All right, we are on the air, and then it's our November 18th session.

Uh it might look like no quorum because there's only two council members in the room, but actually, counselor um our council president Anderson is on the with us.

So we do have three counselor Steven Jordan will not be joining us today, and Counselor Costramani will come in, I'm sure in a couple of minutes.

So with that, we'll turn it over to Peter Pastorelli and have more.

And mayor, I might just comment before we start.

Um, just two kind of procedural notes.

I'm gonna have to disappear at 4 45.

Joseph will be acting city manager during that.

I just have to run a kid home.

Um, and I'll be back to the regular session, and then we do have a hard stop tonight at 5 30 to get an executive session in.

So um I just let's try to go try to be brief.

Both this one and the agenda item to follow.

Okay.

I am just gonna turn.

Okay.

Um see you all in.

Uh, I'm gonna jump right into the third quarter staff accomplishments.

Um, looking back at the law in September, um, and some things that we've accomplished along the ways.

We've been working with a almost completely new parts and record.

Um, we have four new members who joined us this summer, but three eight of the existing members had a made in there a short time as well.

We've been working really hard with getting a parts and record board caught up.

Um so we have new bylaws adopted.

The first adopted bylaws that we're aware of since 2014.

Um, I know we don't do any likes for beyond bylaws, but some things we might need to make a few little tweaks.

Um, and those tweaks would come in the form of adding on uh alternatives to the DAC.

Um these will probably just be a couple short sentences into that, and then also um we do have one existing permanent committee, uh, which is the D City Committee, and they are in the PAR bylaws, and it seems like if we are going to go down the route, a little bit of foreshadowing, but we do go down the route where we are going to have a permanent naming committee with a PAR representative on there.

We might want to for consistency's sake just acknowledge those of the park bylaws as well.

Um can I tell you just about the DAC alternates?

Um so the DAC didn't get updated allowed for alternates, but I asked at the meeting last week uh what the plan was were the or how they were selecting them and what timeline, and I think uh security don't really have a good answer for that.

I think they are they usually do their recruitment for new members in the summer.

Okay, so I think they're gonna probably be doing that, doing alternates as part of that.

Okay.

So I don't think what I'm saying is I don't think we're in a ration.

Okay.

Yeah, our position descriptions in the bylaws already state that uh vice chair can set in with the one for the chair when they're not available.

We just might want to add in simplify to clarify that that could include the news uh unless council disposed.

Um we have been working very diligently on naming policy in a separate donation policy.

Um there's currently a survey on engagement walking.

When I check this video, the recording responses to that survey.

So good job getting the word out on that, and we will next see that naming policy and a separate memorial donation policy in January 6th.

Um my partner in policy, Gabriella and I will be meeting with the subcommittee in early December to go over the results of the surveys and we may be bringing some uh some tweak policies to you all in January, but we're gonna see what the community feedback is on that.

Um does have uh existing goals.

Uh the existing goals have kind of been repeated multiple times.

Um all the boards and committees as I think you're all aware, do need to do a study session with you all uh as an annual report and report back on the goals.

I think where we're at with PAR right now is there's a feeling amongst the board that the existing goals are probably too many and too robust and lack some specificity.

They might also be missing some of the work that we are doing that maybe they feel like they need to advocate for.

And so all that is to say that part feels like they do need to make some tweaks to their goals.

And in looking at the next three or four months of work, there was some concern that was brought up last month about being able to come to that March study session with revised goals and a list of accomplishments.

So part was wondering if it was perhaps maybe possible to get a little bit more time to work on those goals, recognizing that Earth Day is coming up, and our February meeting has been dedicated to a public design charred with Metro.

So we we've lost a meeting in there as well.

Um I don't know if anybody has any thoughts uh on those.

Well, I don't think council generally dictates when committees come do their check-in.

I mean, we we let you let staff schedule that.

And I think what we're doing, I think we'll work nicely last year was that study session where we gave each board kind of 30 minutes and development.

Oh, right.

So I think that's what our plan is for March.

Um, and so I think that what part will probably update you on is progress on the existing goals rather than brand new goals at that time.

Yeah.

I think there just needs to be some you know some rationalization of those goals and the existing city council goals.

So that those are just more synchronized and we feed each other.

And I think that's doable and and commendable.

Uh but uh I think that the the uh the uh from my perspective for the PAR arm is there, you know, they're they're they're getting in strat, you know, uh but they're anxious to sink their teeth into doing things rather than worry about policy and rules and projects and orders and all that other stuff.

So yeah, we are certainly trying to find some balance of action and policy and provide recommendations for things that might be coming down the line versus policy things that we're gonna accomplish right now tonight.

And so we're trying to find that balance with part, and I think they just kind of find themselves in a position where between the holidays and some of the things that we've got on our mid spring, uh, maybe don't expect to see all brand new goals in March.

They have eight, right?

Or six.

Uh six and a half, six and a half.

There's a lot of sub bullet points in there.

Like we really decided that a while ago that we were gonna stick to similar goals and just found ourselves kind of adding to them.

And I think we have an opportunity now, as you said, to try and find some time over the next couple of months to whittle them down to what is most important and align them better with the C Web Goals.

Okay, uh Nature Neighborhoods Community Choice.

We're gonna spend uh a little bit of time talking about this.

The first slide is, and I just want to make sure that the viewing public and everybody is kind of aware um the basics of the program.

So the community choice program uh was piloted by Metro last year in Washington County.

In Clackmas County, we've seen twice as much participation.

Uh 178 projects were submitted.

Uh 83 went out to the first vote.

Um the first round of voting had over a thousand people, uh, 1,400 people participating.

They had 600 in Washington County.

So the participation and the excitement around this, particularly with our constituents here in Milwaukee, has really been quite impressive.

It's also really quite stretched the timeline that exists right now.

Um I think where we found ourselves right now is in a situation where we have a lot of projects.

Um we're going to, even before we go into the next round of development of these projects, maybe need to whittle those down a little bit, perhaps some real uh honest conversations about how many projects we can get matched for.

And so these are projects that are expected to be 250,000 hours in total budget.

Now they can be part of a larger project, but only expect another 165,000 of new grant mountains.

Yeah, see that I didn't I did not understand that in the materials Metro put out.

I thought it was like expect 250,000.

And yeah, you had to have a match somehow.

Yeah, so $85,000 of match gets you $165,000 in total project month.

And we will talk about some of the other project or programs that they have that are related to this, but this is just the community initiated program.

Um we expect those to be awarded now a little bit later, probably around this time next year.

Uh when we get that draft IGA for Metro, we'll have two years to push that out, which means that we will have some time to uh codify our match, maybe make some tweaks and adjustments in the program.

That might take some time.

We've got two years to do that.

But once we have a signed IGA, we'll have three years to implement it.

Is the city?

The IGA signer for everything in Milwaukee, or could there be private other entities who are the awardee and are signing the IGA?

We would be the awardee.

We would be the awardee with partnerships that we can build with the community and recognizing those those uh matches however they come in.

Um but this would be an IGA from Metro to be a grant that the city does receive.

I think the other the other piece I would just add, so NC Brady can certainly be a sponsor for a project that's within the former district.

So yes, so uh Metro approached the city, Gladstone, James Lodge, uh Oregon City, they approaching the other people uh being jurisdictional partners as well as NCPRB.

Um, and so uh they will receive the grants and the required to meet the execution.

Um there is a separate capital program within nature and neighborhoods, uh it's not community choice.

That is the traditional jurisdictional partner applies for a project they already have on the books.

Those we have found out as of last Friday, those will now be two million dollar grants, and they will have seven million dollars to spend next year.

Um then there's also which we will talk about in a separate slide, some money perhaps for some acquisition to meet the community's goals.

So speaking of acquisition, um Metro found when they were working in Washington County, that people were saying, hey, I want this type of park here, or I want this type of nature space here, or can't there be something over here?

And they realized they had no money in the existing program to acquire property.

And so Metro has set aside uh $15 million that could be available to meet the goals of the community choice uh program.

Uh there were several ideas that were submitted by the community.

Um none of them really existed in a place where we have a park desert.

If you might remember uh a couple of study sessions ago, we looked at where people don't have a harbor green space within walking distance.

We didn't see any suggestions from the community that fit those needs, and we as a staff didn't find anything in those areas and really helped out us as filling that gap.

And so instead, we took what the suggestions from the community were and we decided to prioritize properties around four existing locations.

The idea being that if we expand or expand our holdings within an existing location, then there will be less uh OM that we'll have to deal with.

Kind of the overarching idea is if we can't have a Parker Green Space where we're missing one, let's expand one that we already have.

And so we asked Metro and Metro will be handling all the negotiations to look into private property around Elk Rock Island, the Willow Place Natural Area, uh the very large price farm outside of our city limits, but within side of our Ugma and next to Fernburg, and then Scott Park.

Um the process for Metro will be to see if they have a willing seller.

Metro will only work with a willing seller, so they're having they're approaching those property owners right now.

In the event that they have more willing sellers and a price that is larger than that $15 million pot of money, then Metro will have to uh institute some form of uh competitive, I should say competitive uh process in the future.

Um what that competitive process looks like between the different jurisdictional partners, we're not sure.

Um they won't know that until they know how many willing sellers they have, and then what the uh assessed value of those properties could be.

But those are negotiations that are going on now.

Uh we have another uh project meeting with Metro tomorrow, and I will make sure to ask to see if there's anything worth reporting out there.

So where are we now in community choice?

Um we have gotten through the first round of votings, as I mentioned, there was over 1400 people that participated.

Everyone that participated got 10 votes, and initially Metro was going to allow 30 projects through that first round of voting.

What they found is is that because our constituents are so excited about parks and green spaces that perhaps there wasn't a very good um geographical representation of those, and so they decided to expand the project meets down to 50 with the request that um jurisdictional partners take a real close look at that and recognize that there is a match component to this, and uh with the hopes that maybe we look at some of the projects and team think they're unfeasible um or maybe that they need to be combined into another project prior to this next round of development, which we expect in January and February.

Um why was there a lack of geographical representation?

Well, because 19 out of the 50 projects that made it were from Milwaukee.

The top three were in Milwaukee.

Uh six of the top 10 were in Milwaukee, 90 in Milwaukee.

Um now, out of those 50, Metro only had money to put 15 of that.

We had 19 on the month.

And looking at it with multiple jurisdictional partners, uh multiple areas of the county that are covering those program, it may be needed to start to get and find a way to reveal that process now.

Um shops everything in those four public workshops will be hosted by the different parks and rec boards or committees that exist within the region, so they'll be playing part in February.

Uh they'll be going to the DAT in February.

There's also existing groups in villages that you have to be going to be working with.

So the next steps.

What we have done is I spent uh two and a half hours with Metro on Friday, and they revealed mine on Saturday and then including the list and coming up with a list of recommendations.

We're going to share that list of recommendations tomorrow meeting with PAR and get their feedback on our recommendations.

And then on December 9th, we can even go to Council F study session to give your feedback, and then we will share that with Metro.

As I mentioned, we expect development online starting around January.

And second round of voting will probably be in March or April now.

So I mean, I I totally I think that's great.

I do think I get your point that we need to um to sort of prioritize and narrow um, but we had a lot of projects that were um put forward by people outside who who don't come to these meetings and who aren't on parent who are in the Milwaukee Parks Foundation or whatever.

Um you have you know, the swim dock has its group of people that got behind it.

Uh Minthorne Springs has the wetlands are gonna say how do you how do you if you're like estimating costs or what you know what's feasible in these grant um restrictions, how do you get that input from those people who put them out there?

So they will so just like with the first, there will be this period of development and the expected happen in January.

And so that will happen both online and in person.

People have questions about projects, or whether it didn't make the cut, or whether it gets combined, or whether maybe there was some development that happened uh prior to or after they submitted the idea, because we did see some of that because people in the public were invited to provide feedback on multiple projects.

Um I think that we will be able to gather all that feedback from people in January.

And if they feel as though we given the wrong recommendations to Metro, and I believe that we will have an opportunity to discuss that in January, February.

I I I would also think you know, we do have some projects that align with some of the other bigger projects that we have going on and and some other programs like our good neighbor program.

So there are there's some alignment there and some sense of project budget and and and match the real you know, the visa financial feasibility component.

It's easier on some of those projects to identify as opposed to just some other projects that are out there.

So Google.

Well, I was just gonna say I think it's a really good question, Mayor.

And I I when staff and I and Council Maske has the goal we met yesterday.

There's kind of two things I think what we should do on the staff side.

One is just promote the heck out of you know, December 9, then let people know that like there's there's public process happening by their council, and they should tune in and weigh in if they'd like.

But two is push Metro.

And I think you're kind of getting to this, Adam.

That like if Metro's putting you in a bind to give input, you know, saying, well, hey, but it's still your public process that you're running, and I hope they're communicating to all who have been engaged, sort of how this sausage making happens because it really is their process.

So I think with both of those things, we can be covered and feel good that we have done right by our park stakeholders, but also are putting the onus on Metro to communicate how the funnel will work.

Yeah, and you know, this is something that we'll discuss tomorrow evening and on the ninth.

Um, but when we're looking at this list of 19 projects out of 50, we are looking to how likely it is it for us to have 85,000 available, knowing that we don't have any budget to allocate towards projects.

Um we are looking at projects where we might be likely to get other grants where a partner uh will help us with some fundraising or where we're able to dovetail onto a larger project that we already have a lot of support from.

And I think we're also looking at where do we have existing partners that we can feel like we can go into a working situation and iron out all of those sort of challenges that are likely to have any sort of hard decisions?

Um I think I'll also say that I feel like this process got a lot murkier due to its popular and due to the outreach that was done.

Sure.

Um good problem to have.

Good problem to have, but it is a problem, and I think Metro has extended the time that they uh has extended their timeline to try and clear up some of the confusion or some of the uh competitiveness that has maybe been created here that didn't exist in Washington.

Good neighbor grants.

Uh so speaking of good neighbor grants and potential match sources, uh, our grant agreements are still under development.

Those uh Peter can speak more to those.

Yeah, uh and just add I just had a brief discussion with uh Justin.

Early in this afternoon, uh we're trying to just sort out some of the some of the requirements related to to fund it, what are some of the proposals that we're gonna make sure that our nonprofit partners that are used to being involved in in and receiving grants?

Um they they they definitely have some of the things that uh are general, it'd be generally required in terms of insurance, trying to sort out how do we how do we play with the NDAs that are project project sponsors and whatever those how do we how do we how do we work with them to make sure that they're able to fully participate at the table?

Um there's a couple things that Justin and I briefly talked about today that we'll I think we'll we'll be able to fix that, but just trying to get those those details, those those I's dotted and T's crossed in our requirements for providing the food.

It's taken longer, you know.

I I probably put the program application phase out sooner than I probably should have as it relates to you know having that agreement language uh document and layout.

Well we'll we're getting through it and we'll have a better second round and we're probably gonna be able to get past the previous.

And how many how many grants are there in this first round?

Uh we've got Elk Rock, Elk Rock Valley Restoration, then Port Springs Boardwalk, our uh NCWIP community scorewater engagement and the burnout's backyards.

We had seven civilians, one was withdrawn, and we score were awarded out of uh six uh existing grants.

And that was based on the criteria that was that was put out by them.

Um so uh where we're at now is as Peter Richard, we're trying to give those uh grant agreements underway.

Um we will be reaching out to our partners uh who are wording groups to start uh coordinating them with their scope of work, uh whether additional funding opportunities perhaps through nature and neighborhoods, um, and then we will uh be there to provide some assistance and make sure that we can walk them through the different design permitting processes that we have.

But these will be their grants.

Now the city does also have the opportunity to apply for these grants as well at an amount that is greater than the 50,000 that we have.

Since some of these projects already um are related to the nature of neighborhoods, we thought that once words of grant match for the nature of neighborhoods program might be excluded neighborhood funds.

Now it's important to note that the money that we just awarded, um probably will not count as match, just because it will probably at least be hope will be well on its way to being spit prior to those metro agreements, but those are things that we can do about with Metro and our partners when we get there.

Um I think I hope we can utilize the good neighborhood program as a source of ranch dollars for nature neighborhoods as long as it's with that geographical memory and it meets those requirements.

But I think generally those projects when we've looked at they have for the most part with some few select projects they've met like the the eligibility requirements, not all of them have met geographical requirements.

Yeah, the geographical can be that mistake.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to sort of they lay up a little bit of a I mean I think I don't think it's a big concern, but um, you know, you've got maybe a well serving backyard have that, those are established groups, like established um understanding and you know, management of grants and all of that.

And elf rock is a little bit more of a uh it's a coalition of groups, um, as I understand it, and I'm not fully employees on what they propose, but it's the Parks Foundation, it's the Island Station neighborhood, and it's STAM, as I understand it.

Um I'm not sure who's the fiscal agent and who's got the management of uh any kind of grants or work that comes out of that.

And so I guess just having better clarity.

I mean, I'm sure this isn't occurred to you guys, but it occurred to me.

It is, and that goes to some of the discussions that I had with Justin.

Like you know, the NDA is the fiscal sponsor for that.

There's some different requirements that if if it would be is the Marks Foundation or the or Nicky Wick, right?

So we're trying to try to sort those sort of details out and make sure that everybody sort of can participate, but we have to adjust, make some adjustments in terms of how we provide that funding and what their insurance requirements, how do they how do they meet insurance requirements that we have and access agreements that they did?

Well, and then the other thing we do that branding for our and so we were already probably going to be more involved in that in the jack yard or residential, and we have existing plans that we're looking to revise, and I think that they are hoping to implement at least in part, and then more future versions of that plan.

So I think that that you have identified a situation that we uh run into these sort of small projects all the time, and we will just kind of need to be willing to work with our partners and how take them across the line a little bit if it's necessary.

Um just for transparency, um, speaking of Alp Roc, we did get a request this week to consider a letter of support by I believe the Friends of AlcROC for another project, and I said go to that for review um just to your greater point there.

I think that's a good one about just kind of tracking all the efforts really detailed.

Okay, what do we got planned?

So we're already halfway through the uh fourth quarter, but um our work in financial planning.

So we've completed the we're working on completing this public work in a draft uh I should say R2 now from the Green Space Management Plan, and we hope to have that uh finalized in front of ML MO by the 19th.

We've got a month to go on that hopefully.

Uh we have been working on developing our parts and green space initial budget requests uh as part of the 2728 budget process.

So that is something that is moving forward, and you know, one thing that is a little bit new for you all council is we've we've had in here in the work plan putting together a financial strategy or funding strategy for Milwaukee Bay Park.

Um, but as our log is also a priority project and has great the as these nature and neighborhood uh projects come up as other community initiated projects come up and just as capital replacement is required.

I am starting to see the need to really forecast out these grants and these applications and source of the digital funding so that we don't find ourselves two years from now going, oh, did we plan promise a land and water conservation grant to two different groups as a source of funding or match?

Like let's start to have those conversations now.

The need and priority you have established in your goal as in Milwaukee Bay Park.

We know that Kellogg is kind of a close second and has a different uh set of needs, but there are going to be needs coming up, and there are only so many sources on the week uh that we can get to the grants.

So behoove us to start looking not just at 2026 and 2027, but we're not employed of where we can expect to apply for grants and where we can expect to have need for grant match, so we're not overextending ourselves on over promising.

Well, let me just add one thing here.

You know, the same issues we talked about.

Oh neighbor is it, you know.

Basically, we're looking for you know an entity to be the belly button that we go to.

Okay, you know, uh, there may be three partners in there, but we're gonna deal with one person who's gonna be responsible for this thing, and that's just the way it works.

Otherwise, we're having to manage three different groups and run the project ourselves.

And so I think that there's a sort of a corollary example here in Kellogg, in that I don't think that we're really developing the funding strategy.

We're uh identifying the funding strategy for Kellogg.

Uh, because I think it's fundamentally different in part.

So that's that's an ethnographic, but I think it's important.

For public engagement, uh, so we're continuing our brand agreements with neighbor uh and working with our awards there.

Um, and we're gonna continue to work with those partners to develop those projects.

Um we are in the process of developing a website that wants to external sources for water quality reporting that came out of uh one of the discussions with council on is being led by natural resources and climate manager uh uh and we are continuing to partner with Bar and Council with Metro and these good neighbor programs.

We'll see that uh onward into the future, not just in this quarter.

Sometimes it feels weird breaking things up by quarter because some of these things just span so long because we're repeating ourselves.

Um, let's get to those major projects.

Um next step on Milwaukee Park, of course, council, you all had a special session.

Um you responded to the latest round of negotiations from the Board of County Commissioners, and you asked for response from by December 1st.

Uh city and county staff are still coordinating, um, although we do understand that the Board of County Commissioners is on recess to December 2nd.

I say this not to inform you of what you are already aware of and more well versed than I am, but just to make sure that we we daylight that for the community.

And do we know is this NCPRD staff?

I mean, the whole county shouldn't be on recess till December 7th, just the board, but um is NCPRD following up with Metro about their proposal to loan us um green space money.

We have reached out to Metro, and as as of now, as of today, I've not received a response.

Um when Joseph and I connect with um NCPRD and County Staff on Thursday, that'll be our first question.

Um the proposal came from them.

Um so I'd like to know if they've had any further conversations.

Oh, we'll also continue to try to get an answer ourselves.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh and then just to share um some updates with the community on the Cal O Restoration Project next steps.

Um we might be building on some other staff in the room here if you've got questions, but Caleb Leadership Team is on the agenda right now for December 6th work session.

Um staff have requested a written response to council's letter by that time, and staff have continued to contribute uh 10 plus hours a week in project meetings, design discussions, and technical coordination to support the project.

I think uh was maybe looking for an opportunity for some discussion around that.

Oh, I don't actually think I was.

I just wanted to kind of daylight that we continue to be at the table a lot, and I think that it will be very helpful on December 16th to get the project teams um answers to some of the questions because again it is a significant outlay of staff time and resources, and so I think having clarity from them on some of the priorities you articulated in the letter will really help our staff focus their time on those resources.

I know I heard from project or the project team earlier on that they wanted to see our staff engaging and seeing that I think is really heartening to me.

This is a really important project.

Glad that we're dedicating the staff time to see this kind of provision.

So I'm sure that wasn't changed.

That's not yeah, I don't think that's a new feature.

I'm saying I'm glad that just not a whole transparency.

I've been engaged on like how these properties project affects existing parking space properties, but I'm not on the leadership team.

And just here because we're talking about parks and green space, you want to really talk with Mandy and Joseph on some more of these things.

And preview, where are we going between uh January and March?

So we're going to get on that solicitation for the R and Q slash RP for the comprehensive street management plans.

Uh we're going to the public department work into the budgets.

We're going to host public development workshop in your major neighborhoods.

So it's going to happen on February 19th at RBE.

We're going to develop a funding strategy and grant application for boardcaster for future parts and greens based capital needs.

And we're going to apply for grants in the transfer grants, plans, contracts, and construction spends on their blocky data.

Um I know that there are a lot of questions around the lock.

Those questions are extremely hard to answer.

We'll pop having those contractors under contract.

Those contractors who handle the design implementing phase of things, and those contractors that handle the construction, they are the people that were hired to answer any of the questions that the community and you all have.

So it's really, really hard for us as staff to provide whether it's a funding strategy or a timeline cost estimates until we know that we have those construction specs and those contracts in hand.

That is kind of the origin point of all those discussions.

Yeah, I mean that's really uh more than critical path that was just getting.

Can you quickly clarify?

You mentioned this is the second time we're seeing the grand green space management plan on these slides.

Can you take down a bit on one?

Well, you know, that's a really good question.

We have frame very additional school that looks at how do we the city uh look towards managing its green space, and that that piece of green space includes a couple a couple different things are nested within that.

And that piece of green space includes a couple a couple different things are nested within that.

So it's our perhaps the natural areas that we have that are managed by NCPR NCPurity.

It's perhaps those spaces that are managed by N security.

How do we incorporate urban forest work with that?

How do we utilize the green spaces that we have also for as infrastructure for stormwater management?

So it's it's a broadly case plan.

And it's really going through and looking at all of those those different features and identifying goals and strategies to how do we take care of that space and utilize it as we can to the city and develop those strategies and goals to do that.

So it's a process that I think involves engagement with the community and council on how do we want to manage green spaces in the city.

So it's it's it's uh it's a document that you know.

I think that one of the things that we talked about is from that stadium having it that conversation.

So this would include conversations about the parks, deserts, and other areas in our city that don't exist.

I always identifying what are our goals in terms of that level of service, right?

And there'd be sort of that level of service discussion that we would want to have.

Um I think there's still some discussion that we're having internally of like how comprehensive comprehensiveness of this and the scale of it.

And those are the discussions that we're still trying to work on the scope and scale and have discussions with PAR, and then come back and have a discussion with council before we actually go out and do that solicitation.

So there are a handful of assets owned by maybe not owned by but maintained by NCPRD or certain about our members, talking about Fernburg Park, Water Tower Park is that included in the like management of NCPRD assets included in this?

Perhaps I think that that that's sort of that, and maybe there's that is not perhaps a desire of what that remote service is.

You know, I would say that water tower park is an interesting one because that's actually uh a property where a park is co-located on uh a water facility, right?

So I mean the primary use of that space is for water reservoir and well pumping, you know, and then we've we've been able to utilize that because we have that space there to put up to put up yeah.

I think that there are, and this is not an exhaustive list, but I think there are a few things that we've been talking about over the last year or so about how do we respond to community initiated requests for amenities, and what are the guiding principles, what does the outreach strategy look like?

How do we incorporate that in with NCPurity?

What do we do when NCPRD says, hey, that's not that's a great idea, but further down the priority was for us than it is for my walkie.

I think we had a conversation about public-private funderships and what um sort of business opportunities might exist in our parks and green spaces, and I think what we heard from that conversation is that there's a lot of interest in our parks and green spaces, and we will continue that in conversations with you and with par, but perhaps there needs to be this uh this document that pulls all those conversations together that we are able to put together in a nice depot and present to the community and all of our stakeholders to try and address the gaps that exist.

And so you know, we've noticed, for example, that there is a gap in how do we handle partnerships in the community, right?

How do we handle when the community comes to us for a request for a property that is inside the park industry?

There are several other areas where I think there are gaps, like how do we manage out brock on it?

Um we don't have parks anymore where we have a natural resources team, but the natural resource team that already has uh a set band.

And so I think it's those sort of things where we see gaps in our relationship within security or gaps within our decision making that now is the time to put together that plan.

And we know that you know perhaps my business uh partners or some members of the community um would prefer to be forward on some of their ideas without waiting for a plan.

But if there's one thing that is true in the public sector, the private sector and the nonprofit sector, it's that we didn't write the first way is a lot cheaper and more effective than having to do it again.

And so I think this arcs and green space management plan is an opportunity to address a lot of those outline conditions and set ourselves up with a framework that's much easier for us to make these determinations in the future.

Well, as to the council presidents, um you know what he said he's hearing from people.

I mean, I assume when people have concerns about firmware park and about wiretop park, that's about the condition of the play equipment.

It's not like attractions are being picked up or they're not mowing or whatever.

Um I will say at the DAC meeting, and I'm gonna give some more notes from the DAC meeting and uh council reports later tonight.

But um uh director Sally did say they have taken down the um they used to have a thing on the website where you could request um maintenance, you could report maintenance problems and you can request upgrade and request amenities last December, and they had to be in by December to be worked into the budget, blah blah blah, and then the CIP.

Uh they've taken that down.

And their budget is so dire, and I'll get into a little bit more of that um at council reports, but it's so dire that there's really no hope of new playground equipment unless we you know, unless somebody's raising money for it, um, independent of NCPRD until whatever point they go out for more funding.

Um so I wouldn't count on um them replacing any playground equipment.

Um, the Parks Foundation has a uh campaign to you know raise some money to do that, but it's you know, it's got $15,000 or something.

It's not uh it's not anywhere near what it costs to replace a playground.

Um but yeah, I I would be reticent to encourage people to think they're gonna get playouts replaced in the next few years until we get in their NCP.

Yeah, yeah.

I'll just leave it at that.

Okay, I think we're we probably need to move on a little bit.

Oh, yeah, as we're uh uh speaking about some comment uh some council actions that I did advanced.

Um discussion with the public and private partnerships and water quality testing, uh providing direction on different categories of green space and for future mapping and metric strategies.

So what is the green space?

What is the park and where do we have those gaps in levels of service?

Um you supported park through the member orientation, the bylaw development, the elections and the preparation of new polls.

Um that new board has had their faith in the fire hybrid with all of the things that we have going on in the week that they have really dedicated a tremendous amount of time to getting up at the speed and they're working very hard.

We really do appreciate council's support in doing that.

I think we have a really tremendous board that really cares a lot about what we're doing and we're seeing this step up in a lot of different ways.

Um of course council has continued to advocate for Kellogg and watching part as we discussed like in TCD.

Uh remaining Q4 and uh Q1 uh priorities.

Uh Council Messi, do you want to present?

Yes, so basically, you know, I I had hopes that we may get an NDA roadship score.

Um, you know, I guess I was uh wishable thinking that we would have some sort of uh decisions to go forward on MVP.

Um I will tell you that I think we're just at the point now where there's all kick the candle and reach and daylighting of the information, and we've already started that, you know, we did that during the special session.

And so um, you know, my plan is that we would start the roadshow and just tell people the you know we go and tell them the status of the MPP, wherever it is, you know, whatever the truth is, we put it out there and that kind of thing.

Um because we've done things like special session, or the uh my uh article in the pilot birdie sober will also help daylight that.

But I think it's you know you use all of the communication uh avenues that you have possible.

And so uh my plan is just to go out to the NDA starting in the in the new year and tell them where we are at the time.

And that's that's that's that's the messenger.

Okay.

And I mean, I guess when this arose on our council, you know, actions.

I thought it was a shared thing, but are you intending to do it all?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

I mean I just want to have a continuity of message being the same, you know.

Well, I will tell you I'm going to island stations meeting tomorrow, and I am expecting to get some questions.

I'm not telling you not to.

I'm just telling you I'm gonna go and in the first quarter.

Okay, fair.

Okay.

And I'll continue to try to advance and adopt the MVP IGA.

I think you all know about that.

Uh we were gonna just uh discuss the Metro projects at the works uh session on December 9th.

We wanted to make sure that you know there's kind of been this uh impetus to hurry up, hurry up, hurry up on the metro things.

And uh so I I want to give the par you know an opportunity to weigh in.

That's what we've asked them to join to do.

And so uh, you know, that's why I said let's let's give them the list and get their thoughts uh before we uh go off and and do other things despite what uh what are the pressures there may be because they they want to participate, and if you start going around them and not letting them participate, then they're not gonna be very happy.

Um and we're gonna meet with the uh Calor Restoration team on December 16th, as we talked about previously.

Um we're gonna uh weigh in on the public engagement strategy for the green space management strategy that Peter talked about.

Um and uh that this one is not fully formed yet.

I think Peter's got some ideas about uh advisory committee and stakeholder round tables.

Uh already talking about the the road show we're gonna do that and start that we'll start that in January.

Um we're gonna if we have any clarity, we need to start thinking about an MVP fundraising plan.

But we don't know what the Delta is.

You know, we just don't know what the Delta is.

But we know that there's going to be some kind of Delta, and we have to come to grips with how that would be.

Um, and then you know, there's there's still a lot of opportunity for grants out there that uh Adam referred to.

So I don't think uh you know uh you know we have to think about fundraising for 50% of the project.

Um but it's gonna be some percentage of the thing when you get it.

And you know, part of that fundraising campaign may be that uh we uh may have to come to grips with the idea that uh there may be a phase three and then there may be a phase four, however you want to call it.

But we kind of have the that is one that we will be in charge of fundraising strategy on.

Um but when we're gonna have clarity, even get that started, it's unclear to me.

January, February, that'd be great.

Um not so sure of that.

Okay, just to uh not to put any pressure on those conversations in January or February, but a lot of the grants that are out there, including the two that lapsed on Milwaukee Bay Park, those are spring applications.

So that is a conversation that is going to be very timely in January and February.

I do also think that we were if time allows, maybe looking for a little bit of guidance on the green space management strategy or green space management plan.

Um there are a lot of different ways that we can run these projects uh or this planning process, we can run it to the par.

We can run it through a separate technical advisory committee uh where we can simply take it out into community engagement, whether that's through a series of focus groups or stakeholder round tables or convening our different partners.

Um I think we were looking for just a little bit of guidance uh is happening on that.

Does anybody have a strong feelings on that?

Which of those options are required at least staffing?

Stakeholder round tables.

I think I mean the PARB has the PARM isn't gonna have expertise on all the things that are in there, right?

Stormwater management, there are different stakeholders for some things like stormwater issues and tree code.

Um I do think um, yeah.

So I do think there are things that are kind of beyond ARB's mandate.

Um and so stakeholder round tables makes perfect sense.

I guess I'd still like to see PR B.

Yeah.

I think there's certainly a uh uh pars involved, part definitely needs to be involved.

In in in part of this uh because we did all of this plan.

I do think though there is also the sort of technical advisory piece, so whether it's a state data round table, technically can be similar to get on our action plan.

We had a series of meetings there, uh and we also had stakeholder round tables involved in that, so there's a combination of those.

Uh but there are there are certainly technical people that can provide technical expertise to this development of this uh of this management plan.

I think we've recognized when we've uh when we've interviewed different people from the community for spaces on on boards and committees that they they have those experts, they have expertise.

So you know, the technical advisory kidney perhaps has people from park, people from trade boarding, people have from other uh boards and committees, perhaps, or uh not currently involved in boards.

Uh and you know, does it need to be something that's appointed by council or could it be something that staff just reaches out and has a sort of an internal ad hoc technical advancement committee?

So I think it's great if we have you know expertise, you know, if we have some expertise on par and stormwater, but you know, a lot of these things.

We probably don't, but uh you know it's not unusual for us to have a have a coalition of the willing and they kind of get smart.

We all experience that, right?

You've all had to learn something in these roles and this and planning commission and everything else.

So uh I I we we have a lot of uh uh people eager, and if you you go to one of those pages and you say, is anyone interested in this?

You always give someone who is that's just kind of a community we are, so I'm not too worried about not having someone with it.

A lot of technical background in a particular subject.

So you're saying you would keep the parv as the advisory.

Well, I think that they might be a member of the tech.

You know, there might be a PAR member of the technical advisor.

It's not like they would particularly lead it.

I'm fine with stakeholder engagement, setting those tables to allow to the plan, but I think then reviewing that by par and doing kind of engage outreach, all of that outreach should be a perfect, but for those technical pieces, that's stakeholder engagement.

Sounds fine.

Okay.

I I will say uh just getting back to like staff bandwidth and workload and things like that.

Um so we absolutely love transparency and record keeping one challenge that happens with subcommittees of uh particularly of parts to the level of a public meeting.

Um we start have to have to do these sorts of agenda setting and not seeing or uh the technical advisory committee that we do with or say par that would add to that that staff or that that's where a lot of that work comes from, the work between for stakeholder round tables.

Like yes, they would be a public meeting that the public is invited to, but if we don't have to uh take minutes and post agendas in the same ways that we do for a border commission to be community rules, that is one of those areas where we might be in the same road.

I I appreciate the conversation.

I know we don't have a lot of time, but I I I've heard like I guess Adam didn't have any stakeholder round tables.

But we'll we've got time to sort of still sort through this, but so it's all but it's helpful to get this.

So I know we don't have a whole lot of time.

I don't know if there's another no, we're over time.

I think we're done.

All right, well, thank you guys.

That was very well good.

Thanks, Parks team.

And now we have our assistant free manager.

Let's talk about it.

Watch a tennis match.

You think how I sent you that email like an hour before?

Good evening, Mayor.

Tonight.

We don't have time.

We don't have a lot of time.

So I just want to set a couple things.

We I know we have a hard stop at 5:30.

Don't feel like we have to get everything figured out tonight when it comes to landmaking.

This is an important topic.

It's one that's on the HPS.

It's of interest to a lot of you personally and professionally.

So if you need more time, we will happily continue this future.

Just like that, I wanted to do someone you know well, Mandy Bird, our development project manager.

Just walk through a little bit of uh our approach and what we've talked we've thought about when it comes to landmaking strategy and get some feedback, and this is certainly not the end of the discussion.

Maybe to get us started.

Thank you.

Um just for a little bit of context.

Um land banking is the first item in the list of strategies in our housing production strategy from 2023, and that translated into um part of the 2025 council action plan as well under the affordability goal and housing strategies.

Just a little refresher on that.

Um in the staff report, I talked about kind of as I dove into this, there's kind of two different buckets of um approaches to land banking.

One is more high intensity uh where you're actually doing a formal land bank, and then there's more of a middle ground approach where we've got some other um ideas of policies that we can implement that don't actually require the level of staff capacity and financial resources as a formal land bank does.

So um, I just mean a mission to me.

Um we're done.

Um we don't necessarily have the capacity or the you know long um line of properties that would be um in a pipeline for a land bank.

Um that's kind of contributing to the staff recommendation.

Um there's we can right-size this policy to where it fits with what we're trying to do, it'd still be strategic with land opportunities that come up.

Um of these um we were asked to elaborate a bit on, which is the right of refusal.

Um this one is it's kind of like it gives the city a heads up before a property that's going to be up for sale goes to market, goes to the open market.

And there are some jurisdictions that I've looked into.

Um Portland has done this on kind of a case-by-case basis for targeted properties that they are looking at for transit or you know, whatever their priorities are.

This was kind of like the idea for putting this in for Milwaukee if we can target important properties, and if you think about how the state protects mobile home parks, it's kind of the same idea where the law requires if the mobile home park owner is gonna phone, they first have to notify the tenants of the mobile home park to give them an opportunity to um organize an offer to maybe purchase it for themselves.

And um so I'm not necessarily thinking that Milwaukee would do like a blanket uh policy across the whole city, but we could look at certain areas of the city or target certain properties that are interesting and include those specific parcels in a policy that would ask the landowner to notify us, and then if that did happen, that's when we call on our nonprofit partners and give them bring them into the loop and see if any one of them would be able to do the purchase.

So it's the seller has to be willing.

This isn't a policy that this isn't like an ordinance that makes them give us this right of first refusal.

They'd have to be willing to do that.

Am I correct in that?

I think it's an ordinance.

I think it's an ordinance.

It is an order.

It'd be an ordinance.

It's an ordinance, and we would carve out parts of the city and say anybody who's selling property in this chunks has to give the city first refusal.

It's just a defined term period of time.

And if we don't find a deal by then, it just goes to open market.

But it's just like it's a little heads, it gives us a little head start before it goes to open market.

If this is like maybe one of those naturally occurring um circumstances.

What is the typical length of time you need to do right of birth refusal correctly?

To create the policy or to the timeline I'm talking about.

The city could not easibly react within one day.

Right.

What is the amount of time that you have to do that?

That would be something we need to look at to this is this is more sorry, counselor.

This is more or less like is this of interest because we can explore it even more.

Sure, yeah.

Keep going.

So I I think all of Will say is that you know although um you know the owner of the land, you know, you know, still has ownership of the land.

Uh but I can see I mean, I guess my question is I'd be surprised if there hasn't been pushback these laws because if you add in even some nominal amount of time, like 60 days, 98 wherever it turns out to be, property owners will end mostly developers, they're gonna oh bad, right?

You know, I don't want my property setting idle while you know the folks in city hall dinner, you know, have a negative.

So has there been legal challenges?

Yeah, that's a good question.

I don't I'm not sure.

I'd be surprised.

Yeah, we'll have to look more into that.

Um I can find out who at Portland Um did work on the deal that used something like this, find out what the terms for that.

Is there like an interest in general or even I interested?

I just I just highlight that as I assume that as a big that could be big hassle.

I think I'd be interested to see it.

I I think like you were saying, how important does it bury perfectly?

There are some perfect examples, like a lot by law basis, not a neighborhood by the Central.

I will say it does not make sense to me to do this right of first refusal if we don't have some type of fund to realistically purchase something, but like we don't need to add an artificial time about actually.

I'll say that it's an interesting policy.

I'm curious about it.

It does irk me a little bit because it's like you know, government saying, hey, you're gonna buy this property, but we're the first people you have to sell like attempt to sell it to or give us the first option that's a little I don't know how much I like that, but um I mean I I'm curious to know a little bit more about it and see if there's a softer approach as to just like hey, you got 90 days, and then a lot could be lost in 90 days for the homeowner.

I can make a baby call and do it.

Yeah, you know, I not not good intentions, right?

I guess before you go on.

Bad decisions, yeah.

I mean, I get that it feels a little big brotherish.

Um but um, and I guess um, but I think about like the property on our property on Monroe that got approved two plus years ago for cottage clusters that never got built, right?

I mean, it sounded like from what I've heard you say over the years, they have tried to market that already to land banks or land trusts.

Um so I don't know if the city brings it like having this ability with a property like that, where we could bring more people to the table than they've already tried to bring to the table.

I mean, if you think that there's that having 60 days or 90 days with the city allows us to bring in players that wouldn't know about it and that might jump on that, then I'd be all for it.

But if you think that those connections are already being made, I mean we heard it with Dr.

Belluri, right?

He's talking to um affordable housing developers and land trusts as well.

So um, I guess do we do we have the way to bring more people to the table that are already coming to the table in those scenarios?

I think totally I I think yes and no, it's both because sometimes the property owner is also a developer who just knows and knows knows the developing um ecosystem.

But quite frankly, there's a lot of property owners that don't do that.

So that's when we could provide some value there.

But yeah, it's not true all depends on who they're who the owner is and who they're working with already.

And is that one is I mean, well, I don't want to get into details of that one, but um, I guess I'm interested in exploring this more for those kind of scenarios.

Um so just big picture-wise um in our HPS timeline um and as well as in the portability role we had this for getting some direction from you all tonight or if I had figure and then um starting implementation 2026 and beyond.

And we've got some um where we kind of started our question and answer, but we have some guided prompts here for um assisting with the discussion.

Um yeah, I think it would be helpful too just to go back to the sentence and using talk through these and going through each one.

So there's any kind of already talk about talked about there's there's land making strategies or landmaking programs that are very intensive, and those usually have big fund associated with it.

You can actually go out and be aggressive and buy property.

Of course they would try to right-size it with our approach because we're uh super rich uh resource-intensive city.

So um we threw out some ideas about creating a framework, so think about what types of farming would be doing.

I mean, it's an HPS, so it kind of that means affordable housing in my side.

But I think there could also be more stuff to consider.

So where should we be looking?

Or where do you where do you think the the scale and the scope should be when it comes to bank making?

Should it be all about housing?

Should all be talking about anything else, or it's just about affordable housing in housing.

Um is there any technology development?

There's parks, there's things that you could be associated, but when it comes to HPS, it's always the housing for us.

So just think about that as far as the policy framework.

I do love council president, you're already talking thinking about funding because that's also another concept that we would like to ask.

Like if we are gonna do something that has any any kind of meaningful programmatic element to it, it needs to be funded of some sort.

In the past, we've kind of put 75k.

This is when housing was a goal of the council, so things have changed.

We had 75k a year to make that ones we're partially used to or just the acquisition or the auxiliary site as part of scenario.

So there was like a little bit of that landmaking strategy already happening at that time, but we haven't done that again.

I don't even know what's feasible when it comes to that.

We have a few pots of money, obviously in CET.

Um, that's something to think about.

And also uh this man talked about for build-out city, lots of parcel, like really small parcels if there are help areas of the city or parcels that we want to be specific to, those are things we should start thinking about as well.

And then obviously the partners that we want to bring to the table to help um bring more resources to pursue these things that we're done with Metro, but I've got a lot of us doing with RFP and Sparrows.

We're dealing with um an RFP and co-host, these are sites that we've had that we have to be proper purchase.

So I'll stop there and then again for 10 minutes, but um trying to get something out of here for the are there in fact community land trusts the deal in park land, commercial land umservation easements, and there are like organizations that pursue species that's preserved landscape.

I'm familiar with those, you know, they're you know the uh are those are those really community land trust obviously, but as I understand it, and uh trust expert.

Uh there's similar because there's a big ones, yes.

Yeah.

I mean, I guess you know, we just had the talk about parks, and we know uh and we've identified some things that you know Metro may or may not be able to acquire, but I mean we do have these gaps where we don't have people in 10 minute walks of parks.

You know, if an I guess if an opportunity arose, I'd love to see this also be available for that.

Um I will say, I mean, the city had I don't know what the funds would be.

I guess that's the question.

Can we, you know, where can we use CET funds, where can we use URA funds, you know, how can we I mean I think the city has been pretty successful in buying uh just over the years and not really that much since I've been on council, most of it happened before, but um, you know, they bought the Coho site, they actually I think they bought it by using some utility money and then they had to pay it back, so utility fund money, and then they had to pay it back or something like that.

Um they bought you know uh different parks, you know, the bow of the land that's now bow for the land that's now um Bowman Bray.

Um so I mean I like being able to be nimble and buy things when opportunity presents itself, and so having having an identified fund would be awesome, yeah.

But we also know we want to do other things with our CET and URA funds.

So it's a tough one, yeah.

Yes, these are all great ideas, right?

Yeah, it's well in a lot of the strategy document could be just like some of those examples that you're talking about, it could just lay out what criteria are you looking for, and what like so that we have some sort of uh roadmap of when things come up that meet this, this, this.

We this is we do this, this, and that um type of thing.

That's kind of the more middle ground approach that we'll talk about.

Where we're not like out walking outdoors saying, hey, we're looking for property cities, city of the water than property strategy, it's different than that.

So I would recommend like a more like strategic approach in terms of stuff that we already know.

Like I I I'm open to the the parks and stuff too.

I think that's great, but I also think that because we can't do all at once, we gotta prioritize.

So what do we want to focus on?

Housing, park space, commercial space.

We have all three that we can work with.

But I think we need to be a little bit more targeted.

And and what I mean by that is we kind of already have a little bit of a foundation laid out in a strategy with the scattered sites and with the bill that was recently passed at the legislature.

So we can take a targeted approach for our land banking strategy for now, instead of trying to do something long term because we're so small.

Um, we already have those lots within our city limits.

We know those lots are gonna go up for sale.

We know that they're gonna be sold probably cheaper than market value because they're owned by the county.

And when in my talks with the county, they were gonna sell them pretty like cheaper.

And how we do this is find the find the partnerships with those short stacks with those proud grounds with those nonprofits.

And the same way that we would take our CET funds and gave Proud Ground short stack 300,000.

That's probably how much we could probably buy a lot or two for of those scattered sites because they're probably all teardowns anyways, right?

So if you're gonna end up giving that money to the same nonprofit after the fact that they buy it, is there a way that we can give that money to help them buy it and transfer the deed over to them into a land trust, and then we're out of so we're not responsible.

So because I know some some people might have reservations about us being quote unquote landlords.

Um then it's the same way as if we would have granted him the money to the CET funds, anyways, it's just to acquire property instead of just instead of acquiring material, for example, to fund the build.

Um, and again, be more strategic, focus on those scattered sites and see what we can get from there because we already know that's available, and there's keep our ears and eyes open.

So, do we know?

I mean, the so they didn't get the bill they were trying to get last session to fund land banking.

This development.

They pass a land banking bill.

They passed one that set it aside.

Nope.

I thought they I thought that got through.

No.

No, they did not make it through at the end of the budget.

So I think I do know we're gonna be able to do that.

I'm in security.

I think um the county and the housing authority is selling some, and it's more understanding that they're holding those ones they identified for land banking, they're trying to hold on, and they're still you know, but they're still selling living in them.

They have been selling some.

But those were that bill was about turning them over to a land bank so that they remain um you know affordable for people to own.

And I will say, having driven around all of them and done a little from the street assessment, I don't think very many of them are scrape offs.

I think a lot of them are pretty solid houses.

I mean, people have been living to paint them.

But nobody's gonna buy it and like let it sit, right?

If somebody's gonna move out of that house and that becomes available, it's the same thing as anything else.

You're probably gonna tear it down and build more properties on it.

Well, we did with the land gross thing is to try and help the people who live in them stay in.

Right.

But what I'm saying is somebody moves out, it doesn't, if you sell if we buy it as opposed to because not all of them are going to be that land trust.

There's only a few of them that they're gonna do that with.

Yeah, 16, 18, 18.

Yeah.

I mean, that's still something.

You know, if there's a way to get acquire one or two of those, I mean, I think it's a more targeted approach than trying to come up with a long-term strategy that you know, I'm I'm all good for looking into this, but I do think that we can still operate in the arena that we currently have.

We just might not be able to do it in the way that we might have hoped.

But we have an opportunity nonetheless, and maybe a more targeted approach uh is the way to go.

If the I would say like if if the policy framework isn't the vision of pursuing modifying our goal is to create what we need or something under that sweet spot, and we want to create as many as possible.

Then that that kind of gives you setting the priority and fee partnership because we can't we might be able to purchase a small piece of property, but we won't be able to do what we envision is for the land bank strategy unless we have that partnership piece.

So this is just helpful because I think we're you're getting it all out there so we can start trying to formal a natural vision and strategy.

I agree with what Council Goster Body is saying.

I think it needs to be targeted, and I think that can come out in the policy of their certain you gave a framework in the right of first refusal.

I think narrowing the type of properties that we're looking at to acquire helps reduce that time and makes us more agile by limiting ourselves.

I think that I'm all for doing land banking for the economic development of parks.

I think the challenge there is I don't think we should make funds.

Like I don't think it's appropriate to have CET funds dedicated to housing being spent on parks necessarily, but I do think that it's just worthwhile to I don't know if that's legal.

Yes, it's great.

Um I think the one I guess the question that I have is you say in the staff report a case-by-case land acquisition fund up there, you have a capital acquisition fund, but that's not on the more resource-intensive.

Can you maybe seeing as we only have one minute?

What I would say is I think that some type of fund component is going to be important, and whether that's I see a few options.

One is like dedicating CET funds to this program, and is this what we want to dedicate CEP funds for?

I think this is a tends to be a good use of CET funds because it's a one-time expense as opposed to ongoing.

Um, I think that in our current URA district, we mentioned land banking as one of the oh-hauble resources.

I think reorienting as we think about our next five-year plan, land banking is one of the strategies in the URA district is a worthwhile exercise.

I think it's important to not just like economic development can be co-located with affordable housing.

We're talking about that at the Harrison main site, and what does that look like going forward?

The other thing, I guess the other component with your is I think long-term thinking about is there another URA district that we fund for land banking in other parts of the city, is that something that we explore as we blush this out more, maybe that's a conversation.

I think the other component as we think about how do we fund this.

Um I looked at different programs across the United States that provide density bonuses that then will fund different types of affordable housing programs.

And there's one in Austin that has produced a lot of PLOC money where they have the option of building, they can get a FAR bonus or a height bonus in just their downtown area, and they have to dedicate 10% of those housing units to be a certain percent like affordable.

Um they can either do that and build the units and maintain themselves, or they can pay fee lock if they've netted a ton of money uh through that fee lock.

And so is there some type of option that we can provide that incentivizes not just building affordable housing, but also could generate funds that can go into a land banking fund.

Um but I think that that fund component, frankly, I think this is a futile exercise unless we think seriously about how we fund it.

Um I would rather not see stuff waste their time with land banking if we're not spending capital to make it actually happen.

I I appreciate that.

Thanks.

Um I think what we can do is do a little bit more of a dig to see what programs are out there that help generate those funds.

And we can give you some realistic ideas of what can be funded, what it can do to really what um probably more global work is uh give me a better scope so that we can make that and that's if the rest of the you folks also agree.

Like I think there's there's a case to be made there is that if you can't buy something, then creating a strategy to buy is a bit weird.

Yes, can I do a quick uh rollback to the original um writer first people?

Um I heard what you said about yes and no about your ability to do that.

I just kind of come back and I just said you know that marketing real estate is just not a core competency of City Hall.

And I I you know I I love your yeah, we can do some of that.

I mean I think everything is more difficult if you if you haven't if you haven't done it before, you know.

So I just that's a cautionary title, but it's just not in our core competency to do those code.

So obviously, yeah, yeah, I appreciate that.

Yeah, it's true.

I guess I'd like to know.

I mean, yeah, if the one example you know of is Portland, I'm not sure how you know replicable that is for us, but I'd like to know if there are smaller cities that have done this.

Um first remote useful.

Okay.

Um we have and that's 533.

Uh thank you for just letting you know it's a short kind of quick conversation.

Happy to bring back this conversation to the council at work session.

Um I think probably with what I'm hearing it makes sense is to start thinking more about maybe some funding mechanisms, even if it is just a lot of spend.

Would you say that's true?

Just millions of dollars, I see.

Yeah, something models would be helpful.

I think we can also look into more of uh the uh force round refusal.

Kind of scope it even further.

Yeah, how did we get Sparrow?

We first stuff from TriMet and great.

How do we find out?

How do we find out they were selling it?

Because they used it as a staging area to build the orange line.

And then after they wouldn't, it had been an O dot lot originally, and then ODOT sold it to TriMet, and she's a staging area for building the orange line and the trolley trail, and then so we knew it was gonna be like we approached that very game, but yeah, good things are also cheap.

Emma gave a gave us firm instructions down 5 30.

Yeah, um that's thank you guys.

Oh, I have to read this.

We are adjourned after the work session, council will meet in executive session pursuant to ORS 192.6602i to review and evaluate the employment related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee, or staff member who doesn't request an open hearing.

With that, we are adjourned.

Great.

Yeah, it's a like a five day.