objections, I'll move approval.

Hearing no objections to order, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to item eight.

Resolution authorizing redevelopment authority of the city of Milwaukee to enter into a lease with ABM and Industries Group LLC for 634 for 634 North Fifth Street in the Fourth Aldermanic District.

This is the parking lot, surface parking lot right behind Vale Phillips Plaza, correct?

You got it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Chair Bauman, committee members Dave Miskey with the Department of City Development.

Yes, sir.

Uh as uh Chair Ballman pointed out, this is the parking lot uh just south of the Velar Phillips Plaza, still owned by the City of Milwaukee Rackham specifically.

Uh so this we did an RFQ very recently to engage a uh potentially a new tenant there to occupy that space and lease those parking spaces out.

Uh we did receive a handful of proposals and the selection team uh picked ABM industrial uh group to continue to manage that parking lot.

So they do pay rent, a monthly rent.

Uh they do have a few uh businesses in and around that area that do also uh occupy a few of those spaces on a daily occurrence as well.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Just to be clear for the record and for everybody watching on TV, this site has been one of the potential sites for the so-called convention hotel that has been the subject of some discussion and debate and controversy.

Uh we have the ability to terminate this lease at with at will, basically.

We do.

It's a five-year term, but we do have uh 90-day uh notices, both sides do.

So this site can remain definitely in play as a potential hotel.

Yep, for sure.

Okay, very good.

Uh hearing no other questions or comments.

All our inspirer moves a recommended adoption, hearing no objections to order moving on item nine, file two five two one nine four resolution to facilitate expansion of the Milwaukee Public Schools, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Playfield by authorizing conveyance of two redevelopment authority of the City of Milwaukee owned vacant lots to the City of Milwaukee and trust for the board of school directors in the sixth Aldermanic district sponsored by Aldwoman Cogs.

Alderman Cogs, do you want to take the lead here or let Mr.

Bisky go forward?

She's in the lawyer.

Oh proceed, please, sorry.

Uh yeah, but very quickly.

The uh Martin Luther King School has four uh properties that they they that they uh the comprises their entire property.

Two of them are Rackham to our city.

They want to do a reconstruction of their playground this summer, MPS rec.

They've done uh about 40 different playgrounds to date.

This is on their cohort list currently uh to simplify things.

It makes a lot of sense to convey the two Rackham properties which were acquired in the 1980s to the city so that they have no issues when they apply for permits to do the construction this summer.

So it's merely just a conveyance from Rackham to the city uh in title.

Okay, very good.

Any questions or comments on this item?

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

Thank you.

Moving on to uh this mystery file here.

Why don't okay?

We'll we'll get you guys.

Uh item 10, file 2600 two six resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the public finance authority for the benefit of Bedford Arbor Ridge LLC and Bedford St.

James LLC to finance the acquisition of a 38-unit multifamily residential rental property located at 7960-7972 North 107th Street and known as the Arbor Ridge Apartments, and two a 236 unit multifamily residential rental property located at 1030 West Fountain Avenue, known as St.

James Place, each of which is located in the 9th Aldermanic district.

Is there a substitute on this?

Yes, it's in the file.

Okay, what is the substitute do?

Yeah, uh Mary Shanning, uh Deputy City Attorney, the substitute before you um changes the date of the hearing that we are required to have as part of this file.

Um the notice did not get out in time for it to be at Z and D, so it'd be held in the city clerk's office um by telecoms.

I can be doing here today.

Sure, I can give you some background.

Um basically what's happening here.

This is um this is not a um city uh project.

But what has happened is that the developers um who are looking to acquire these properties and redevelop them are seeking conduit bonds through a federal program.

Um they're administered through the public finance authority, which is an agency of the state of Wisconsin.

In order to have those bonds issued and have tax exempt um status, they need to seek the approval of the local governing body in which the projects are located.

As part of that, there is a required um public hearing, which is called a TEFRA hearing.

Uh TEFRA stands for tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of nineteen eighty-two.

Um it basically allows the public to come in and and make comment on the project.

Um the bonds only get issued if there is public support for the infusion of funds into the um so we have the authority to veto this project or this acquisition.

These are existing buildings, correct?

These are existing buildings.

Um the veto would be of the it would it would just not seek it would not give them the approval for the bonds.

Right, um, but doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't get financing otherwise.

And so well, I'm not gonna answer questions about their um actual financing.

The um bond council for the project, Ray Jones is on um the teams because the local alder person very explicitly did not sponsor this file.

And that that is the reason why it was brought to Z and D instead of just having the TEFRA hearing, which is what we typically do if um you know there's aldermanic support, we do a TEFRA hearing outside of committee and then just bring it to council for final approval.

But given the opposition by Alder Woman Taylor, we wanted to make sure she had an opportunity to speak it to all of you as well.

Um and then as I said, the um developer is re represented here as well.

Okay, well, Alder Woman Taylor, give us your state your case because I'm inclined to support the local alder person on this.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Uh so hold on a minute.

Alderman Stamper.

I just want to be clear.

So what is it?

What are they requesting?

They're requesting approval by the city of the issuance of the bonds because that's a requirement for them to get before they can get bonds issued through this um agency of the state.

How does that help the city?

Doesn't uh what what is our doesn't how does it help us?

It doesn't.

So so the bond the bond system or the the financing program um is an effort to get funds um instilled into local communities to private entities without any input or out any dollars from the local community.

It is a funding mechanism for development, but they only get issued if they are approved by the local government.

Which is why this approval and the other thing is.

Yes, thank you so much.

So yes, I I have two luxury apartment complexes that are in our district.

And when this came to me, it said that um they were looking to make it affordable.

So having these two luxury apartments when we're struggling for luxury apartments and we're trying to um in put more luxury apartments into our area, and that's being challenged.

We certainly don't want to lose the two that we have based on a developer um who is not local to the area coming in and taking what we do have and turning it into uh affordable units.

So um these units are all full.

They're so they're they're not suffering in any way.

Um but they're they're full units.

Part of the Arbor Ranch is half of it is owned housing and the other half is rental units, um, but they're very well managed.

Uh and so um we don't want to see any changes uh happen to something that is working well for our district.

Who is okay?

These are two LLCs.

Who are the who are the principals of the L science?

So I I would direct those questions to the bond council who is on the phone.

I this is not a city project, so I don't have all the background and the details.

He is here.

How can we possibly vote on this when we don't even know who the representation on on the in the meeting?

What's your representative?

Yeah, I'm I'm representing to you to explain why this has to come before this committee and goes to the council and why the city has a public hearing.

But because this isn't a city project, I don't have the details of what is planned or what is proposed or who is behind it.

But they do have representation.

Well has this ever have we ever done this as a city?

Accepted these bonds?

Yes.

For for developer, out of town developer.

Uh whether they're out of town, I I can't tell you every TEFRA hearing we've had, but we've certainly had these hearings and approved them.

And no representative of the I don't remember of the ownership group is here.

Now they're online, they're lawyers.

We have council, but I don't nobody from the no nobody saw fit to come and talk to us directly.

We have project council, but nobody from the nope, nobody saw fit to come and talk to us directly about they meet the order woman.

I believe they've had conversations with all the women Taylor, but I don't know.

No, no, I I will no the group has not.

Um and their uh legal representation has emailed, but the actual um owners have not had conversation with them.

So do we have standing to take this vote or it has to go to this hearing in Jim or Zarski's office?

The the hearing is so that the public can state any comments or objections they have.

Ultimately, it goes to the council, and the council approves whether to approve these or not.

We we can't take a vote on this today because it would be premature.

Um you can take a vote today, or you can not, and then just wait until council.

But it will it it'll go to council for either up or down approval.

And that's yeah, I mean it's part of the process that Mr.

Chairman.

We would go through whenever the one of these applications come through.

You don't have to answer this in public, but it would be good to know if we have any legal exposure depending on what we do, or is that completely within our ambitious?

It is completely up to you whether you want to accept these, you know, accept the issuance of these bonds as something good for the legal matter we can vote no for any reason or no reason.

Correct.

Okay, okay.

Okay, uh, whoever's online from the borrower, please chime in.

Good afternoon, uh good morning, Mr.

Chair.

This is Ray Jones.

Um the bond council also have Troy Thomas um and Nicholas Artooning with the post real estate group who are online with me.

And we'd be glad to talk for just a few minutes about what the goal of the project is, and certainly um city attorney the uh today I'm sitting in South Carolina.

Um the um the as you know the properties are in northwest Milwaukee, and the gentleman who represent the post-real estate group um actually work all over the country, so I can't tell you where they sit today.

What real estate group could you could so that the the principals of these two LLCs is who exactly the it's the post the post-real estate groups, post real still sponsored POST, yes, sir.

Post real estate.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

If it would please the chair and the committee, I can give you a little bit more information to at least enable you to make a full game complete uh conversation around this.

Um am I able to share my screen, Chris?

Go ahead.

Oh, okay.

Just be a moment.

Yep.

They haven't talked to us.

Why are we giving them time left?

Because they'll probably be stuff claiming we didn't give them due processes or nonsense.

All right.

Uh what's the name of this group again?

Post real estate group.

Uh representative from the post real estate group.

And you're Google.

And you're the how long have you been a developer?

This is been active since 2005.

Okay.

And your process is to just contact the local alderman, not the committee, and inform them of what you do.

Ray, do you want to?

So um we contacted the city attorney's office and have been working with them.

Um have certainly uh made um opportunities available to have conversations um among city staff and the the folks that are on the phone.

This has been the opportunity that we've had to sort of present to you publicly.

And if you'll give us just a few minutes, I think we'll at least be able to educate more about the project and then let folks make the decision uh in an educated way if that suits everybody.

Where are you headquartered?

The developer or your company.

We'll be working with Point REM, they're Milwaukee-based property management company.

Okay.

So let me let me make I guess a couple of things.

Um if I can just Sir the first thing is that it is correct, these are market rate units.

The idea is that the what the post group does is they take market rate units and convert them to affordable.

Most communities around the country find that there's a dearth of affordable housing available.

And so the idea here is to take these two projects, only the rental portions of these projects, these have nothing to do with anything that might be a condo portion of Arbor Ridge in particular, but the idea is to take these 374 units and convert them to 100% affordable.

Which means that the that as the units turn over uh and leases or relet that the rents will go down at these um properties.

Uh in addition to that, it is true that by getting tax exempt financing, which city attorney Shanding mentioned on the front end, it does enable there to be not only less rent but also money put back into the projects.

So we're talking about putting 2.25 million dollars into these projects.

I guess luxuries in the eye of the beholder, but you'll be able to see that there's plenty of work that needs to be done in these units.

Um and so, for instance, on the left, you see the four micro countertops, and on the right, you see the plan to not only upgrade appliances but also upgrade countertops.

And we're also talking about doing other work around the property to include exterior painting.

So we think 2.25 million is sort of just to get these properties um into a position where the residents have the kinds of uh units that we would all be proud to live in.

Um what's important too is that I know there's um the the question about ownership here.

So the post real estate group is going to work in partner with um uh an affordable housing foundation tax exempt debt here, tax exempt debt and savings from that debt enable us to take the rents down and convert this to affordable.

Uh as you all know, affordable um is measured in multiple ways.

We're talking about 40 percent of the units being 60 percent AMI or below, and 60 percent of the units being 80 percent AMI or below.

Um, the there's four critical factors here that come into play on this project.

It's nonprofit ownership, it's the assets being sponsored by the post-real estate group, which has experience converting market rate to affordable across the country.

As Troy mentioned, we're talking about using a Wisconsin-based property manager, and also, and this is this is I think significant for for this group in particular.

We're gonna be using a bond financing that involves credit enhancement from Fannie Mae.

Um Fannie Mae is going to then monitor this project to ensure not only health and safety, but also ensure that the property is maintained properly.

And so the fact that this owner is going to come in and convert it, put money into it, uh, and then uh it'll then be monitored by Fannie May on a go forward basis.

We would suggest to you put you in a better position than you are now.

Um it's also interesting uh to note that now the property is owned by Seattle-based Washington company, so it is not a locally owned property, neither one of these properties are.

Uh so our plan is to bring in a national developer who can get this kind of financing and then manage the properties with a local group point REM.

The Fannie May oversight, and I'll finish up here, Mr.

Chair.

Not only does it require annual inspections to ensure that the apartments are kept up, uh, it ensures that money is set back for replacement reserves, uh, and it also ensures that all life and safety issues which would also be monitored locally, um, are handled and taken care of.

Um that's the benefit of having this kind of bond financing with Fannie Mae involved.

City uh attorney Shannon mentioned tax exempt debt under both state and federal law.

Um, this Wisconsin-based issuer, public finance authority, uh, won't proceed unless we have a public hearing and local approval.

Um, and then would were this to move forward, we'd have a public hearing on the 11th, and then we go before the common council on the 12th, uh, at which point the mayor uh could be authorized to give final approval, which is what's required.

So, in summary, there's 374 units that are market rate apartments right now that need work.

Uh, because a nonprofit would purchase them using tax exempt debt, we would then convert all, I say all 100% of the units to affordable units.

We're gonna spend 2.25 million to probably bring the units up.

Zero unit zero resident residents will be displaced during this process because we will do this on a rolling basis.

Fanny May is going to have oversight over this project, and you're dealing with a national real estate sponsor that's done this and in multiple states with multiple units.

So having said that, we just wanted to provide this information to you for consideration.

Uh, and I'm glad to answer any questions, as are the representatives from the company.

I guess my sense of this and building on what Alder Movement Taylor said, I mean, this would this may all be fine, but you got to come talk to people.

The fact that nobody saw fit to even attend this hearing today to explain what you're explaining in person to allow us to size up you and your organization.

And and then there's another group involved here, the Bedford Affordable Housing Foundation.

What's the chair?

They've been doing it for 20 years, they know the process, move a denial.

Okay.

All right.

So Alderman Stanford No, I don't want to do anything.

The motion's been made to uh could we do the sub just so that we've got the TEFRA hearing date correct?

All right, Alderman Stanford moves amend to file by introducing a substitute what resolution, a substitute resolution and hearing no objection, so ordered sub A is before us.

Uh Alder Samper moves to deny sub A and hearing no objection to that, so ordered that and then all amendment Jackson moves to place this matter on file and hearing no objection to that, so ordered.

And then Alderman Jackson moves to place this matter on file and hearing no objection to that, so ordered.

All right.

Moving on to our next item 11 through 19.

I'll take my disrespectful.

No, man.

Good morning, Chair Bowman.

Uh committee members Carrie Smith DCD Real Estate with my colleague Cindy Wright Smith, also from DCD Real Estate.

We have the balance of the agenda is all uh former owner sale backs.

Right, we'll race through these quick here.

Yeah, so the first one though, item 11, uh file 252059.

This was at the April 14th C and D committee meeting.

Uh we took that uh back and we've sub uh submitted a substitute amendment, adding the ability for us to put a reversionary clause into the deed, so that in addition to if the former owner does not fulfill the requirements of the restoration agreement with DNS, uh, and the DNS has the ability to move forward with the raise order.

If we're not able to get the raise approved by the uh historic preservation commission, we can take back title to the property and then attempt to uh put some HIP funds into it and sell it to the discussion.

We discussed the housing infrastructure preservation fund as well.

Yeah, so I talked with the city attorney's office after the last meeting uh to confirm that we could put a reversionary clause as well into the deed, so that in addition to proceeding with the raise order, assuming that the raise order probably will not move forward because of the historic designation of the property.

We can also the city can take back title to the property uh from the former owner and proceed with trying to sell it to a new owner.

Okay, so it just gives us all the options on the table.

So we have submitted a substitute amendment for that.

All right, very good.

So item 11 uh that's been called.

Uh Alderman Samper moves to amend the file by introducing the substitute, hearing no objections so ordered.

Sub A is before us.

Alder Woman Cogs.

Move approval.

Alderman Cogs moves approval, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 12, file two five two one nine seven.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Maurice McCray, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 3613 North 23rd Street in the 6th Aldermanic District.

Alderown Cogs.

Approval's been moved, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 13, file 25207.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Ramon Tubercico and Ansal and Selmo Garcia, former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 1005-07 South 30th Street in the 8th Aldermanic District.

Alderman Jackson moves approval, hearing no objections so ordered.

Item 14, file 252198.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Shaleza Bergarian.

Former owner of the city-owned tax deed property located at 2247 North 41st Street in the 15th Aldermanic District.

Alderman Stamper.

Approval.

Approval has been moved, hearing no objections to order.

Item 15.

File 252199.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Willie Robinson and Inez M.

Robinson, former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 2539 North 27th Street in 15th Aldermanic District.

Approval.

Approval been moved.

Hearing no objections to order.

Item 16, file 252 200.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Rodrigo Castillo Luna, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 2329 North 15th Street and 15th Aldermanic District.

Move approval.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Stephan L.

Perkins, former owner of the city-owned tax D property located at 2436 North 25th Street in the 15th Aldermanic District.

Real quick, here you spoke with him, right?

Um so the vaguely remember this one.

Yeah, so Deborah McCollum Gating with Yeah would have spoken to him.

Okay, move approved.

Approval removal, hearing no objections or order.

Item 18, file 252 202.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to William W.

Jackson, former owner of the city-owned tax D property located at 3325 North 45th Street in the 7th Aldermanic District.

Alderman Jackson.

Move approval.

Approval moved here hearing no objections.

No relation.

No relation.

Item 19, file 25203.

Resolution authorizing the sale back to Emily Cox, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 3970 North 29th Street in the 7th Aldermanic District.

File 25204 resolution authorizing the sale back to Joseph Holman, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 3245-47 North 23rd Street in the 7th Aldermanic District.

Lester Carter Drive in the 7th Aldermanic District.

Thank you.