Summer.

Here we are coming up on the end of the year, but hopefully we can move this forward in the next month and wrap it up.

So I'll turn it over to Ellen to tell us where we are and the decision points we have.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, we would love this to be a little holiday present.

We can all conclude.

Good evening, everyone.

It's great to be with you.

Thanks for attending your special session tonight.

We wanted to transparently give an update with our constituents about the status of these negotiations on Milwaukee Bay Park, how the special session will run.

Then we will be reviewing or recapping some council discussion on the latest proposed terms and some agreements we've been working back and forth with the NCPRD board of directors on.

Once we've reviewed or walked through council's latest thinking on those terms, we'd like to invite anyone who would like to contribute some public testimony to do so.

We'll limit that to three minutes each.

And then at the end, we're just going to ask for some decisions and direction to staff on next steps from council.

So again, this has been the mayor mentioned that we've been really at the table in the most recent round negotiations since January.

But just in case you don't know the backstory here, I wanted to share a little bit about the history of the city's relationship with NCPRD and with Milwaukee Bay Park.

NCPRD was formed in 1990, and that is when the original cooperative intergovernmental agreement, you're gonna call hear me say cooperative IGA a lot tonight was first signed with the city of Milwaukee.

When that was signed, basically the city retained ownership of all of its parks, but NCPRD became the entity that operates and maintains those parks.

So this IGA formalized that relationship.

Going forward, you'll let me say Milwaukee Bay Park or MDT.

Milwaukee Bay Park, I think it goes without saying to our constituents of jewel in the crown of our parks and green space assets here in the city.

It's a beautiful stretch along the Willamette River, and it's been for a long time a goal of Milwaukee City Councils to see that jewel developed.

So the city led uh the first two phases of development of that park, including acquiring land there and um uh getting it to be the park that it is today.

The first phase was completed by the city in 2012, the second phase was completed by the city in 2015.

Um so the park is wonderful, but it is not the finished product yet.

And uh in 2017, um the city was kind of gearing up to start doing phase three.

Uh and at the time, the board, the the North Pacamus Parks and Yock Department and CPRD requested that they take the lead on phase three of Milwaukee Bay Park.

Um, and the city agreed to that.

Uh that then ensued two years of public involvement.

Um, and the designs for phase three, which have been seen by lots of guys all over the city of Milwaukee, uh, was unveiled in 2019.

Um, that is sort of where the story gets a little more complicated.

So once we had uh 50% designs, the two parties um attempted to come to some agreements about funding and constructing the park.

There were draft uh funding and construction IGAs developed.

The city approved them twice, once in 2020 and once in 2021.

Um the NCPRD did not approve both of them.

Um, there was several meetings where it was removed from agendas, and um uh finally a condition was placed that it would not approve the funding IGA for phase three until the city engaged in an update to the cooperative IGA.

Um there's from frustration at that point, and uh a previous council was interested in looking into potential withdrawal from the district.

Um that led to some dispute over whether the terms in the 2008 IGA regarding withdrawal method are valid.

The city feels that what is written in the IGA is valid, um, and the board uh contends otherwise.

So we filed a validation action to understand that that is currently being heard by the Court of Appeals.

I should be clear that um while a previous council had discussed um withdrawal, this council has given no direction to withdraw from the district um or taken any votes on that topic.

This brings us to 2025.

The city of Milwaukee has adopted a parks and green space goal, and uh paramount in that goal is the delivery of this long awaited Milwaukee Bay Park.

So in January 2025, the city requested a meeting with the new NCPRD board.

They did a couple elections.

And the board agreed to break the communication freeze that they had implemented in 2024 and come back to the table for what we call two on two sessions.

Two representatives of the NCPRD board meeting with two representatives of the Milwaukee City Council.

When it's two, it's not a quorum, so we can move a little a little more quickly.

Staff are there to support those conversations.

Milwaukee City Council appointed Mayor Beatty and Councillor Massey as the representatives of the city to be at that two on two table.

And the city has been very clear since January that we have one objective in these negotiations that is get Milwaukee Bay Park back on track and delivered substantially by the end of 2027.

So the we started a couple of those listening sessions really focused on Milwaukee Bay Park.

Through the course of the negotiations, the NCPRD board asked that the city engage in discussions about the cooperative IGA and our negotiating team agreed that they would do that if the two would be considered together.

So tonight you're gonna hear us talk about two different agreements.

One is an amendment to the 2008 cooperative IGA, and the other is a Milwaukee Bay Park IGA.

The city's position is that these would need to be adopted simultaneously.

So there would not be an adoption of one and then the other.

They would have to happen at the same time.

Since January, I know it's probably felt to the public like what's happening?

Has anything been happening?

A lot has been happening.

There have been a lot of meetings.

There were six two on two negotiation sessions.

And in between those, um, 10 plus, I mean, 10 formal staff and staff meetings, but many phone calls and um other uh conversations to try to move these agreements forward.

Um the latest terms were received from county council to the city attorney on November 4th.

So this was last week during our regular session, and that's why we scheduled this special session.

Um, we didn't have time to process the uh terms that were sent over.

They were they arrived just before 5 p.m.

on November 4th, but we also didn't want to wait until November 18th, our next regular session to really talk about this because we know how important this topic is to the city.

So that's what we're here to discuss tonight.

So what I'm gonna do now is walk through the salient sort of topics in these two agreements.

We're gonna start with the amendment to the 2008 cooperative IGA, and then we're gonna talk about the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA.

Um, you may be asking, you know, why it why weren't the IGAs in a packet prepared for this?

They're still very draft.

Um, and it's very, you know, common in government that while the staff teams are going back and forth on terms and legalese, like that we leave to the people who went to law school.

Um, but what we want to do tonight is uh again, because we know our constituents care so deeply about this project, is be really transparent about some of the terms that are on the table and your city council's position on those terms.

So again, I'm gonna start with amendment to the 2008 cooperative IGA.

Operative word there being amendment.

This wouldn't replace the IGA.

The IGA has a lot of stuff in it about maintenance and programming and lots and lots of things.

All of that stays unless it is changed by this amendment.

So we tried to be pretty clear what are the terms that might change.

And gosh, that light blue is hard to read.

I'm really sorry, but I'll do my best to decipher it for you.

So a big um question that has come up in the cooperative IGA negotiations, the amendment negotiations is just clarifying who capitalizes assets in our parks.

It is a bit of a weird situation to be a city that owns parks but not doesn't operate and maintain them.

And that has left a little bit of gray area about on whose financial books different um assets would be found.

So we um have the the negotiating teams have been working on language that basically says for capital improvements.

If the district pays for it, they will capitalize it.

If the city pays for it, they will capitalize it.

And then in the event of any future withdrawal, again, there's been no decision to do that, but in the event that that would happen in the future, the city would pay the district for the depreciated value of any assets that are in Milwaukee Parks that NCPRD has capitalized on their books.

Basically, they're in our parks, we're not in the district anymore, so we pay to get those assets on our books.

Um the council is supportive of this uh general provision, or I believe the council is supportive.

We'll we'll get a discussion, we'll get an affirmative on that tonight.

There's you know some things in here about the dollar value, whether it's $5,000, as well as what the depreciation schedule will be.

If your eyes are glazing over, that's totally fine.

This is government accounting stuff.

Uh, but we just want to make sure to, you know, for the sake of clarity and the sake of avoiding more prolonged negotiations in the future.

Let's just be really clear and come up with a shared depreciation schedule based on government accounting standards and um tie the dollar threshold to financial policies, or if our financial policies aren't really in agreement, we can start with $5,000, but we'll index that to inflation because we know today's $5,000 is not tomorrow's.

The next topic that is in this amendment is about when the city might want to acquire or build a new park or take on an improvement of an existing park on its own.

So the language that we're working on, it would say that the city would be able to construct any improvements at any time.

We own the land, we can do that.

Um, that we should coordinate with district staff throughout planning, design, and construction.

The current status of negotiations, the district is asking that they have approval authority of all construction drawings or specifications in the case the city is leading a project.

Um we believe council's position would be that we reject that as written.

We like to maintain the ability to do improvements on our own, but we would um and are happy to um communicate and work with the district on that, but we would like to retain authority for approval in city, the city's hands given the city owns these parks and be paying for these improvements.

Um our current IGA has a clause that says the city has to ask NCPRD to maintain anything we acquire or build, and they have the right to refuse.

So we we think that is uh sufficient enough for giving them, you know, if they have real concerns over an improvement we've done, they can choose not to maintain it.

The next topic in the cooperative amendment is about programming.

Um, it's been widely accepted and understood that this the NCPRD is the programmer of Milwaukee Parks.

We do not have a parks department, they put on all programming in our parks.

Um, the current language that we've been looking at does not state anything about preferences for city or city affiliated groups to use Milwaukee parks.

And we are aware that in the past year, some of our neighborhood district associations or boards and committees have um historically used Milwaukee Parks for events, have been charged um fees to use those.

And there was sort of a practice of not the enforcing those fees when it was Milwaukee city affiliated groups using city parks.

We would like to get that documented and would be asking for a provision that gives preference for city and city affiliated groups and waives permit fees and other related costs for the city to use our own property.

There is a section in the amendment related to the Milwaukee Community Center.

The language currently on the table clarifies that the city would take responsibility for funding capital improvements, repairs, and replacements at the Milwaukee Community Center.

The district, NCPRD, would remain responsible for programming operations and general maintenance at the center.

The council's position, I believe, to be that we would support this, um, but just modify it a bit to be very clear how we're defining capital improvement repair and replacement versus general maintenance and how we're defining equipment.

I think there's there's um good bones to this, and we can get make sure we get to clarity.

And I believe this is the last one in the cooperative IGA.

Um, there is a proposal that we add language that says either party can pursue measures to secure additional funding related to capital or operational needs at parks, and either party can ask the other party for a statement of support for these efforts.

And I believe council's position to be that we are supportive of that provision.

So that's the high points of the cooperative IGA.

I'm now going to turn to some high points on the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA, and I think this will probably be a little bit more interesting to folks tuning in.

Um there's there's kind of some financial components of the current um uh deal terms, and there's some project management components.

Um, the first is that the latest terms we have seen from North Clackings Parks and YEC are that they would contribute 3.1 million in zone one SDCs.

These are system development charges to the project.

Just quick little understanding there, system development charges are charged when new development happens.

The city collects these SDCs, but because we aren't the park's operator or provider, we send them over to NCPRD.

So these are all SDCs generated by development in Milwaukee that the given over to the parks district to support park development.

Um we currently understand there to be 3.6 million dollars in the zone one of Milwaukee fund balance.

Um and we also um expect there to be pretty significant uh SDC accrual from Milwaukee over the next year or so, especially as development continues.

Um, from the get go, I think this the city has been advocating for equitable treatment within the district.

Um there are other district wide assets or regional park assets that have uh used SDC funding from across the district.

Um I believe council's position to be on this specific term to respond with a counter offer that would ask for the full balance of our zone one fund at the time of signing.

And then also asked that the city retain SDCs generated until Milwaukee Bay construction begins or December 31st, whichever comes soonest.

Um, this is sort of, you know, I think again, at the original outset, what we would hope would happen would be it would be treated like, for example, the Concord Community Center, where um we would get a proportional share from every zone.

Um, seeing that that does not seem to be on the table, we feel this compromise of asking for zone one SDCs that are accrued up until construction um is fair.

The second piece in the terms that we received on November 4th from the count from the district were that they were offering to loan the city 2.5 million of Metro local share grant dollars to be repaid via 10 annual payments of 250,000.

Um we can't really comment much on the council position tonight on that because we are unclear if that would be allowed for by Metro.

Um so we have requested some clarification from Metro, and depending on their response, we will be formulating a counteroffer.

I should say that um since 2017, easily since 2019, Metro Local Share has been discussed by NCPRD as a part of the Milwaukee Bay Park funding equation, up to as much as three million dollars that many times.

Um there's you know, while we've we've assumed it would be a minimum of 2.5 of Metro local share from NCPRD coming to the project.

We're just trying to figure out from Metro what um what the uh sort of logistics might be if NCPRD wanted to um give that to us in some other form.

And uh finally on financial, the latest terms offered by the district would be to reassign about $658,000 in Metro grant dollars that are um that have been allocated then for the trolley trail to Milwaukee Bay Park.

And council's position is that we would accept that that um that contribution to the project.

So quite a big difference from how we've talked about this project for the last uh seven years, is that the latest terms we have from the district would transfer project management responsibilities to the city.

So in the current terms on the table, um we would the city of Milwaukee would take over design and construction upon signing, and the district would transfer the design and construction contracts and drawings to the city.

Those are currently, I believe, a 50% design.

The council's position, I believe to be accept of those terms.

The current offer also talks about transferring maintenance responsibilities at the park to the city.

Um construction starts or by July 1st, 2027, whichever is sooner.

Um we uh would we I believe council's position to be that they would accept those terms, but they would request that the date for maintenance responsibilities be moved to when construction begins or no later than December 31st, 2027.

As the mayor said in her opening, I think we all had really hoped this these agreements could be ironed out much earlier in this year, and it's almost the end of 2025.

So we still have a real fire under us to get this going as fast as possible, but for practicality's sake, um, we'd like to you know ask for a slight extension on that, and the acceptance of maintenance responsibilities.

The acceptance of maintenance responsibilities.

And I believe this might be my last slide, which is good for me to drink some water.

Um the final piece um in the terms we receive on November 4th, um, that the district would like to remain responsible for scheduling programs and issuing special use permits at Milwaukee Bay Park, including the collection of appropriate fees.

I believe council's position on this to be that they would reject it as written.

Um, if the city is to assume maintenance responsibilities of the park, uh council feels that the city should also take over permitting rights as the park's operator.

But um important to note that the district we believe should retain rights to program at the park and permission um should not be unreasonably withheld by the city for any district programming at the park.

The park we believe will be a huge regional draw, a beautiful asset for the entire Cocklands County region, and we would love to have um NCPRD programming take part there.

That was a lot.

That's where we are as of today.

So before we kind of I turn to council and ask for a formal direction to respond to the board with those terms, we do want to ask if anyone from our audience wants to provide any public testimony on what they've heard tonight or this topic in general uh we do have one person online who has their hand raised.

Yes.

Um I'm sorry.

We have one person online who has their hand raised, so we will give them three minutes.

All right.

And if you would please um uh give your name and uh your neighborhood, that would be great.

I'll go ahead and uh allow you to speak hello.

Uh can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

All right, this is Dave Cudwalleter.

I am in Island Station in Milwaukee.

And um I've testified a bunch of times um to the NCPRD uh board, and uh one common point of confusion for me is around this um subject of of equity and what's what's equitable.

Um I am hoping that um through this process of of documenting um you know the balances on the SDCs that we can go a step further towards removing some of this ambiguity about how um STCs have been spent and allocated in the past.

One particular point that was raised at the last um NCPRD board meeting that I went to, um, I believe uh Director Savas said that Milwaukee has been heavily subsidized by the rest of NCPRD for quite some time.

And I'm trying to reconcile that with these statements here that I'm seeing that zone one SDCs have been um not really spent in Milwaukee at all, it sounds like um, or or that they've gone heavily towards projects outside of incorporated Milwaukee.

So I'm wondering if there's any black and white documentation we can put out there that says this is how much SDC money has been generated over time, and this is how much has been used for Milwaukee, just so we can kind of put this subject to rest, and hopefully that would increase our ability to have some um something to stand on when we're when we're making this um proposal for the for the IGAs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Kidwallander.

Uh other okay.

Gary, you want to come up?

You didn't fill out a yellow card, but you can fill that out afterward.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm Gary Klein and Lip Milwaukee.

I uh first moved here in 1948.

I've been in and out of Milwaukee for a while because I was in the service then in Northeast Portland move back in 2002.

I've been on the park and rec board, I've been on the park uh task force, and I've been in the park uh in Milwaukee Bay's park program, and I just timed out on that.

But I'm happy and looking forward to something actually going further in phase three on Milwaukee Bay Park.

I'm going 100% for it.

We donated the property at Klein Points, so it would start and it did.

It got phase one done, and I'm looking forward for the rest of it to happen.

Anything I can do to support it, let me know.

Thank you, Gary.

He's getting, for those who can't see, he's getting a round of applause from the small but dedicated crowd we have here.

Okay, I think that's it for public testimony.

I guess I would like to uh address uh Dave Cadwalleter's comment.

Um I think I mean I think having an accounting of SDCs is not a bad idea.

I don't think SDCs are what Director Savas is talking about when he says Milwaukee is being subsidized.

I think he's talking about the maintenance cost of our parks.

I think there has been a narrative, and I've heard it in DAC meetings over the last year or so that um you know Milwaukee is 20% of the district, and the cost of maintaining our parks is more than 20% of the cost of all the parks maintenance.

Uh when we've asked them for an accounting of that, I don't believe they've ever been able to produce an accounting of that.

But I I don't really think when you hear that comment that it's about the SDCs.

That said, like I said, it's not a bad thing to try and uh you know show how SDCs have been spent over the last 10 or 15 years.

Um I guess I'll stop at that.

Thanks, Mayor.

So um really the direction I'm looking for tonight from council is if I got it right, um, is council supportive of staff responding to the NCPRD board with the items that I discussed tonight, and by what deadline would council like um staff to ask for a response um from the board.

So um before we take a vote and we can somebody can make a motion.

I don't know whose side of the table it it's uh motion time for, but um I just wanted to also say that um Mr.

Cadwalleter, Mr.

Klein, Jacob Sherman, I think maybe Jennifer, others in our community have testified to NCPRD in various forums over the last few years and um last couple of years.

And often what they heard was they the parks district couldn't go forward um because there was no provision for stranded assets.

That was a common phrase they used.

Like if if Milwaukee were to leave, there was no provision for stranded assets.

We had an agreement on the pro Emma outlined it here tonight, the whole capitalization, who capitalizes and how we pay back under an amortized under a depreciation schedule.

We had that agreement early summer or midsummer.

Um, but the goalposts have been moving a little bit.

I'm hopeful that um, you know, in addition, in addition to us agreeing to that, which has been a long-standing request.

We've also agreed to take on the maintenance of the Milwaukee Community Center.

That is not an insignificant uh obligation on us.

So I just want for the record to highlight how much we are we have given to get to this point.

And um, I am hopeful that maybe we can actually get to a um get to an agreement before the end of the calendar year.

Um so that's my thought on the deadline, but anyway, um does someone I guess we should have the um the first have these as separate questions.

So is council supportive of the staff uh response as outlined by Emma tonight.

And I don't know if we do we need a motion.

I'm trying to make a motion if you want to do that.

I can move for staff to respond to the NCPRD board with items that we discussed tonight.

Um, and I know we don't dictate the county's calendar, but I know we're trying to get this done by the end of the year.

That would be lovely.

And so to ask for a response back by our December 2nd meeting, I think would help with our timeline there.

Okay, I think that was a second motion.

Okay, a motion and a second to go forward with the items discussed tonight with a uh request for a response by December 2nd, which if we have agreement by December 2nd, we are able to potentially have signed agreements at our last meeting of the year.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Opposed, none heard.

Passes unanimously.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Council.

And we finish with five minutes to spare.

Well, I want to thank the counselors for making time, making an extra meeting night to get this worked out.

And I really want to thank Emma, Justin, uh Joseph, and other staff who have been at this table with us for many months.

And um, you know, there's still, you know, with the going back with these, there's still some fine-tuning and editing to do, but I guess I'm leaving here optimistic tonight.

Okay.

If nothing else, I'll entertain a moment.

I'll second.

It's been moved and seconded to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

None heard.

We are adjourned.