Oh, yeah.

Four hundred and thirty-eighth meeting of the Milwaukee City Council to order.

We had a uh we had an earlier meeting that ran over, and then we had a treat or plant.

Um so this meeting is being held in person at City Hall and by video conference.

The public may participate in this meeting by coming to City Hall or joining the Zoom webinar.

The meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube channel and Comcast Cable Channel Thirty within City Limits.

There will be opportunities for the public to speak during this meeting.

If you would like to address counsel, you may come to City Hall or participate via Zoom.

If you are interested in speaking, please let staff know by filling out a yellow comment card for those at City Hall, and we have some, but there's more over there if people need them.

Uh or emailing OCR at MilwaukeeOregon.gov for those on Zoom.

When it is time to take public comments, staff will monitor the comment cards, email inbox, and Zoom participant list and chat.

We will take comments in the order they are received and seen.

Comments may be emailed to OCR at Milwaukee, Oregon.gov.

We ask that all Zoom participants who intend to speak label their Zoom user name to show their first and last names for the record.

Spanish translation services are available upon request.

The public is asked to request translation and other meeting accessibility services at least 48 hours before the meeting.

For more information, contact the city recorder at 503 786 7502.

Servicios de Tradución and Espanol esta disponible cuando se solicitado.

Se pide al público que solicite servicios de traducción y otros servicios de accesibilidad por lo menos 40 y 8 horas antes de la reunión.

Para obtenir Massa Información, llama a El Secretario de la Ciudad a Cinco Ceres, 786, 75 Cerrotos.

Translation services are also available in other languages.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The City of Milwaukee respectfully acknowledges that our community is located on the ancestral homeland of the Clackamas people.

In 1855, the surviving members of the Clackamas signed the Willamette Valley Treaty, also known as the Kalapuya, etc.

Treaty with the federal government in good faith.

We offer our respect and gratitude to the indigenous people of this land.

And then we have our announcements.

Please bring along a utility bill for proof of residency.

And the birds.

Yes.

Yes.

Celebrate winter traditions from cultures around the world at the winter celebrations event this Saturday, December 6th, from 9 30 a.m.

to 12 30 p.m.

at the Concord Community Center.

I do believe that's a ticketed event, so go online and uh and get a ticket.

I mean, they're very inexpensive, but I do believe it's a ticketed and timed event because of space constraints at the Concord Community Center.

Um the annual umbrella parade and tree lining takes place this Saturday, December 6th.

The parade begins at the South Main Street Plaza at 4 30 p.m.

Travels down Main Street to Historic City Hall, where the tree will be lit around 515 p.m.

Everyone is welcome to participate in the parade and no pre-registration is required.

For anyone who is planning to participate in the umbrella decorating contest, and I believe this probably applies for the bike decorating contest as well.

Please be at the South Main Street Plaza by 415 p.m.

Categories for the parade once again include most creative, most festive, and most Milwaukee.

Hot drinks and sweet treats are available for free at histor at the historic city hall after the parade.

The parade begins at 6 p.m.

and will travel through the east side of Milwaukee.

Please keep in mind that Clackham's Fire will not be collecting toys or food during the parade.

Instead, they will be holding centralized drop-off events to collect food and toys.

The donation event for Milwaukee will be held on Sunday, December 14th from noon to 5 p.m.

in the parking lot where the farmers market is held at Harrison and Main Street.

Volunteer or just come by to celebrate Milwaukee's urban forests at the 2025 Arbor Day event on Saturday, December 13th from 8 45 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

at Water Tower Park.

Volunteers will help to plant 50 trees throughout the city.

If you are interested in volunteering, you can register to do so at friends of trees.org.

Help the city's beloved mascot Millie find a new bestie for 2026.

Nominate your pet today on Engage Milwaukee.

Nominations will be received until January 2nd, but don't wait to nominate your pet because the winner will be chosen by the total number of the likes on Engage Milwaukee.

Do we know who's leading the uh competition?

The comp I'm sorry, the Milwaukee uh Millie's best friend competition.

Is there a clear leader?

I do not know right now, but I will look that up.

Okay.

Well, it's okay.

Lastly, nominations for the 2025 volunteer of the year are now being accepted.

Nominees can be anyone who resides in Milwaukee or is a member of a nonprofit organization or business that serves the Milwaukee community.

If you know someone who has gone above and beyond in 2025, please nominate them for the award by February 11th.

For more information about each of these events and others, please visit the city's homepage at MilwaukeeOregon.gov or call 503786-7555.

And then we have our uh regular haiku submitted by a resident who I guess didn't give his last name.

Um just beyond the berg, lower volume, lower rush, higher nature, higher calm.

And I appreciate the the staff putting that haiku that was submitted by a member of the community uh on top of a lovely picture of Milwaukee Bay.

That's that's great.

Um before we move on to the rest of the agenda, I wanted to take a moment to recognize um a member of our community who passed recently, a guy named Lee Garnett.

Uh I like to tell people, I uh I like to tell people Lee was the Lorax.

Lee was Milwaukee's Lorax.

Um, you know, the people on council now, the people on planning commission now may not know him, but if you were on planning commission in 2016 or council on in 2016 to 2017, you knew who the Lee Garnett was because he was a very vocal, he had he had a lot of concerns about a project uh known as Mission Park, which was the development of a bunch of houses on a new 51st Avenue off of King Road and a bunch of houses that brought down some very big mature trees.

Um in October, staff told me Lee hadn't been showing up for uh tree board meetings, and um and I knew uh that wasn't like him.

He was very diligent guy.

Um we learned just before Thanksgiving that he had passed after a battle with cancer.

Um Lee was a retired journalist.

He was OPB's environmental reporter for seven years in the 1990s and early 2000s, and he later worked for the office of the state treasurer for a period of time.

He was a resident of the Hector Gamble neighborhood.

Uh I want to quote from uh an email he sent to council back in November 2016 about the property that became the mission park subdivision because we are talking about trees tonight.

It was Arbor Day, we celebrated Arbor Day by planting a tree, and we're going to be talking about tree code later, so it's fitting that we're doing this tonight.

There are more than 100 trees on the property that will be clear-cut.

Several of the trees are furs approaching or exceeding 100 feet tall.

The developer hired an arborist, but his report was not released, and he did not survey for endangered bird nests.

I have seen a bald eagle before in those tree tops.

Months, much of the two plus hours of testimony before the planning commission was related to the fact that Milwaukee does not have a tree ordinance governing private property.

It was clear that if he did, this development would look a lot different and certainly would be smaller to save the trees.

We need a tree ordinance, and this project is a glaring example of why.

From a Google Google Earth view, this plot appears to be the largest growth of trees left in the city limits.

Ten years from now, and certainly in 20 years, this project would never be allowed and would be viewed as a huge environmental dismistake.

So my sort of matter of fact reading of that does not really do justice to the passion and the emotion that Lee brought to these discussions.

Um Lee is really a big factor of why we do have a tree board and why we do have a tree code today.

I mean, he wasn't the only one.

There were some conversations about it before, but that um development and the response to that development by Lee and a few others uh is why we uh prioritized uh protecting trees in Milwaukee.

Um I'm not sure that we've done everything he might have hoped, but we're discussing later today how we might um tighten that up.

So I just wanted to in retrospect thank Lee for his service to our community.

All right.

With that uh community comments.

We did have a Arbor Day proclamation, but we read that at the tree planting, so I will spare you guys that at this point.

Um this is the part of the agenda during which council will hear community comments on city business that is not otherwise on the agenda.

Before we begin, is there follow-up from the November 18th community comments, Ms.

Sanger?

Thank you, Mayor.

We received no new correspondence um since that meeting, and there were no comments provided at the November 18th meeting.

Yeah, number 18th.

Okay, thank you.

For those in person who wish to speak, please submit a yellow comment card found on the table on the side of the chambers.

If you are on Zoom, use the raise hand reaction to alert staff that you wish to speak, and when instructed to click the microphone button to unmute yourself.

If you are telephoning in through Zoom and would like to make a comment, dial star nine to raise your hand.

You may also submit a comment card, a comment via email to OCR at Milwaukee Oregon.gov.

Before you make your comments, please state your name and city of residence for the record.

If you would like the city to follow up with you, please submit your contact information to OCR at Milwaukee Oregon.gov.

As council has other business items on the agenda this evening, speakers will be limited to three minutes each.

Because information provided during community comments may be new.

This is not the time for discussion.

The city manager will respond at the next meeting to comments that require follow-up.

And I have uh one person who's here to talk about trees, but everybody else is for this uh this part of community comments.

So I'm gonna call and there's a timer here.

It uh the council president will manage the time.

When the yellow light goes off, you have 30 seconds left, and when the red light goes off, you've hit your three-minute mark.

Um, okay, Briona Diamond.

And please uh hit the button when you sit down, hit the button so that the red light becomes on like this, because that makes sure your your voice gets picked up.

Hi, my name's Brianna Diamond.

I was born and raised here in Milwaukee, Oregon.

Um I was wanting to bring up a limmoid affordable housing.

Um it's very important to me because I made too much for low-income housing, and I don't make enough for a loan for a house.

With this being said, for almost getting evicted multiple times this year at my apartment.

I've been trying to work hard on trying to make ends meet.

Um, but unfortunately, in this day and age, as a 26-year-old female, it's really hard to keep up with everything.

As a young, um, this would also teach me and other people, young for myself to have a place to live and support our families.

Um live instead, uh being able for not being able to live paycheck to paycheck and help us get on our feet.

I really hope that we get this funding faster than and what it is currently.

Um if not, then myself or others could become homeless, lose our jobs because of our housing, and just can't keep clean and just overall mental health and health issues concerns that will come up.

Lisa, I would really appreciate this.

Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Uh Bruce Bruns.

Bruins bruns.

Okay.

Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the Oregon median income revolving loan program and its possible use by the city of Milwaukee.

My name is Bruce Bruns.

I'm the pastor of Milwaukee Covenant Church on Linwood Avenue.

We're the sellers of the piece of property that initially brought the MIRL program to the council's attention.

This is not about needing to sell the property.

We had several full price offers, but we chose to work with Austin and Adams Holding because we see the need for affordable housing in Milwaukee and share Austin and Andy's vision for the Linwood property.

I attended last month's meeting and was discouraged by what seemed to be an unnecessary overcomplication of the program.

Much of the discussion was based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information without taking advantage of Austin and Andy, the two people with the most relevant information in the room.

I'm a pastor, I'm not a businessman, I'm not a realtor.

But with minimal effort, it became clear to me the city of Milwaukee is not responsible to verify who would be eligible for the program.

Those are based on deed restrictions and covenants and are the responsibility of realtors and title companies.

Again, with minimum minimal effort, it became clear that the city has nothing to do with individual mortgages or individual homes.

That's the job of private banks and mortgage lenders.

The city would be uh responsible for the original loan taken out by the development company, which in this case is simply the cost of purchasing the land.

Worst case scenario is if the project fell through, the developers went bankrupt.

The city would own a valuable and unique piece of property that, if sold, would easily recoup the loan.

When we looked into selling the property, two separate realtors recommended that we ask for $900,000 and had sold from us to my staff.

I understand that local municipalities have little influence over things like the real estate market and the cost of housing.

Um, but there are young people you've heard from one and uh you'll hear from others from my congregation who grew up in Milwaukee, who like it here, who want to live here, but the cost of housing makes it impossible for them.

It may seem like a small project, but you do have the power to help make a huge difference for 44 families, and that is no small thing.

I'm not a resident of Milwaukee.

I work here.

The majority of my congregation are longtime residents.

I live in Clackmas.

I'd like to live here, I'd like to be closer to my church.

Uh but when in 2022, when my family moved here, at two professional income household, we were unable to find a house in Milwaukee that was not simply irresponsible for us to buy.

I would like to ask the council why.

When all that is being asked is that you pass an ordinance that does not borrow any money, but simply says that you want to be part of the program and have access to the money.

Why when you can vet individual projects as they come up and decide whether or not to support them?

Why when it's clear that the money from the program will be spoken for early next year, and once it is claimed, it will be a decade or more before it is available again.

And why when I believe in each of your official biographies, there is some version of the phrase, I want to address the significant affordable housing crisis in our community.

Why the council's chosen to waste at least to wait at least four months to even look into taking advantage of the program uh when by that time the funding will most probably be gone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tyler King Good evening, Mayor Beatty and Counselors.

My name is Tyler King.

I'm a local realtor and an active member of the Milwaukee community.

I care deeply about this place, and a good portion of my business is centered right here.

I get a front row seat to what's happening in your housing market, and every week I work with families who want to live here, but can't find anything they can realistically afford.

That's why I'm here to support adopting the originating ordinance for the moderate income revolving loan program.

I want to tie this directly to the goals you adopted for 25 2025 and 2027.

One of your three core goals is affordability with a commitment to support more affordable housing development in Milwaukee.

Brawl is exactly that.

And the state is offering a tool designed to reduce development costs and make attainable home ownership possible.

Passing this ordinance is one of the most straightforward, low-risk actions you can take to advance your own goal.

It's also important to be clear what this originating ordinary does.

It does not commit Milwaukee to spending local dollars, it does not lock the city into a specific project.

It simply keeps us at the table with an OHCS, so we don't miss out on 44 affordable for sale homes in the near term and more down the road.

If we don't act, those units will go to a city that is actually willing and ready, ready.

And these homes are badly needed.

And this zip code, the median home price in October was 517,000.

Turnkey sub-400,000 single-family homes simply don't exist here right now.

And Merle is how these kinds of homes actually get built.

I also want to put a face on this.

About four years ago, I sold a modest condo in East County, Portland to a guy named Sean.

At this time, he and his wife had one new bro, new boil.

Today they have two kids and a third on the way on the way.

He's very busy.

He's worked in downtown Milwaukee for seven years.

His community is here.

He recreates here.

He spends his money here.

He would love to raise his family in this city, but he can't afford to buy here.

Homes in the 365 to 385,000 range are exactly the kind of homes he could afford, and Milwaukee simply isn't producing them.

Construction financing is extremely challenging right now.

Um high costs, high interest rates, and cautious lenders.

Mural help support projects pencil at price points.

Families can afford.

It lowers financing costs, increases lender confidence, and supports exactly the kind of units your affordability goal calls for.

Milwaukee can't call affordability a top priority and then pass on one of the most practical practical tools available.

This is a low risk, high impact step that leverages state dollars into real home ownership opportunities.

I urge you to adopt the original ordinance and keep Milwaukee in line for these 44 affordable homes and more in the future.

Thank you for time and thank you for taking housing seriously.

Thank you.

Hi Gary Weinheld Bazuk.

I am a Portland resident, but I am a realtor and I've been involved in affordable housing for almost a decade now, all over the state, putting projects together.

Strong advocate.

I echo everything that they've all said.

The one thing that I think most people fail to grasp is the timelines that it takes to get projects done.

If you write the ordinance, I'm assuming it's going to take you at least a month to do that.

There's a that maybe if that takes a couple of months, then OHCS gets to look at the ordinance.

That's going to take a couple more months.

Then you get to apply for building permits.

That's six to eight months.

Then you have construction, nine months, you're two years out.

If you take another three months to pass this, that's three months wasted.

So that's all I really have to say.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Austin Turner.

Hi, good evening.

I'm Austin Turner.

Can anybody hear me?

I'm not going to be the, I'm not going to have the idea.

Maybe pull the microphone a little bit closer.

It's not.

Maybe I'll miss a little closer.

Thank you, everybody.

Uh again.

So again, I'm I'm Austin, and I'm a developer from Portland, and I focus on affordable housing.

And I'm certainly working with uh the church and other folks uh in the state on trying to figure out how to bring more affordable options to communities that uh are desperately in need of an opportunity to get out of either a rent cycle or uh raise family or live next to uh loved ones that um that that they could be relying on for help and support, things like that, things like I got to grow up with, maybe you all got to grow up with too.

Um I wanted to digress a little bit and ask a question as to uh city staffing and city staffing processes.

And specifically um the question would be for any kind of program, any kind of state grant, any kind of federal grant um involving more oversight or any kind of oversight on the city side, um, whether it's transportation um type of analysis, things like that.

Um, how long does it typically take a city uh management to ascertain, analyze, and come up with uh a reasoning or our position responsibility kind of list and and what that capacity is for either one or more people when they're needing a new program.

How long, how long does that analysis really take um once they see something and advise counts on what it's going to take to implement something?

So we don't we don't respond tonight.

Um I'll follow.

I'm sure the city manager will take that question down and a lot of the other ones, and um we'll have an answer on the 16th.

That was a specific question because in the last meeting that we had had, um, a specific number as to oversight for for you know the input if we were to implement a program like the MRL.

The number was two people, two full-time staff.

And so I was really interested in where that number came from, what that kind of responsibilities list looked like.

Um I was interested if other jurisdictions that are implementing the program were contacted about it to kind of get that understanding as well.

Um to really understand what it like the fear was with um bringing along more staff that could potentially oversee programs.

So I just love to get more clarity on that if I could if I could sometime.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Charmin Martin, and I live in the Lake Road neighborhood.

I'm here today to express my strong support for affordable housing and the MR MIRL program in Milwaukee and to ask the council to vote tonight to guess the originating M IRL ordinance while there is still time.

I feel affordable housing is important because my parents came here in 1960 to buy a house, they were able to afford it.

When my husband and I were um getting married, we were able to buy a house.

My children cannot buy a house in Milwaukee.

Um there aren't the opportunities anymore that we had.

I see our community benefiting from affordable housing and the MIRL because more opportunities benefit new residents, which enriches our communities' culture and finances.

I would like to see more affordable housing that fits the needs of folks who make that or less than the average median income in Milwaukee, and for folks who want to establish roots in Milwaukee.

Were my children able to live here?

We would be third generation Milwaukeeans, but they can't.

They can't afford it.

Um someday I had hoped that my grandchildren would live here, but they won't because their parents don't live here anymore.

I ask you to vote tonight to pass the originating ordinance for the MIRL and open dialogue with the developer and OHCS on the proposed Linwood Affordable Housing Project.

Thank you for your time and consideration and for all you do for our city and community.

Thank you.

My name is Michael Straits and I've lived in Milwaukee for 45 years.

Michael, you might want to press the name one more time.

There we go.

My name is Michael Straits, and I've lived in the Hector Campbell area for 45 years.

We moved in right after we were married, and as Sharman said, we had afford the house at that time.

If I sold my house tomorrow, I could not live here.

Our son cannot live here.

And it's sad because we live in a great neighborhood.

We live in a great city.

I support Milwaukee.

I do I want people to move here.

I want businesses to be here.

I mean by by having affordable housing, younger people can have the American dream than my parents had.

I have, and all of my friends that have lived here have too, but they can't do it anymore.

It's just they can't afford it.

They can't afford the down payment.

They can make house payments, but they can't pay the 20%.

Um just think we can have more.

I see a lot of building going on, but a lot of them are rentals.

A lot of them are not people's homes.

If they call their home, it's not a you're not paying somebody else.

I would ask you to vote tonight to pass an originating ordinance for the MIRL, an open dialogue with the developer and OHSCS on the proposed Linwood Affordable Housing Project.

Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Ryan Tickmore.

I have been resident for 24 years.

I feel like this project is a um, I know the property has been a significant property to Milwaukee Covenant Church, but it has also been a great asset, as well as it's time to move forward for a book for affordable housing.

So I know the city council when I uh voted, I voted for people to put affordable housing first.

And that's my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Jennifer Murphy.

Good evening.

My name is Jennifer Murphy.

I live in Milwaukee.

I'm a longtime listener, first-time caller.

And thank you, each one of you, for being here in supporting our residents in our community in the ways that you do.

Um I am here to talk about affordable housing.

Um, homelessness is a housing problem.

It is our responsibility to help Milwaukee residents to purchase and stay in their homes.

We must use every available resource to increase home ownership and housing options in our community.

We must increase and diversify housing options, providing truly affordable housing for our residents.

One year ago, Mark Gamba stated that 2,000 families were evicted every month in Oregon.

12,034 people are now experiencing homelessness in the metro area per the Tri-County PITC report put out last month.

In a meeting with NAMI speaker Gary Marsh, he said 95% of homeless residents are from our community.

Brandy Johnson of Love One says we are only able to offer temporary shelter for one quarter of the unhoused population we have.

She also stated that the majority of homeless folks are from here, and we have more and more families with young children losing their homes and living on the streets.

She said elders aged 60 and over on fixed incomes experience rising costs of medical needs, heat, food, and are being priced out of their homes at an alarming rate.

Children need stable housing to succeed in their educational endeavors.

Younger folks are struggling to purchase a first home or even to afford rent.

When will where will meet we move when we are too old to live independently?

Where will our growing children live when they leave our homes?

We must create a community that allows us and our families to continue to call Milwaukee out home.

I have heard you say many times in council meetings that housing is a top priority, and we are in an active housing crisis.

To meet the current needs of our residents, we must get creative with diverse solutions for these complicated challenges.

One option is this.

How are you rising to meet this moment of need?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hope Garcia.

Hello.

Thank you for listening to us tonight.

I feel like I recognize some of you.

I know your coffee orders for your names.

My name is Hope Garcia, and my fiance fiance and I have lived in Milwaukee for four years, and it's discouraging checking the housing market every day.

And it's we work very hard every day to afford this tiny little apartment, and every penny goes to this tiny little apartment.

And we want kids and a yard and a future in Milwaukee, but like I said, it's hard to look at the market every day because it's not looking good.

Um we want to stay put.

So you love it here, and I really hope you choose to vote and pass this uh affordable housing project.

That would be pretty cool.

Thank you.

That's my time.

Thank you.

Uh Andy Fisher.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Mayor Beatty, Council President Anderson, uh City Manager Sagar.

Appreciate your time, the opportunity to speak here tonight.

I'm gonna start off with a quote from Margaret Meade.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful concerned citizens can change the world.

Indeed, this is the only way that it ever has.

Close to two years ago, I attended the Milwaukee's leadership academy, where I met Councillor Anderson, Steph Lashbrook, and many of you.

During that session, one of the biggest topics was affordable housing.

As a result of that session, where I was attending to represent my stakeholders in development.

I was asked to look into affordable housing for Milwaukee.

I returned two years later, tens of thousands of dollars out of my own pocket with the MIRL program and two projects, if not four, for this city.

On November 18th, instead of having an opportunity to discuss this project, we were shot down.

We're mising information, not misinformation we're provided.

After two years of my time spent trying to help the city, I come to you tonight.

I bring with you these great folks who came to speak with you tonight.

I come to you to speak about what the city can do to help the housing crisis that we are now in the middle of.

One vote, one template ordinance, and we move forward.

In a meeting that we had after November 18th with Councillor Kazra body in the state.

The state made it clear.

Not only is there not a need for two full-time staff to manage this program, but that the majority of that can be handled through templates handled by the developer and by the banks and the title companies involved, that the state will provide their full attention, their full staff to help assist the city work through these IGAs.

This information is quite available, has been continues to be.

Three of you spoke to me.

One of you told me to come during a public statement.

Councillor Maddie Massey, tonight you see who comes to speak with me.

Mayor Beatty, we speak often, but not on this matter.

The good that you can do, and that you take this opportunity to move forward as a city to help those in need, not the 44 families that this first project will help.

The 88 because seven years while they're sold, 132 after that.

Thank you, council.

I appreciate your time, consideration, and opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

All right.

Looking around the room to make sure.

And um, Mr.

Stoffer, is there anyone on the line who looks like they want to speak?

We do have a Zoom audience.

I don't see any hands raised.

Okay.

Um I know it's frustrating, but we do have a policy of not responding uh to um community comment until the next meeting.

Um, and there were many things that um staff want to respond to.

Um, so I plan to move on to the rest of our agenda.

If I might just say um, thank you all for coming.

We might respond in our um council reports later tonight.

Um I'll definitely be saying something called.

So I appreciate it.

Well, and to that end, I would say watch our work session that was held earlier tonight as well, because we did talk about this.

Okay.

Uh tonight's consent agenda.

Tonight's consent agenda includes minutes of the city council October 14th, 2025 council retreat.

That was all of about three lines.

Umest consent agenda ever.

Does any member wish to remove that consent agenda item?

Seeing none, uh, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve because if agenda is presented.

All second.

So we moved in a second to approve the consent agenda as presented.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no.

None her.

The consent agenda is adopted unanimously.

All right.

And then we have tree code review.

So public works directed Peter Passerelli and Climate and Natural Resources Manager, Katie Guevaris here to talk to us about the tree code.

Sort of feeling.

It fit nicely with that.

It was intentional.

It was to be remaining and counselors who were here tonight to give you an update on tree code.

I think we met uh several months ago.

I think it was July.

We we had a discussion on tree code.

And really sort of the evolution of how we went about developing the tree code, uh, what the philosophy was behind it.

And we keyed in on a couple uh areas that we felt like we wanted to come back with you with some updates uh related to the development code, to the development tree code, and also uh the uh non-development uh residential tree code.

So I'm gonna let Katie uh run the show.

So Katie.

Thank you all.

Um as Pamela's was saying, um, when we were here in July, council gave us direction um for staff to prepare kind of some proposed updates around two key areas.

The first was um around our development tree code, and um uh council's direction was to ensure that the city's tree code mitigation fee structure adequately incentivizes preservation during development.

Um, and then the other one around our residential tree code was um to provide greater code clarity and flexibility when residents want to remove trees um that are causing structural or maintenance conflicts to a dwelling unit.

So we have prepared tonight um five proposed uh recommend staff recommendations um to our tree code, to our fee schedule and our practice that addressed uh kind of these two key areas.

So first we'll start with um our recommendations on the development tree code, um, and then we um we'll pause, kind of put that here council's feedback, and then we'll go into the residential ones.

Um, but to address the council's um uh direction, we are proposing uh three changes.

First is to develop a significant tree removal fee, the second is to increase canopy mitigation fees, and the third is to adopt a rare and threatened species list and an unpermitted removal fee for those from those species.

So to start off, uh our significant tree removal fee.

Um of the challenges uh staff and community have continued to observe um is the loss of our beautiful large mature trees during development.

Um even when there are uh feasible design modifications that um are possible.

We are seeing that the fees we have aren't deterring some developers from from removing.

Um so our current code is set up to address canopy loss, but fees don't differ based off of if it is a beautiful 60-inch DBH um or a small tree.

Um so in response to that, we are proposing to establish a significant tree removal fee for trees that are 30 inches DBH or greater.

Um, this fee would be in addition to the standard canopy mitigation payment.

Um that we're still addressing the site-wide canopy loss, um, but this would be in addition to that if um they're they're proposing to remove a significant tree.

Um so the the 30-inch TBH threshold um is established um because it really kind of meets that threshold of when the ecological benefits um are dramatically increased of a tree.

Um and so these trees, um, these large mature significant trees are providing exponential um canopy carbon sequestration, stormwater interception, um, and all habitat value and all of the amazing things that trees do.

And that dramatically increases when trees reach between that 30 inch DBH, but then also some of the they can start kind of providing that dramatic benefit from like 20 inches or 24 inches.

We see kind of around the region and the nation that a lot of heritage tree programs start at that 30 inch DBH or greater.

And so that is where folks have different regulations around really exceptional trees in the community, acknowledging the great benefits that they provide.

Some tree, some uh cities around the region like Portland, um, have recently changed their uh significant um tree removal fee to be 20 inches instead of 36, um, recognizing that even though trees at this size only kind of represent about uh 15% of their canopy, they are responsible for about 60% of the value that their the urban forest is providing.

Um the 30-inch um uh DBH is um uh consistent with the national practice around the heritage tree program, and it it really helps us focus the regulation on kind of disproportional share of uh the value that these trees are providing in our public um or in our urban forest while maintaining flexibility for development as well and not setting that threshold too low.

Um and so we are proposing for trees um 30 inches to 35.99.

That that tree removal fee is 150 inch per DBH, and trees 36 or greater is 200 inch DBH.

And that um is a consistent threshold with um our private uh um uh private uh permitted um healthy tree removal fee schedule.

Um and for a little bit of context, the mayor asked earlier this afternoon.

I don't have data from kind of how um since 2022 when we established the tree code, but from May through October 2025, so um just a few months, we have had two trees over 30 inch dbH that were approved for removal with our um existing tree code.

We had one 60-inch DBH red oak and then one 47-inch duck fir that were approved under our current tree code.

Um, so just in kind of those four months um window, uh two really uh large mature trees.

So that doesn't include the tree that we got a lot of comments about in the uh in the that are in the packet today, the tree at home and harrison.

That permit was approved earlier than they.

Yeah.

So these are just ones that we have like new new developments that we've reviewed at that time.

Okay, yeah.

Um and I'm uh happy to follow up with some additional um analysis uh if we want later.

Um so that is our recommendation on the significant tree removal fee.

Correct.

Yeah.

So then speaking of the other fee, we have um our canopy mitigation fee.

Um currently how our um development tree code is set up is that um a site is uh they present to us kind of the tree inventory on their site, and then they are allowed to remove up to 30% canopy um up to 30% canopy site wide as part of their development.

Once they hit that 30% canopy, then every 7% um they wouldn't uh um have a $4,000 fee.

And so you can see on this existing um uh fee structure when a site um decreases their canopy from 30 to 22.5 percent, then they pay $4,000.

If they go from that 30% all the way to 0%, they take off all the trees on their property.

They you stack these 4,000.

So the most that a developer could pay is 16,000 to um take off all the trees on their site.

And so we are um uh proposing to establish a mitigation fee that begins at 40% instead of 30% to better align with our 40% canopy goals.

And so it would create that consistency and further incentivize those mature trees.

Can I clarify here?

So this fee structure is for failure to replant up to the 40%, or this is how much you clear in addition to the fees that you're paying for each individual tree.

So if you're clearing a large tree of a historic tree or that terminology that we just talked about, you pay that fee in addition to this fee.

Currently we don't.

Currently, it doesn't matter the size of the tree.

If you are reducing um, let's say you have four trees, or um currently it doesn't matter the size of the tree, you're just paying for the percentage that remains.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

But it's only a small amount of the canopy or whatever.

Okay, but that's the complex.

So this would be there would be this fee that we're kind of reworking.

And then in addition, there's an extra fee that you would pay on an extra large tree.

But it's not, I guess I was worried about double fee for fee to remove each individual tree and fee here.

Yeah.

Um so um so we we're suggesting that it starts at that 40% total site canopy and then also increases cumulatively for each eight percent reduction below that threshold.

Um so you would add um it would start at 4,000, but then it would add 2,000 um for each 8% reduction.

So um you would start at 4,000, then 6,000, then 8,000.

And so the total of someone cut down all the trees on their site, they would end up um with that the 40,000 um fee in lieu of preservation versus the current 16,000.

Mayor, you can cut me off if you don't want clarifying questions now.

But I'm uh so if you started at 30%, you're not paying as if you cut down 10% of the trees just to cut it from there, correct?

Okay, it's only from where you started, and then if you started at 30% though, would you start at the 13 to 24 bracket?

Or how would that happen in a lot of robots aren't at 40% tree canopy?

And so I'm just curious how that reality kind of maps onto um this fee structure here.

Yeah.

Um so you would start at that threshold.

Um this is a different practice than we currently have because we have the same fee currently for each threshold.

So it would likely start at that um that percentage threshold.

And then like if you only had 15% canopy on your lot and you reduced it down to zero, you would have that $10,000 and then the 12,000.

So if someone is at their lot is naturally at 16% tree canopy and they want to cut down one tree and they'd have to pay almost $28,000 for that one tree, or is that an incorrect treating of the stable?

It's just like it's gonna depend on how much canopy that tree is providing.

If that removal of that tree is removes the full 16%, then they would pay that, they would pay that from 16 to 0% that came positive.

All right, I guess what I'm saying is are you paying in at that rate?

So if you're moving 1% of tree canopy, so you go from 16% tree canopy to 15% tree canopy, then you're at a remaining total site canopy of 15%.

And so are you paying the fee that is 18,000 total, or what would it be 28,000 total, or are you paying a different fee?

If you went through 16 to 15, you would pay the $8,000 or fee.

It wouldn't accumulate or 16 to 15%.

If you went to 16% to 15%, if you remove 1% of your canopy, uh you would you would drop into that.

But if you're if you're going through additional uh thresholds, it becomes cumulative.

Okay, okay.

That is I think the other thing I would just add to two things actually.

So if you're above 40%, we're not charging this thing.

So if you're at 50% and you remove 10% canopy to the 40%, there's not canopy mitigation, right?

Um I would also say uh, you know, we've had the code in place about three and a half years now, uh, a little over three and a half years, and we've we've made a couple tweaks.

Uh, you know, we don't we don't have a huge data set of of development.

It's it's limited.

So but you know, I think anecdotally what we see is the fee structure that we've had in place for canopy mitigation, trying to preserve and protect trees during development, it doesn't feel like it's it's it doesn't feel like it's working, right?

So we're seeing big trees still come down, we're seeing sites removing lots of trees and not trying to preserve them protect trees.

So this is that that this tool here updating this this mitigation fee uh and updating or adding that that significant tree removal fee, uh we think will help yeah, um exactly we think it will provide a strong incentive for that early preservation, um, and um help us kind of retain a higher canopy um level throughout development.

So then the um the third uh recommendation is um to adopt administratively adopt our rare and threatened species list.

So this is something that's currently in our code that we don't have developed yet.

So um uh Alfred, our urban forester and I are working on developing this list.

Tree board will be reviewing it, giving their recommendation uh tomorrow night at our tree board meeting, and then staff will adopt this list by January 2026.

What this will do is the the tree um, for example, that um uh got all of the public comment recently, that um will likely be on the rare and threatened species list, and that adds an additional um 250 per inch DDH to that tree removal um on top of the fee in lieu of preservation or that canopy mitigation fee that we were just talking about.

And so it further incentivizes like the significant tree, um, the preservation of the the very unique the rare and the endangered um tree species we have here in Milwaukee.

Katie, just to clarify that on the presentation since 350.

So then well, so then the the second piece um is that um we are also recommending we establish an additional fee for unpermitted removals of rare and threatened trees during development.

So something we have in our um fee schedule is we we have a fee if you go through the permitted process to remove a rare and threatened, but then we don't have anything in our enforcement if you if you do end up removing that.

And so currently there's a bit of a gap.

And so this is um we are recommending to add a 350 per inch DDH fee for that unpermitted removal of the species during development.

Um this creates a consistent um fee schedule through the permitting and our enforcement process and follows the similar increment increase between our permanent and um unpermitted enforcement uh fee schedule increases.

Does this stack with the other fees just to clarify?

So the tree on home would be paying $700 per square inch to cut it down the um you mean with the canopy mitigation?

Uh with the if it's a large tree, I keep forgetting the term for that, uh significant tree tree.

And that's rare and species to those two fees stacked.

I think that's a that's a that's a really good question.

I think I've made the assumption that the larger fee would apply in that case, you know, that if the rare and threatened species tree at that 350 inch per inch DDH, if it was unpermitted, that would apply, right?

And it wasn't stacked.

Okay, yeah, right.

Obviously, things that have to be errored out in the statutory language or whatever.

Yeah, yeah.

Why would you stack it?

I know it's a big fee, but it kind of is a big fee.

I think rare fee.

I think I have to think about that some more, and maybe we would come back.

But I I think I've always when I've looked at our fee schedule, and you know, trying to be uh trying to have fees that are reasonable, right?

Like and you know, in this case we're talking about like a uh an unpermitted removal, right?

Uh and if it's we're we're categori categorizing rare and threatened species removal, and we're not we're not giving it a DBH threshold.

So it it applies to all of these trees.

So from you know, really I think one inch to whatever you know, whatever size that it gets.

So it it that number gets really big.

Uh and if we add the significant tree, I I I guess I just looked at it as that hierarchy of fees, like significant tree, rare and threatened trees.

There's that hierarchy there uh with the rare and threatened one having the more expensive fee, but not stacking.

Um but doesn't mean you could get, but council Larmassi.

I have kind of two process related questions.

Uh just very briefly tell me how the rare and species list was developed.

Um so Alfred Musali, our urban forester, um, has put together a list um of about um under 15 species that are rare and threatened in the region, and then also as um he has uh driven around and become familiar with our urban forest here and looked at our um uh pilot tree inventory.

Um looked at what are some of the um additionally very rare species um significant species that that we have here.

So it is it is based off of a um uh a regional list of what is threatened, um like our white oats.

Um and then also uh from kind of the more significant trees, um, what is very rare here, and we should work on uh protecting.

Thank you.

So my second question is uh also process related.

And you know, as you develop these uh, you know, these fees uh that kind of thing, uh I'm sure the ultimate goal is you're trying to fund a pain point, you know, for the developer who is willing to protect the fleas rather than cut them off and just try to check.

And so again, briefly tell me how you sort of arrived.

It's almost like you kind of had to start at the end point and then you know develop the you know the the you know the uh uh you know the fees and the multiples and all that other kind of stuff.

So you know, how did you come up with the pain point?

Yeah, maybe maybe I can jump a little bit about that.

I just reflecting back to the initial process when we developed the tree code back in uh 2020, 2021 into 2022.

And I I think Councilman Mass, you were part of that CIC that process there, right?

So we went through several iterations of trying to figure out what the what the right fee structure was, and you know, we looked at what other municipalities and other governing bodies, what what their fee structure looked like, uh, and you know, looked at based on uh based on discussions with uh you know the people that worked in their urban forest departments, like were these were these working in their in their places, and in some cases we would get feedback like you know, it needs to be higher, it needs to be lower.

And so we would that's what we started from from sort of that sort of investigation research there, and I think what we're finding now is you know, from that it's not quite doing what we're hoping to do.

So we're trying to we'll we're actually ransoming it up to what feels reasonable.

I mean, without a little reach that pain point, right?

Uh we we could potentially come back and say we're still not still not accomplishing what we're hoping to accomplish, and we might need to adjust the fees again.

But yeah, getting the reasonable, but you know, the one thing that we the one thing that we did do is uh you know the code doesn't speak to the actual fee.

We've got the fees, uh the code speaks to what's in the fee schedule.

So that's easier to adjust, come back and adjust the fee schedule than it needs to come back and adjust code.

So I think that's one of the things that we we recognize when we were doing this that we might have it might be more, it might be iterative.

So I don't know what that I don't really know yet what the pain point is.

I thought that was gonna be the answer.

Council present?

I have some questions about rare trees, and then I'm gonna talk about council process for body's unreasonable.

Um with the uh with the percent of rare trees, like what percent of trees in Milwaukee would be covered under rare and treated species.

Is this like dog woods be there?

Would it be any pine or like just help me get a sense?

Um I don't know about the catch on five in nature, okay.

Um I only ask because I worry, maybe I shouldn't worry, but if a super common tree is a threatened tree, then essentially presetting this threshold for all trees.

That might be a good thing to do to something to think about.

I guess I'm also a little stuck on for rare.

Is this trees that are common in the area but just happen not to be common here in Milwaukee?

Or what like if someone plants a palm tree, would that be a rare tree for Milwaukee and beyond the list, or like help me just understand that definition of rare and what we're trying to capture there?

You want Alfred to come up and speak on it?

Yeah, I'm I'm happy to have yeah.

I mean, I think what's the one that's we have another microphone.

I I would add when we when I when I uh served as the staff liaison with the tree board, we often had questions about uh we we often hear lots of discussions about rare and threatened trees and what what did we mean by that?

I think your questions are really good in terms of are we talking about rare because it's rare to the city, you know, to the city, and you generally don't see those here, or is it yeah, so I I think that's a really good question.

I think where we what we look at when we're talking about rare and threatened species, there that there's species that are uh because of change in climate, because of uh what's because of because of the change in climate, perhaps insect ingestations, uh through through not necessarily just in the region, but throughout the world, right?

That that are really causing these trees to be uh contacted and they're in their natural areas are shrinking, you know, where they where they grow naturally, and you know, these trees are now rare.

You know, I I I would think in my mind when I think of rare and threats species, uh working out this one.

Uh I think of coast grad ones.

I think of you know, giants and police.

Those are the trees when I think of them.

You know, we have uh we have a tree in Milwaukee in somebody's yard that's a wallaby pine.

Uh it's uh a very rare tree, it's only found in Australia, and uh it was uh it's it's very limited to this canyon that was subjected to the huge fire in Australia several several years ago.

And uh somehow there's one of these here in Milwaukee, you know.

It must have been you know, it it it it's it's not just rare in Milwaukee, it's rare in the world, right?

Uh and it's yeah.

Yeah, um pleasure to be to all.

Uh so the draft the intention was rare either based on the characteristic of the city, the presence of the city, the world stage or to define that we're just mentioning.

For example, Oregon White Oaks, quite rare in our area, and whatever they are, and they already contribute very significantly to the ecosystem to the community to the culture.

On the other hand, you have something like a western red cedar, which is very significant, but it's much more common.

So it's not included in that list.

So you want to build this fur, they can grow very large, they can contribute a lot to the ecosystem to the environment, to be urban environment, but they're not rare in the currents.

So they're they were excluded from that rare.

And that was the idea of kind of draft the contacted a couple of the adjacent cities, asked how they handled it, put together uh the draft, and then from there we'll go to tree board like Katie was mentioning, get their opinion and find okay.

Thank you.

The next question I had kind of to the pain point conversation.

I know Justin has mentioned concerns of setting a fee so high that we violate the ticket's clause or we do something that is illegal for us to do as a local um or as a government.

What is the threshold for that or be worried about this becomes your body's question?

What if we set a thousand ball for TBH?

Like to be run of L of being overly prescribed.

Um I think I would I I would just go to Justin on what you know if there's if there's an issue on uh reasonableness there, so um, I mean, I I don't know that there's a threshold involved, and I don't know that it actually gets to be uh a takings analysis because it's not a property right.

The tree code doesn't exist in our land use code, so it's a little bit separate take on that.

I mean, I think if you get to uh potentially some well, I guess I would first say you can't control whether somebody might bring a taking's claim against the city for something like that, and at that point we would have to litigate and see where that comes.

I think uh setting fees like this um typically is uh a little bit more of a political nature, whether or not uh the community that you're governing can support the fees that you're asking.

And I do appreciate what Peter said about the the uh the fee schedule, right?

I mean, we set the code, but the fee schedule can be more nimble, we can be more nimble to adjust uh without having to go through a whole ordinance if it's uh if we decide it's too high.

Yeah, you know, and when we took this to tree board last month, and then also in um over the summer, um some of their uh feedback and um recommendation is um how do we find a way um to structure this recommendation um so that it helps prevent a lot of the clear cutting that we're seeing in some of the development, but then also still provides enough flexibility that we can still have development and we can still have especially residents who want to um build an ADU in the back.

Um and so how do we um uh how like how can we still preserve the the original goal that we um we had when we were developing tree code, which was like really in line um and dumped in line with our affordable housing goal, and so um one of the reasons why it's these um the the two fees are on like specific trees where in the past we haven't is there can also be more flexibility in um in a project that you are doing in a backyard, like uh an ADU edition of where you put it based on which trees you have um on your on your site, and so you can be more nimble in that design modification.

You can also do that in in the larger development stuff in Intel projects that we're seeing.

Um, and so the um I forgot how this addressed your question, but it was one of the goals of and recommendations of our tree board that um we were able to still provide um some of that flexibility for for residents wanting to do development okay.

Um you had one you have one more slide.

Yeah, oh so reasonableness.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, so this was um this is perfect.

This was like feedback and thoughts on the development tree code and fee structure changes, and then we're gonna switch over to the residential tree code.

Okay, we do have somebody who wants to testify, and I'm trying to say whether we have come up before we finish, or we finish in the direction, but then we might read this depending on the input.

Um, I guess okay.

Um yeah, I don't know.

I mean, what what do you guys suggest?

Bring them up now.

Okay.

Um why don't you come up now, Mr.

Smith?

There's one open microphone.

Okay, 30 seconds starting now.

I um I was sitting in the back and I listened to Robert had uh asked a question.

And of course, I haven't prepared statement, but I think that that's something we need to set aside.

Uh your question was how do we find the pain point?

Well, let me be blunt.

I I know that these people walk for the city, ideal.

The pain point is when you're you know, this beautiful rainforest that we live in becomes a desert.

The pain point is when we're no longer a forest but we're grassland, and the slow initial removal of our trees starts to erode what we are as a city as a region.

Now I agree that some of these pain points need to be addressed.

We should have construction around what we have, not what we see coming in the future.

I don't believe a building should be in the middle of all these magnificent trees all.

But if these buildings can be built around it, sure.

The pain point is that we suffer the effects of a hot summer because we don't have the vapor barrier, the moisture barrier that these trees used to give this region.

When my people lived here before, anyone else, they lived in a rainforest.

They fished out of uh streams that were filled with fish, and these pain points have come decade after decade after decade.

The pain point should be how can we protect our future and still preserve preserve what we have today?

I do believe that these pain points is addressing great direction.

I I watched it and I would be applauding in the back because I thought it would help.

But it's up to you, the council here to make this this.

And my my thing is that I'm not angry.

I am just wanting to point out that what they could not do.

The pain point is what we lose.

If we don't make the moves today to protect what we have.

I am astounded at these motions and the directions that the tree board in the city of Milwaukee could go down.

This is brilliant, and I think we'll leave it down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and I will say, um I referenced uh League Granette recently passed.

Um maybe you'll be our next war X, Mr.

Mr.

Smith.

Um, okay.

Um, so you want to talk about direction on that, and then we'll talk about the other piece.

Okay.

Thoughts.

So do we want to go through them separately?

Like the significant tree, or is everybody just good with where we are?

That's on here.

Um so should we go through them one by one?

So the first one being the significant tree.

Okay.

Thoughts on that?

People good with that?

I think this is great.

I think it really is important.

I mean, what we saw in the label was pretty awful.

And I think it's important that our tree code has teeth, especially for these really large trees.

So pretty look.

I'm sorry, you said you're bored.

We're getting thumbs up all around.

Okay, that was easy.

All right.

Umigation.

Also easy.

No.

Yeah.

No.

Here's, I guess here's my concern.

I see a potential equity issue.

We already had issues in where what parts of the city have a large tree canopy and what's don't.

And the idea that just because you bought a lot and there's eight zero percent tree canopy coverage, and you cut down a single tree there that represents one percent, that you pay 12,000 dollars, but the person who owns a lot that already had 40% tree cut coverage cuts down a tree that represents 1%, and they only pay $4,000.

To me, that just seems slightly unfair.

And I worry about that for like I get what we're trying to capture here, and I think that we need to capture it, and I'm worried about those edge cases where there's an individual on a lot trying to that doesn't have that good tree coverage.

And I wonder if maybe it could be structured in not based on the remaining, but like the percent that you cut down Google.

Is that some way to do it?

So 1% is 1% across the board.

Is there something else?

But I I am worried about that big impact there based on existing block coverage.

Well, and uh just uh just to clarify.

So this is for development, so this the impact here is what if somebody's developing property.

So we're we're trying we're trying to uh we want them to to protect and preserve existing trees and maintain canopy.

So the goal with our goal getting 40% that if you're going down to the point where you're developing your site and taking down that last remaining tree, I think we felt like it was important to like you should pay more to take down that last tree because you could probably in most circumstances adjust your uh development, maybe to to build around that to protect them.

Yeah, if you've only got seven percent tree canopy, you've got one one tree, or maybe two.

You've got you know, you've got 90% of your lot to build on.

So why would this be undoing penitentiary?

This is the like edge case that I'm worried about.

You have a small lot, you're trying to build an ADU, it's a small lot to begin with, you're trying to put a small housing unit on it, and the only spot you can do that is where the single tree is that's there right now.

It wouldn't be like you would replant it up to 40% afterwards, you have a small lot to begin with, so there's nowhere else you can really put the unit.

Um it feels like someone's building in a U in your backyard, 4,000 versus 12,000, it's gonna be a hit that makes it really hard to do that.

And I guess that's the type of thing that I'm trying to think through how we can give the flexibility to avoid that.

Um I still think that we need to have a structure that makes it more punitive for the more you're clear cutting, but it's starting at if you start from a low point, you're immediately penalized more than um starting from a high point.

I guess I certainly don't understand if you're taking five percent of your tree canopy.

To me, the difference between taking five percent off of 40 and off with 5%, considering this is just one lot in the public city.

Yeah, I I think it's if you look at their existing structure, you paid 4,000, it was 4,000 wherever you were, and as you went down, as you remove more canopy, it became cumulative, but it didn't become increasing.

And I think this is where we were trying to set that point of like hey, if you're developing your site, you're taking your you're clear cutting all the trees that are on that site.

Um maybe I guess what I'm saying as an alternative is this is predicated on your existing remaining total set in canopy, as opposed to doing that to be as a percent of the canopy that you cut down.

So if you cut down one percent of the canopy, you pay four thousand dollars, pay cut down twenty percent, you're paying eight thousand dollars plus another percents.

Maybe to me, that seems like a more applicable way to structure this.

So you're still capturing the developer who's clear cutting a lot and really making it difficult, but the individual who's trying to build something on their small lot where they don't have many trees to begin with, isn't necessarily punished as harshly as that developer, if that makes sense.

I think I think you're we're just saying we we perhaps could look at but maybe I'm wrong.

Like I would be true supposed to use that.

Let's see if they're from the lot I was trying to picture your scenario in my head, and I'm I'm thinking like if that's if you I have a lot that's small with one tree, I can even fit an ADU on that thing, right?

So you got one tree, you're on a very small lot.

I mean, for that tree to take up that much space when you can't move an ADU, so you're on a really, really tiny lot.

So you probably shouldn't do an AD.

I would think I get what you're concerned, but I'm trying to picture the scenario in my head and how that fits, but I I do like the idea.

You basically say to flip it, right?

Put the zero on the on the top and put 40% on the bottom, and then do it by by reduction in the that's what you do if you're inverting it, user.

Yeah, I guess I'm I'm saying base it off of the percent that you actually cut down as opposed to the percent that you start from.

So if you cut down, and I think the table would extend further that if you cut down a hundred percent of your or if the lot is a hundred percent canopy and you clear cut the entire thing, I think you should pay more than if you cut.

I I guess I'm trying to say is if you cut one percent of your lot, I think it should be the same.

I I will go back to one of the reasons why we set it at 40% when we went through, or even 30% when we when we went through the process is we were trying to we were trying to provide flexibility for developers to develop property, and if if there was a site that was a hundred percent uh a hundred percent canopy and they were going to remove it all, uh that would certainly be really expensive, right?

And it would probably deter any development from happening there.

So that was we were trying to provide that sort of flexibility there.

Uh maybe what it is then is any whatever percent over 40 percent.

So after after you're down the 40 percent, eight percent over the gradient scale is charged in that way.

So if you start at a lot with 80% tree coverage and you cut doing 40% tree coverage, you're not penalized in this way, but if you start a lot with 80% tree coverage and go to 30% tree coverage, not 10% there, you're penalized for um but you're penalized for that same 10% as you would if you're starting at 40% and you're cutting down to 30%.

To me, that seems more equitable, but maybe that's not well.

I thought that's what it is.

That is what it does.

Yeah, and that's what it does.

I guess I thought you were going for at those people who don't have very many trees who don't have you know, maybe it's the 15% or the seven start there, and you and they shouldn't pay three times what the person, you know, if they're only removing one tree, but it's costing them three times what the person is.

I didn't give a scenario that's compliant.

I think it is that like if it's if you start from lower position.

If you started at 40%, you know, I'm gonna do it wrong again.

Start at 30% and remove 10% when your tree canopy.

It's I mean it seems equitable.

If you're removing 10%, you're removing 10%.

I I understand what you're saying, but I think what we the way that we set it up was we did want to penalize people if they're removing that they're if they're removing more trees and they're when I say more trees, they're reducing the canopy to a lower percentage of canopy.

Although 40%.

So we wanted to uh we wanted to be expensive.

I guess the only struggle I have, and this is not some hill that I have to die on.

I guess I'm just thinking to like equity of this the morality that we choose.

If you I just struggled with idea, you started with the lot but didn't have much tree coverage to begin with.

I I mean those lots are gonna be the least expensive lots in the lot.

It's like a lot with a lot of good tree coverage is gonna be more expensive.

So if you're buying into the lot with as many trees, it's then harder to cut down trees, or it's more expensive to cut down the remaining trees on your lot than it would be for someone who started with more trees.

That to me feels kind of wrong, even though I but you should have space to do the development without it without removing the existing trees.

So that's what we're that's sort of saying, like hey, protect the trees that the tree will tree, the two trees that are there that are providing minimal canopy because uh you know it takes time for trees to grow, right?

That it's preserving and protecting existing trees, healthy trees, I should say.

Yeah, I guess um I'm trying to be wrong here.

I guess the last thing I'll say is um I think of like a typical suburban lot would probably have a tree planted in the front from the front window, and maybe a tree in the backyard.

And if we would remove the tree in the backyard to make an EDU for grandma, like your lot must be 100%, you're getting penalized a little bit more.

Maybe that you're not small enough, you don't have another spot for Brama to live.

To me, that seems tricky, but I don't think that it's the hill to die on, it's just like a small city.

Well, and I I mean, I guess it's always a thing that can if we get you know we adopted this code three years ago, four years, three and a half years ago, um you know, trying to play all those scenarios in our head, and they haven't really played out to be the challenge.

So we thought they were gonna be.

I mean, well, because people are just paying a couple trees, finally, but um uh so I I I guess I'm saying I'm fine with the way you've proposed it.

And if we if we encounter people who can't build grandma's aid in you, then we'll revisit.

Um I think we need a thumbs up or down for uh what's been proposed here.

Okay, we got thumbs up all the way across.

Okay.

Um rare and satin trees.

I was also thumbs up on that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are we gonna get into the reasonableness?

Yeah, she's gone on that undergoing that now.

Uh um yeah, so wanted to not try to stack all of the complicated things to the very end and break it up a little bit.

So the second piece of council's direction was to provide greater code clarity and flexibility for removing trees in our residential tree code, non-development related that are causing structural or maintenance conflicts with a dwelling unit.

So we have two recommendations to address this.

The first is to add an allowance for a tree removal within 10 feet of a dwelling unit that is causing an infrastructure damage.

And that staff will utilize a standard for applying reasonableness, and we have an outline of what that standard and thresholds would be.

So the first is to allow the removal of trees within 10 feet of a dwelling unit.

What our current code says is the case here that isn't underlined or bolded, that the tree is having adverse effect on an adjacent infrastructure that can't be mitigated by pruning or a reasonable alternative construction technique that can be removed.

And so the um kind of the council direction is around that reasonable alternative construction technique.

And so what we're proposing is that if a tree is within that 10 feet of a dwelling unit, even if there is an reasonable alternative construction technique, then it would still be approved because of the um the uh proximity to those those dwelling units and um the the ongoing um uh maintenance and and challenges um including safety issues that can come up with it being so close to the dwelling unit.

I think that's the main thesis of that one.

Um so then the second piece is to establish um uh a framework for reasonableness um when we're thinking through so if it's not within 10 feet of a house, um what is uh a reasonable alternative construction technique?

Um and so we are proposing um that staff use this standard that we can um kind of put together a one pager and share this more transparently around how we assess whether the cost of preserving a healthy tree is reasonable within the scale of the project and proportional to the benefits that that tree provides.

Um for small residential projects and repairs like repairing a driveway.

Um preservation is generally reasonable if the cost of a feasible alternative is um 20% um up to 20% of the um the related project cost.

And so when we Alfred and I have been talking about this with our city engineer um and our engineering teams, that that 20% of a project cost, we list out what are all of the alternative construction techniques for kind of roughly what a residential driveway repair would cost, that covers that list of like what um what we're talking about.

That could include using pavers, that could include um using asphalt instead of concrete, um, and a couple other of those techniques that that would um that would encompass that that would provide transparency of kind of what that um that cost threshold is and that still helps us preserve trees that provide so much benefit um that um it is almost always greater than that 20% of that project cost, um, the the benefits that those trees would provide uh provide for for preservation.

I think we'd also it's also more expansive than just material use.

It would be something or arbicultural techniques.

So, like if roots are damaging that driveway, maybe perhaps there's some root pruning and root bearer that can be put in to prevent that future damage to that driveway.

So sort of what and what's the cost associated with that, right?

So then for infrastructure um uh uh repairs, um preservation is typically reasonable when the cost is three times the cost of removal and replacement of the tree.

Um this is to um to really help capture the the um the generational loss that we would see with those trees and how much uh it takes to um kind of regain those those benefits.

Um and then for the significant trees, 30 inches um DDH or greater or a heritage scale tree, um that preservation is reasonable when um it's uh five times the cost of removal and replacement, reflecting the high public value of these trees.

Um is there anything else you want to add on these?

I think good right now.

No question.

So say for example, there's a tree in the right-of-way in front of somebody's property, okay, and it's up to sidewalk for their property, and somebody trips and falls and parts of the house, and they decide to sue, who's responsible.

Well, I mean, I I think the way our code is the adjacent property is responsible for the maintenance of that sidewalk, right?

So what and what we're suggesting here in terms of this reasonable approach is like if there are techniques, uh bicultural techniques that can that can utilize uh to mitigate the impacts from from the tree.

There are also different materials that could be utilized to reduce uh trooping hazards and and repair the sidewalk uh and and uh and provide uh yeah, so that's sort of what we're suggesting there, and these are sort of what we those thresholds are what we would use utilize as a tool to say, yes, this is reasonable.

You we don't need to cut down this tree because you know what, you can do some root pruning, or you can you can repair that sidewalk, you could use a different material.

We could use asphalt on the sidewalk, or maybe rubberized uh uh sidewalk type material that we can bridge that, or you could potentially bridge that route by adjusting the elevation of the sidewalk.

So that's that's sort of what we're looking at doing.

Does that does that make sense?

Yeah, I mean it makes sense.

I just have an issue with the homeowner being responsible for city infrastructure like sidewalks.

That's not our it's pretty common.

Well, at least it doesn't make it right.

It just it is common, it's common out here.

No, they have to fix the sidewalk.

In the Midwest where I was with the city maintained the sidewalks and all everything within the right-of-way, right?

Uh with the exception of shovel.

So right.

Um but here it seems like in the Pacific Northwest, uh side block maintenance and maintenance of trees in the right of the way are generally the adjacent property's responsibility.

Um that's a whole other thing, but I can see that being a potential issue.

Um because I mean somebody has to if the price ends up being to where the preservation takes precedent, somebody has to replace the sidewalk.

I mean, what's the process for a homeowner to do you gotta hire an engineer to come and determine what PSI the sidewalk has to mean who how do they do that?

Well, I'll work with our uh building services division and the engineering staff there to do a right-away permit, and we'll they'll walk them through what's necessary to replace that.

Generally on the sidewalk repairs, we're not looking for you know an engineering solution if there's a unique issue where it it does impact a tree.

That's where you know the the building services division and and Albert get them or Alpha would excuse me, Alfred would get involved and uh provide provide some assistance and guidance.

Yeah, I I like where we're headed.

I'm just city infrastructure, yeah.

That's not homeowner infrastructure.

That bothers me.

But I think something we would know reasonable for people.

So other thoughts on it?

I can have a just piggyback question on that.

That's a little bit related to uh our urban forest management plan and equity and the tree fund.

I know we've talked a little bit about how we utilize tree funds to maybe support folks, maybe our level one lower or fixed incomes to say in this case, yeah, sidewalk speckling.

There's an arbitrary uh arbicultural solution, I like that, but someone's like, I just I'm really struggling to afford that.

Have we explored with tree board or with staff of kind of making tree funds available as a kind of assistance pot for that kind of work that allows that enables tree preservation?

bit about how we utilize tree funds to maybe support folks maybe are level on lower or fixed incomes to say in this case yeah sidewalks buckling there's an arbitrar uh your arbicultural solution I like that but someone's like I just I'm really struggling to afford that have we explored with tree board or with staff of kind of making tree funds available as a kind of assistance pot for that kind of work that allows that enables tree preservation O fees too the event that they're sue for our infrastructure failing I mean that just sounds so um for the the tree fund if we work closely with our utility billing um and if anyone is on our low income utility of billing assistance program then um if there are permit fees or um things associated costs associated with that permit compliance we would we can use that that free fund to help provide that assistance um we've done that on um a few different permits it doesn't come up as often um but that is the the threshold that we use it on and we are um with our current um uh grant from Oregon Department of Forestry we're now working on our um urban forestry equity implementation plan um that will through kind of next year and a bunch of community engagement um help us understand what are some of those additional either maintenance pro or different programs that we might want to better um continue utilizing the tree fund to help do um that will continue to work with tree board on how do we prioritize those funds um so we do currently use it and we have some plans on thinking more expansively bring some other things we can use it for and maybe I'll just add a couple little things so in the next buy in budget one we'll see in that budget book is a separate tree fund as well and you'll see uh budget lines right now the funds from uh that are associated with fees and fines in our uh proper tree code those are incorporated in uh into the stormwater fund um we have special lines you know a special account line accounting uh codes that that that track those dollars but uh in the future you're gonna see a separate tree fund budget uh with with like revenues protecting revenues and expenditures uh I'll I will also add we we we do have a history of where we have gone out I think I think it was on 32nd there was a large uh I think a large maple tree um that was in the right of way uh and we we spent we spent money with uh to reroute sidewalk uh and reroute and move a driveway uh we shared a cost with the property to do that so it's a bummer that Mr.

Smith left because he's been a big advocate for that just greater transparency on the tree fund and I think this is a really good move.

I mean we we could we can always share the information because it's gonna be a lot clearer to see in our budget as it's called out as a separate fund.

Uh one clarifying question within tech feet of your property you're about to cut down any tree or can you go back to the slide to understand that a little bit just applying differently to heritage trees or larger trees.

And present yeah so it it wouldn't be for um any tree within 10 feet of a dwelling unit um and and also just to clarify this is existing dwelling unit so it's it's not around our our developing um new new resident um housing but um these are for trees that are posing a significant infrastructure damage um and it wouldn't we wouldn't require um some of these other components like potentially pruning or those um other uh construction techniques or the arbicultural practices so it is not uh a blanket statement um but it is making it easier to qualify for this removal criteria in our code when it has that proximity so this is significant ongoing and unavoidable that means like it is causing damage to right now not there's a tree within 10 feet of my house that might drop a bridge yeah has to do with the safe safety right I'm assuming because I got a good example I've got a giant oak tree no wallet tree it's fantastic but it's not on my property but it we say that again about a fifth is on the neighborhood that's theirs the rest of the from about a fifth down all the way up to the top leans over my house and it's a massive tree it leans over our garage and we've ran branches fall and stuff like that fall because of the extreme water but if that thing comes down because it's it's the truck is here but the whole tree went right if that thing comes down that's going to destroy our back also in this instance like that what's the proper way I'm sure I'm not the only one that has that issue.

Is that a process where I get the city involved to say, hey, they gotta let the neighbors know that this is a hazard, and if the neighbor doesn't allow it to be cut, is that I mean, how does how does a situation like that?

Because I can see that happening too.

Yeah.

Um so real quick, this um, we have a couple different removal criteria within our um the residential tree code.

One of them is around um like risk and safety that isn't infrastructure damage.

So that that case, I think we'd be um not talking about this specific B3 one, and I think we still it's still a valid question.

Um I believe our our process we work with code enforcement um because it's a civil issue.

Um and we've had this come up a few times in the like last month, right, Alvin?

Yeah, that's correct.

This reasonable risk associated or reasonable as opposed to the occupant uh comes up quite often.

The way it's been handled is that the nor risk will go out to risk assessment, which involves looking at the tree, determining what defects are present, looking at the targets, houses, people, things of high value, kind of determining the likelihood of the defect causing a failure and the likelihood of the failure hitting the target.

Right?

So with each individual target, you say, okay, I'm expecting a bus stop, for example.

People utilizing a post help, you would rate how frequently is a person at the bus stop likely to be impacted by that defect, and what would be the cost of because then should that impact occur, right?

Another example would be hey, we have cars driving down the street, it's still within the target zone of that.

The frequency is different compared to the people, occupying respace, and then as well, the damage would be different as well.

So there's a lot of the monster risk assessment.

It's not a you know black and white appeal.

There is a process, yeah.

And an ISA has a you need to be certified, and then you go through through a course to become qualified to do these earth assessment reports, which are accorded with when you do them properly.

So there's there's way too long.

Okay, so in back to this, yeah.

Uh is everyone okay with the proposals here on reasonableness.

No.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Nice work.

Yeah.

That was easy.

That was easy.

Thank you so much.

So we'll have some uh proposed code changes um coming up for you guys soon.

Code and feed.

Yes.

Are you on the agenda?

We are in January.

January.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Happy Arbor Day for Milwaukee.

All right, so we have uh three things left.

We have Milwaukee Park update, we have public uh we have uh council reports, and then we have an MRC meeting.

Uh, does anybody need a break before we go into those?

Do you have some there is some in the there is some in the uh yeah in the vending machine?

Um, you don't have any oh you weren't talking.

It's a drawer refrigerator.

That's a temporary one.

Yeah, are we recessing?

Uh yeah, are we recessing?

For you to go get taco.

No, no.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, we'll get our Milwaukee Park update then.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

I wish I had a more robust update to provide.

But I have some things to share.

Um, so uh just to recap for folks watching and for you all, um, we met on November 13th for a special session um to uh uh discuss kind of a response to the latest drafts of two agreements we've been negotiating with um the NCPRD board of directors, which is also the back of the Spanish Commission.

One is an addendum to our cooperative IGA with um NCPRD, and another is an agreement around Milwaukee Park.

Um I encourage if folks are interested in tuning in.

I think watching that 30-minute session is a pretty good recap of the um remaining sort of sticking points and pieces of negotiation and our response.

So we met on the 13th, on the 14th, um, that year direction staff transmitted the slides from that special session to county staff.

Um we were informed that day that the board was on recess, um, given there was the association of counties conference, and then there was the Thanksgiving week.

So we were told then by staff that the board would not be re reconvening as a as a board until this week.

But uh we really appreciate the partnership of county staff.

We got a meeting on the books to discuss uh what had come out of your November 13th special session.

Um they were appreciative and complimentary of the format those those pieces took.

Uh Joseph and I met with uh uh K administrator Schmidt and uh NCPRD Director Selly on November 24th to walk through all those pieces at that meeting.

So we had already had the slides um for uh a little over a week.

They did request red lines in addition to the slides.

So they really wanted to see in line in the IGAs um what uh what kind of language we would propose.

Now, this was the Monday before Thanksgiving.

My city attorney was um out of the office.

Um I wanted to be a good partner and get get something back to them, but I didn't have time to do a full legal review.

So I did send red lines for transparency, but I sent them with a big cover memo that says this was not been reviewed by my city attorney, and uh we we would this would all be uh pending a final legal review, but tried to provide them both in the summary piece that we had in the slides and an actual plan line by line editing.

The board did meet this morning, I believe in executive session.

Um we uh though have not received a um official response.

We received an email from county council saying that they we should expect a response next week.

Uh uh in discussions with the front administrator, unfortunately, what I think this means is there's probably no hope of getting this done from the end of the year.

Um, the board, uh the the last two meetings for the county commission or the NCPRD board of directors would be the 16th and the 18th of December.

They would do everything in a two-meeting cycle, one to discuss and one to vote.

Um, if we are not going to receive a response until next week, I just realistically don't see the ability to turn around agreements that fast for voting, unfortunately.

Um we really we we stress the the deadline.

We asked for a response by December 1st.

Um I the joke is I wanted this done before the baby came.

I sadly don't think that's going to happen.

Um I you know, I I will say I this is that this is not uh a message from the board.

This is a staff-to-staff message.

I mean, I think I think we are close.

I think that they were again very appreciative of the clarity of the counter proposals the city made, and I look forward to receiving the formal response to those next week.

Um I did want to provide just one substantive update.

So at our at the special session in the in the Milwaukee Bay Park specific IGA, there were kind of two big financial pieces we've been talking about.

There's the STCs, the zone one STCs.

We made some asks around that, and then there's this Metro Local Share.

Um the last formal proposal we'd received from the board uh was around a um loan of Metro Local Share dollars with a uh 10-year payback.

$2.5 million Metro Local Share loaned to the city that we would then pay back over 10 years at 250k.

We did consult with Metro Metro Council to understand Metro's legal counsel to understand if that even flies.

And our understanding from that conversation is no, that metro local share dollars are grants.

They need to be provided to the project, um, and that any kind of a loan arrangement or even a clawback arrangement.

They they did not see how that could work in the paradigm.

In follow-up conversations with county staff, I think the proposal that they'd like to explore is sort of two separate agreements.

So the Metro local share will be dedicated to the project, but then a separate agreement is made between the city and the and NCPRD for repayment of funds, kind of keeping the two things separate.

We frankly need to do more exploration between our two legal councils and Metro to see if that even makes sense.

Um, but you know, we um we didn't really give because we were in this kind of ambiguous area, we didn't give a really solid counter proposal on the Metro local share piece.

Um there have been kind of three ideas we've banned the bout.

Um again, this is all contingent on what Metro would actually approve.

Uh, but one would be um asking for rather than a 2.5, which is really I believe the remainder of their metro local share, asking for a proportional, like so the city represents 18% of the district.

Do we ask for eight percent of that 2.5, no strings attached?

This was actually an idea shared by the DAC chair from Elliott at the last NCPRD board meeting.

That'd be around 900,000.

Um is what Director Sally said.

I would have to fact check that.

But so um that we can have one option.

Ask for 900K dish or whatever that proportional share is free and clear.

Option B could be um again, if we could buy frequently the two deals and get Metro's blessing, do a loan or do the 2.5 million contributed to the project, then a separate agreement where we're paying the district on a longer term horizon.

Maybe a 25-year payment plan of 100,000 a year.

And then a third option might be uh 2.5 million contributed to the project, uh, and then a separate deal where there's a clawback term.

So if the city were two to part the district withdraw from the district in the next 10 years, uh, we would write a check for 2.5 million dollars back to NCPRD.

Um I uh you know, again, I don't have a lot of substantive feedback to give you from the board today, but in talk of administrator Schmidt, I think if if council wanted to share any thoughts on the prioritization of those three options, um that might be helpful to expedite some things in terms of the back and forth volleyball game.

Um so if there's there's any thoughts that you want to share tonight, if there's any of those that are unpalatable to you entirely, that could be helpful again for just moving staff to staff negotiations forward.

Councillor Massey.

Well, uh, you know, two of those options almost sound like the same thing to me, and quite frankly, it's just showing okay.

And um, so uh I think the answer on a metro, I mean I think I'm not trying to speak for retro, but I suspect is yours talking about the same thing.

Um you're just you know playing council playing cutesy with how how you had all this money, so uh uh I I just don't think those are gonna fly.

Um so I'll leave it at that.

So your preference is the point nine, you know, the the 20% or whatever.

Oh, my preference is a 2.5 million dollars free to clear.

Oh okay.

Well, yeah, fine too.

Uh I don't that was originally pledged in the project.

It's true.

It's true.

It was with council mess.

2.5 was originally allocated to the project, right?

Or assigned to the project.

Actually, three was on that challenge.

Three was the original metro local share dedication, the most recent budgets have been 2.5.

Yeah, so then I don't think that the percentage is applicable because 100% of the funds were assigned to that project.

That project exists within the city.

It seems logical, but that would be delegation.

Well, I love the way you guys are all thinking, but I do think I don't think that will fly with the county commission.

But I guess we can take the position.

Um we're not gonna have a deal by end of the year anyway, then maybe we take.

I mean, I just I don't see, yeah.

I don't see a 2.5 million with no clawback provision at all is something they're likely to given the positions they've taken throughout the negotiation is something they're likely to agree to.

I would agree with you, Mayor.

And I think um, you know, with the again, the the the sort of new landscape here is the proposal that the city take over management of the project as well as maintenance of the park once it's completed.

Um, I think uh from from things we've heard the negotiation table, yes, I think that that would be um I I don't think we should expect a 2.5 free and clear uh counterproposal.

Well, I would counter the cost would be have made concessions on maintenance and um you know the big months issue with the uh community center.

Uh I think we've made concessions that should be recognized.

And so I think that that's a uh that's a good swap.

I would need to rush a bank into the city.

Um it sounds like we're not gonna finish my Christmas regardless.

So I think it's time for back and ask for polar now.

Okay, then I can relay that.

Um we'll uh we'll await the response from county council with more formal kind of counter proposals and responses to what we've already shared over and then give you an update on December 16th.

Um if hopefully this can be finished in quarter one and Joseph can sign it in my absence, but thanks all.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so I think we're now to council report.

Oh no, we have oh, I guess that's part of council reports.

So we have Emma and Scott on this our budget.

Yeah I think it'd be very simple.

Thank you Scott Scott and all the work I don't know why I'm talking but um we we talked to you about coming quarterly just to keep you transparently apprised and how your budget stands your city council budget.

So Scott, take it away.

Yeah I think uh it's pretty straightforward.

I do have been sending emails once a quarter to council so hopefully these numbers aren't uh shocked anybody.

But as you can see for each of your lines there's uh decent amounts of money have to be spent in near each of our council lines um and this is for the Biennian so this is essentially about a quarter of the Biennium left to half of this go till June 30.

So uh in the monthly or quarterly emails I send you a list of all the things that have been spent these numbers don't include charges from November credit cards if you had those um but yeah and then this is looking at your specific line items you know it's looking at the bigger budget we're doing fine we have we will have increased costs for our um security conversations that we've been having um that those are we we can account for those in the existing budget.

Yeah the other budget lands on the council budget are I agree with Emma they're doing great and we're preparing our our recommendations for the council's budget which will come to council in the budgeting process next year.

So you do a lot of receipt wrangling um so I really appreciate it thank you and I appreciate it when y'all send me your screenshots your camera phone shots of the rest are perfect so any questions or comments in the past there has been discussion about how council uses its budget but that's probably been fairly well figured out at this point.

As Mike likes to say the Oregonian test of the Oregon okay learn about it we can learn about social housing in Vienna storing the water thank you very much.

Okay other council reports I sent everyone a letter to the public utility commission uh relating to uh that came up with the work session relating to um uh data center uh so they're in the course of this uh it's not really a rulemaking because they're not a rulemaking body but this adjudication of how PGE should account for data center you create separate accounting for data savers um I drafted this letter it's pretty general about we don't think our um rank payers be they you know residents or simple businesses should be bearing the costs the other exorbitant costs of of providing for new data centers um and so want to see if folks want to sign on to I love it thanks for putting it together screen good okay well that was easy good all right so Scott if you can put all the signatures on it and then uh I guess you can send it to me and I'll try to figure out how to get it into the PUC docket.

I was spending some time on their website yesterday so I'm somewhat familiar.

Okay.

And you wanted to talk yeah I was gonna do a quick response to the folks who came and testified a little bit today.

We had a lot of people show up um the room was blocking back then Jennifer was trying to throw um and Jennifer good job you first public testimony you did great um I really like it scared to come up in front of the dice click that button and say whatever you brought forward um to honestly I think we all really appreciate hearing um the mayor alluded to this a little bit but you can go back to the work session and look at some of the other work we're doing around affordability and I think the city is making good progress towards affordability and I really um in large part that's thanks to the staff who are putting in hours and hours and hours to be one of the leading cities in the region doing affordable work.

At the same time like we heard from the people today affordability is a crisis it's something that we need to we don't say at least I don't say prices likely to me that implies you're gonna have this extreme sense of urgency in responding to it and I worried about a signal um handling the real program here.

I think that there's some confusion about the program I think that some of the details and sequencing the programs still are a little unclear to folks like we for today and like we're from OHCS that isn't necessarily a barrier to adopting discretionating ordinance this ordinance is just a first step to develop a program it's not a program in and of itself I think if we still have questions I will need it if we wait till March put together an ordinance bring it back even later in the spring we will likely have lost out on funds um that are going to go really really quickly.

Um I think we still have questions.

I worry that if we wait till March, put together an ordinance, bring it back, even later in the spring, we will likely have lost out on funds that are gonna go really, really quickly.

There's only 50 million to decide for this primary.

Um and so I just think that haste is gonna be really important.

There's a 44 minute affordable housing project that we heard from people that's likely dead because of our decision, and that to me is significant.

That's three sparrow things right there that we need to move forward.

And that project may not have moved forward anyways.

It would have taken time to get to these questions.

Um I still think that there's work that we can do to try and understand some of the questions that we brought forward.

Um, so whether that's conversation before Gamba and bring him forward for kind of a pre-legislative update, whether that's a study session in January.

Um, I think it doesn't have to be a formal predominant ordinance.

I would love for that to be in case I recognize that that might not be a preference majority here.

Um, but there are some technical questions that we can be asking now to try and speed this process involved, and I think we owe it to the people in the city to really have this haste when it comes to affordable housing.

Um I'll leave it there.

Um, but I appreciate I'll echo the sentiment again.

Um I think maybe I disagree with four of you, maybe there's three, maybe not even that.

Uh I still really respect the work that we all are doing here, and that's why I say call back to the other affordable work that we're doing.

There is work that is happening in not disagree on all, or we might not agree on all that um.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else on that topic?

Yeah, okay.

So a couple of things.

Um first of all, I want to say that I appreciate everyone who came and everybody who testified.

Uh, I understand that that's not an easy thing to do.

Um, and I appreciate the amount of support that this program has and the amount of people that actually want to see affordable housing built.

What I don't appreciate though is the misinformation that was brought on the part of the developer, Mr.

Fisher, in a lot of ways.

And I think he was missing informing the public before they came here to testify, and I find that appropriate.

Uh, I think more transparency is actually what we should strive for.

So when Mr.

Fisher basically said what he said about the meeting we had, I myself, the council president, Mr.

Fisher, and OHCS, the same OHCS group that came to our meeting, and again, they're the ones that gave us the misinformation.

If it's misinformation, right?

Came from OHCS.

Income from us, came from OECDs.

In that meeting, I was very clear.

I was very clear, and I'll be clear again that I am not against this program, and I think the majority of us are not against this program.

What we are against is putting together a process for a specific individual.

That's what we won't do.

We're not gonna be bullied or forced or lied on.

So somebody can turn a profit.

I'm not gonna do that.

In that meeting, and I don't know why he didn't mention that you were in that meeting too, because you were in that meeting.

Anything what he said OECS had mentioned is not true.

They did not say that.

They did not say there's no burden on the city, they did not say they didn't understand they didn't understand why we need two FTE.

They actually said that there's some clarification that needs to be done.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Council President can stop me anytime.

So I get this as politism.

Well, that's not bullshit.

Okay.

Let's be transparent, let's be up front, and let's tell the truth.

That was not the truth.

That was a lot.

Unacceptable.

And for you to try to misrepresent what this council has done, B, is doing, and C will continue to do, and then use that to gather people to benefit you and your project.

I am not okay with that.

And I don't think the people would be either.

I think, in my opinion, more people would be upset.

We put an ordinance before we knew the details, before we knew the lift, before we knew an ordinance is a local law.

Okay, sure.

Maybe it just says something.

Maybe it just says we're gonna participate in this program.

But there's more to it than that.

And all we wanted as a council, as a responsible governing body, was time to answer those questions from the state.

I even met with Representative Gamba, who helped put this program together.

And the very questions I had asked him that I asked on the phone on that meeting with Mr.

Fisher, okay, was questions that Representative Gamba even said, hmm.

That's a good question.

We might need to revise some things.

So nobody's saying no to affordable housing.

We've been building affordable housing before Mr.

Fisher got here.

First of all.

Second of all, since I've been on council, I have pounded this table for affordability.

I have used my own life experience, my my experiences of my fellow Milwaukee to advocate for these things that we are doing.

Okay.

So let's clear that up right now.

Now, what I do want to say that is the truth about that phone call is what Mr.

Fisher said.

And then Council President, you can stop me at any time.

When I asked him, what is the why in such a hurry?

What benefit?

How does this hurt your project?

Because if we put in ordinance, it doesn't mean he gets the money right there.

We still have an IGA intergovernmental agreement that needs to be done.

That is not a lie.

We still have multiple people to speak to.

There's processes that this takes place in.

Those are not lies, those are truths.

If you don't know, if you aren't privy to the behind the scenes of the city, sure, to you it might feel like it's not that long.

But it is in a city our size.

We do a hell of a lot here.

Okay.

So the question, the question I asked him about if this is how this is gonna affect him.

All he said was that all this would do was put him in front in the front of the line.

Okay.

Front of the line, that's that's fine.

But you still don't get money until everything else is taken.

So you'll be in front of the line until a project that a city that's already established with disabilities and with all the eight different things you have to do for it, jumps in front of you.

You're only gonna be in line until the shovel ready project is jumps in front of you.

And as far as I understand, based on that same conversation we had with OHCS, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only city, because they like to use, oh, we're gonna run out of funding, they'd like to use that as a reason to get everybody riled up.

The only city that has put forth an ordinance is Cruz Bay.

That is it.

That is it.

And if there's another city, forgive me if I'm missing.

But there ain't 10 or 20, there aren't cities lining up on the door.

But as a matter of fact, there's a lot of cities that have similar questions to what we have.

Does the public know that if the developer bails out, the city's on the hook to pay the state back?

Not the developer, not the developer.

Does the public know that after the house is sold, the homeowners on the hook?

And if the homeowner does those taxes that the homeowner pays, doesn't come to us, it goes to pay back the does the public also know that if that house, if that homeowner, God forbid, was for calls gone, did the public know that the city is once again on the hook for paying that loan out.

Okay.

We are a governing body that has to be good stewards on our people's tax dollars.

To just sit there and say, sure, we'll take every risk necessary when we just had a budget committee meeting telling us that we're coming on another cliff in about three to five years, is irresponsible.

It is irresponsible to do any of this prior to knowing what the facts are.

That is our job.

That is why we were here, that is why we were put here.

So I just try to clear the air because what he said was a lie.

OHCS actually had a little bit more questions too about our city and how it's gonna affect us.

We can't look at Portland.

We don't have a housing bureau, we don't have a million people regionally.

We just don't, we've got 21,000 people here.

And we have done more on affordable housing than any other city in our region, and you can you can take that to the bank.

So that really frustrates me.

Because where was Mr.

Fisher two years ago, three years ago, when I was asking for affordability as a board, right?

So the next thing I'll say, and probably the last thing we'll say, is the press release.

I'm sure we all got it.

Oh, yeah.

So Mr.

Fisher signed to do a press release at the North Chamber, uh, North Calculus Chamber of Commerce, talking about how Milwaukee is basically giving lip service on affordability, and we're not actually doing it, how we're just talking about it.

Talking about how Milwaukee is basically giving lip service on affordability.

And we're not actually doing it, how we're just talking about it.

Really?

And you expect us to do business with you?

So how it works.

If you come to our city to do good, do good because you want to do good.

Not because you want something out of it.

And don't berate our staff.

They don't deserve that.

Okay, you want to berate people, rate us.

That's why we're here.

Don't go after our staff.

Thank you, Counselor.

Very passionate words.

Well said.

And especially in that last point about don't go after our staff.

They think there has been a lot of testing dispersions on the staff.

And in a few settings lately that are not deserved.

So I appreciate you calling that out.

Others.

Thank you.

I'll serve by thank you.

Real quickly, um, the LSV is um has a meeting on December 17th that I've signed up for.

Um I normally wouldn't go to the regional president's meeting, but the topic is the LSC's research and proposals going forward for a new revenue model for the state.

Okay, so they've done a lot of research.

Uh they have some uh um uh some ideas about how to go forward, but the thing that really got my attention in the announcement was uh that they're calling for a unified effort by the cities and the state to bring this forward.

And uh I've been saying this for a long time.

We can't be a voice in the wilderness.

We have to be a unified voice on this, and so I'm gonna go and try to find out as much as I can about about police that's rec the uh the general response of support from by the other cities.

So I'll have that uh uh I guess it'll be in January because the meetings of December's gonna be glad to hear you're going to that.

Thank you.

Anything else from anyone?

Uh because we do still have an MRC meeting, so it's no pressure.

Okay.

Um so uh access meeting council meeting as the Milwaukee Redevelopment Commission.

If you're watching on Calcus Club Channel 30, YouTube or Zoom, uh you can stay right where you are.

The MRC meeting will be on the same channel as the as this regular session.

All right.

Um move to adjourn.

Second.

It's moving to second to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those say no, the meeting is adjourned.

And now I call the pre-development commission meeting to order.

This meeting is being conducted in person at City Hall and by video conference.

The public may participate in this meeting by coming to City Hall, joining the Zoom webinar, or watching on the city's YouTube channel, or Comcast Table Channel 30 in city limits.

Um I think I'm gonna forego the opportunities to speak part of the script, and we'll and we'll just go to the uh meeting minutes.

Is there any discussion of the September 2nd, 2025 commission minutes?

If not, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve the September 2nd, 2025 re-development commission meeting by sentence.

It's been moved its effectively to approve the September 2nd, 2025 for the development commission meeting minutes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no, not heard, the minutes are approved.

Okay.

Uh so business grant program approval.

Uh MRC executive director Joseph Brillio.

Yeah, it's commission.

Glad to be here, Joseph, executive director.

Um I'm here with uh Sierra Fox, our economic development coordinator.

Uh we do have we're gonna have some updates for you with regards to what's going on in the URA.

Um, and we do have an ask that we will definitely need uh the motion for tonight.

Um, but I'm gonna let uh Sierra kind of drive and she's framed up the conversation and the ask tonight, I think really well.

And so I'm just gonna pass it over to her to get us started tonight.

Sarah.

Thank you.

Okay, so um first up, I'm gonna give you a quick grant program update overall, um, and then we'll get into the action item, which is grant application number 2025.

Look, um, so to date um since August 2024, we have received, and this is updated as of right now, 30 applicants actually, and close to 1.3 million in requested funds.

Um, I'm gonna put a start next to the applications we've received since the recapitalization in August.

Um that's about 12 applications without the new one that came in today added to this list, which would be another existing business that applied.

We've had applications in all grant categories so far, and um the largest category for the tenant and storefront improvement grants is our existing businesses have applied.

Um, and this program has also attracted eight new businesses to our TIFF district, um, and then that smaller category is the property owners.

We've had four property owners apply for this program.

Um, so three capitalization and rebranding by Montech.

We've had two consulting applications, um, which is for our anti-displacement efforts, and then we still just have that one pre-development application.

Um, and we also have two placemaking community placemaking applications um in our docket.

Um, that program was originally for the construction excise tax portion of the grants, um, where we wanted to do place making community hubs neighborhood house, which um was a big part of the neighborhood hubs plan.

Um, and because the URA plan supports has a goal around a sense of place, creating a sense of place, um, we've offered that in the URA um area as well.

Um, and so there's 600,000 was expended in the first round, um, and we've had over 600,000 already requested in the second round.

And then a big portion of that is um the grant that we're going to be discussing tonight.

And that is at 10909, 10921, and 1093 Southeast Main Street.

Um, there's a type on the slide, it's um Monroe and Main, that's the corner that it's on, um, John Jefferson.

Um, and so this is known as some the Rexville building, some the ward building, um, or the collector's mall.

That's all that one is don't hear as often, but yes.

Um, and so a big uh key portion part of this project is they're converting it from four suites to eight suites, um, and they're referring to tenant improvement and storefront improvements for each site.

So that brings you to um why are we here tonight?

Why are we seeking your council action?

Um, the staff recommended that they submit a comprehensive and consolidated application.

Um, since this is a large and catalytic redevelopment project.

And because of this consolidation, the request exceeds um the setting authority of the MRC executive director.

Um, and I did want to just start off by um framing the conversation with the action that will be happening at the end of these slides, but we will go in more in depth into the project itself.

And I also wanted to note that there um the alternative to council approval is that the applicant could submit um eight individual applications to these suites.

Um, but we are recommending uh consolidated application as staff.

Um so um diving in, they are large requests allowable.

Um the answer is yes.

The program allows for requests um in excess of the funding limits if the proposal demonstrates catalytic economic development potential, but it must be approved by the BRC.

Um, so um how much is requested?

The total request is 400,000.

Um, and so how we got to that number is the eight suites, eight storefront grant applications and eight tenant applications, um 25,000 each per suite.

Um, and so that 25,000 is coming from the limit of the program as it exists now.

So um any individual applicant can apply for up to 25,000 for a storefront application, same with the tenant and permanents.

Um, and so moving into orange the program information.

Um, this grant application is eligible according to all the criteria set forth in the grant program.

Um, they are an eligible applicant, the property owner, as we've seen we've had four applications from property owners.

Um they are they have curated eligible tenants.

Um, they've been very intentional in creating a mix that includes retail, restaurant performance, and personal service.

Um, they are vetted and reviewed every activity that has been proposed for funding.

Um it is all eligible, and that includes uh roof replacement, facade restoration, HVAC and virtual work among many other things.

Um, the funding as far as the funding requirements, they have um a verifiable 50% match, which is the requirement of the program, and that 25K they're within the 25k limit for suite as discussed in that last slide.

As far as beyond the program and just alignment with the URA plan in general, the project is aligned with six goals and three objectives in the URA plan.

And I just put four on this slide that I thought were most pertinent.

And I will just go ahead and read those really quickly.

So the economic development goal 2.1 is to reactivate Main Street to re-establish and strengthen LIBO store from retail character with a pedestrian emphasis and 18-hour use.

They have uses proposed from bakeries to uh theaters so that 18-hour use activated from morning to the evening.

Um goal to bring economic development goal 2.5 is to remove barriers and traits development.

Um that is what this program was designed for and what is doing in this case.

Um economic development objective one is to invest in catalyst projects that leverage public-private partnership incentives and other tools that contribute to advancing multiple objectives of the urban renewal plan.

This is a catalytic project and it leverages multiple partnerships and incentives.

And finally, um, economic development goal objective seven, encourage adaptive reuse of developed sites with vacant or underperforming buildings.

Um this uh building was largely vacant with one of the four um space um being occupied.

Um and then finally for the staff analysis side, I wanted to highlight some of the impacts that were in the staff report.

Um so starting with the equity impact.

Um, the applicant was very intentional um and thoughtful about um the decision to create the smaller units for an easier entry point for new emerging or small businesses.

Um, as far as the budget impacts, um, as far as revenue into the city, this will increase property values as both generate SDCs as far as revenue out.

Um, this will um take up about 40% of the recapitalized budget, that one million we just added.

Um, but projects like this were um taken into consideration when setting that budget um and being asked about the demand for this program.

Um, as far as workload impacts, um, the consolidated application does create administrative efficiencies for myself as well as for our legal team and our accounts payable team.

Um, and the catalytic impacts are that this will generate increment, and that is the purpose of the URA plan and having a tech district um and revitalize uh main street dead space, um, as well as go from one tenant to eight tenants.

Um, and so with this um the staff do recommend um that the MRC approve the consolidated grant um because I'm not only um aligning with the criteria um of the program, but this is the re um the sorry, the catalytic impact of the um the redevelopment as well.

Um, and then coming to not just staff input but MERCAT input.

Um, we went to MERCAC last week.

Um, they do recommend support as well for the eight-suite project with two considerations for the applicant.

Um, they would like the applicant to consider working collaborative collaboratively with the business tenants on the plan improvements um because um each suite can only apply once to the tenant improvement and once the storefront improvement within a five-year period.

Um, so sort of sharing that um those funds, and then as well as consider setting aside some TI funding, um, tenant improvement funding um to provide that same collaboration for any suites that don't have currently have a letter of intent or lease.

And that brings me back around to the action for tonight of does the MRC approve the consolidated application and the alternative of courses listed there.

Um Joseph and I are both available to answer questions about the program and the application, and then the applicant team is in the audience and can answer questions about the project itself.

Okay, questions for staff.

Let's start with that.

Uh council body.

Just a quick question.

Um Does that what does the it's a total of 400,000?

Right.

What does that put the balance for the remaining funds available for other businesses and how many other businesses are waiting grants right now?

It puts the balance at 600,000 after that 40 hours because one million recapitalized budget.

Um, and already 11 other applicants have applied, and their total would be about 200,000.

Um councillor Mass.

Um, who's providing the match for the for the um the sweeps that are hosting for uh the applicant is providing the match, and that is the proper unit or okay.

So the land.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Council president?

You would approve them all with your signing authority.

And they only submitted one application at the secret staff.

Correct.

To me, this makes sense.

It seems straightforward.

I appreciate you working with Mrs.

Dragon So Brian.

One must remember that also I appreciate that.

So you told us they had three street addresses, but it's being reconfigured into eight suites.

So will there be eight different addresses?

There'll be new addresses assigned to them.

Yeah, I assume so.

And there might be we might get to a place where the applicant is better suited to answer.

My second question of that is are they paying eight sets of SDCs?

Yeah, so I think the short answer is yes.

Okay.

But it also depends on the floor plans, the fixture counts, and also the type of STC.

Sure, sure.

I get that different spaces will have different amounts with SCC, sure.

Um I did have another question that I wanted to ask the applicant.

But any other questions for staff.

That's not necessarily a question, just reiterating some of the comments and the discussion from the CIC meeting.

I think for the units that don't currently have tenants that using up all of the tenant improvement funds and storefront improvement funds puts a potential future tenant in a situation of then having to cover all of the costs for fixtures and equipment.

And so for very small businesses that are just starting, you know, just starting out or don't already have equipment that they can move in.

Um this may make the suite um less appealing because it'll be too cost prohibitive for them to move in.

So I think this is not necessarily a question to the staff, but rather maybe a plea to the property owners to um to speak to that a bit in your responses, and um and just you know, an effort to communicate some of the conversation from the advisory committee table in terms of using these funds for small businesses and um and businesses that struggle to uh to come into Milwaukee, you know, all ready to go.

Um this would include something like you know another um restaurant or something along those lines that might need to install out.

So I none of this is of course to say that it's not um uh that the CSC is going to appreciate the the work of the applicant or the staff putting together this packet, but just the fact that these normally come in from businesses and you get to um you get to see through their vision how how this whole thing kind of like um how it how it unfolds.

Um things like what the color of the outside of their building looks like, the signage that they choose, the fixtures that they choose, um, all of these sorts of things.

I think it just put it in another category, um, perhaps inadvertently, you know, to um to be thinking about these things as being built out as um ready need.

Um and I can see the benefits on either side.

So I just want to I just wanted to add these thoughts.

Um hopefully the property owner um would be able to refer to a few of those things in their comments.

Thanks.

Okay, any other questions for staff before we hear from the property owners not seeing any.

Um guys want to come on forward.

Uh I just hit the little button so that you get the red light.

Thank you.

Um, I mean, I guess, yeah, there are some questions.

If you have introductory remarks you want to make, you're welcome to make them, or otherwise we'll provide any things as questions.

I've worked as a developer my whole career, I suppose, which is about 15 years.

I've been handle projects on my own, and I've worked for others as well.

Um I would like to say that the short amount of time that I have spent in Milwaukee has been amazing.

I think it's probably the best city that I've worked in, and I've worked in Portland and Canby and all over Metro and Idaho and Washington.

So I um I appreciate you guys.

I appreciate the city of Milwaukee, and um seems like everyone that I meet who's from here or who has the works here is um sort of really jazzed on the city, and uh and that's been fun if nothing else.

Um the project that we've got is um Maine and Monroe.

People call it a few different things.

The sellers, people that I bought it from called it the Ralph Cooper Meat Market because that was um the first phase of the building, and I bought it from Ralph Cooper's grandchildren.

So it's building is never sold.

Um the grandchildren, I think maybe are about 80 years old now, and they've sort of lost capacity to um to maintain it, and um you know, it's over half leaking and sort of falling into disregard.

Um so we have split it up into eight suites.

The suites are 1500 to 2500 square feet each.

Um we've designed a set of shared bathrooms and uh rear egress corridor that goes into um goes out onto Monroe.

And a couple other things that we decided to do to try to lower the bar of entry for the small businesses that we've been marketing to are um we are sprinkling the building that allows for more uses, and there's not there's not too many buildings downtown that are fully sprinklered.

We um we did a new plumbing line, um including a shared 500-gallon grease trap, and we're stamping out um grease lines into all eight of the suites so that um they'll be more accessible to these tenants and future tenants that we might get.

Um and then eight new HVC units that are high efficiency.

Um we're gonna do all the lighting and all new electrical service.

Um there's more things that I'm forgetting now, but it's kind of the gist of the project.

We've got um I think we have five leases signed.

Do we so because uh citizen of Milwaukee here?

Um yeah, consulting with Jordan on this project.

And so uh we have five of eight leases signed.

We have two that are in final stages of negotiation that are getting close to signature.

Um so really we have one last vacant spot.

Um that's still happening.

Yeah.

And maybe one comment, uh just counselor Steven Ford.

Just on kind of um retaining some of the TI uh funds from the grant.

Um I think one thing that I've really appreciated seeing Jordan working with the tenants and potential tenants that that are coming in is um kind of the deficiencies that are coming with having the grant um I guess administered in this way on our end, because we have the efficiency of having an architect, uh, an engineer that's kind of on our team and uh mechanical designer, and so having all of these kind of um people on our team and being able to offer that to the tenants on on our side, so not charging them for them, but actually providing service to them as part of them signing on.

Um they're getting much a much greater value or benefit by having that collaboration compared to some other tenant spaces downtown where they have to go find a mechanical designer, they have to find a plumber when we're kind of doing that work for them in a much more efficient capacity.

And so um, and we've also conceded certain things like providing um TI dollars as well, uh, in addition to some of this custom build-out uh that we're providing for each of the tenants.

Um so we're taking as far as we can to lower that barrier for them when they come in um because it is difficult, as you know.

Um and most of our tenants have not had businesses before before, and so they're really coming in new, kind of wide-eyed, not knowing what uh to expect in this new adventure that they're taking on.

So you'll have one unit that you don't have a signed baseball right now, right?

We have three currently, we have two that are in final stages.

Yes, we have one that's totally vacant.

That's being one that you're still kind of um soliciting for.

Yes.

And so what type of businesses are you looking for in that?

Yeah, I think we're kind of focusing on retail.

I mean, we're not closing it off to any certain type of businesses, but um just to share a little bit about the businesses we have right now.

We have um as far as the leases we have signed, we have an improv theater.

Um we have a pizza shop, we have a bakery, we have a salon, and then we have a retail.

And so we would like to have a little more retail to have a balance there.

Um so we're talking with the soda operator uh for the soda fountain, and then we're talking with the restaurant board um as well.

Yeah, it's great.

It sounds like you've you know you've done you're working with the tenants, which is great to address some of those concerns.

And I guess what I was hoping is some of the people who are coming from Milwaukee, um, will know about those storefront grants programs, and I just want to make sure, but but because if you get this grant, they can't for five years.

So have you told them that?

Yeah, we've had conversations.

Uh also they're having some awkward conversations where they come to us and say, hey, you know, we heard about the script in the city, and then you know, we say, okay, well, part of the reason why we're taking a sec part is because we're getting those grant dollars ourselves.

And so um that has definitely been part of the conversation.

We've been transparent about that uh with your tenants, so there's no yeah, there's definitely no secret.

Okay about that.

Because I would hate for yeah, them to come in thinking they're gonna be eligible for these grants and and then find out for five years.

So um, yeah, I do encourage you to keep being transparent with all the rest of them as you're trying to lease them up.

Um there questions for the development team.

I guess my other question was I know you got a state grant, uh historic rehab grant, has that been going pretty smoothly?

I mean, you had to jump through some hoops for them.

Yeah, there was who can jump through.

We um so far so good.

We haven't submitted a pay application yet, but um I I think it's all gonna go great.

And there match for this 400,000.

Is are you using that grant as part of the match?

Or are you gonna be able to do that?

Project size is so large that we aren't we're matching both these grants again, at least once over.

Yeah.

Great.

Counselor?

What's happening with the John F.

Kennedy school?

John F Kennedy still is going to stay.

Uh so for that, um, we're adding a new door to the soda fountain.

We're splitting off that section of that big suite, and it'll be about a thousand square feet with its own front door, and they're gonna probably put a new countertop and maybe reupholster those tools, but um yeah.

Yeah, awesome.

Well, I know people will be excited to not hear that.

Um president.

When it gets past 930, we tend to wander into the needs of finding that motion that direct staff to approve this um consolidated application.

Uh well, we want to cut off other questions.

Okay.

Um is there a second uh second.

Uh uh.

We don't have a screw to asking for uh so you're just saying move to take the staff the authority to approve.

Yeah.

Um for the record can you stay in the motion though?

Uh I moved to direct staff to approve the consolidated application.

So moved and seconded to uh uh direct staff to approve the consolidated application.

I'm sorry, can I ask a point of where Scott?

It exceeds Joseph's signing authority.

So I actually think they have to move to approve the application and sign it.

I could be wrong, but I I don't think you can just direct him to do it when it exceeds his sign.

Approving application.

I'd like to end my motion.

I'd like the motion to approve that application.

Yeah.

What he said, I'd say whatever it was he said.

Uh it's been moved and seconded to approve the consolidated.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Unheard.

It's approved.

Congratulations.

Yeah, it's so cool.

I'm over your fan girl.

Yeah, we're all looking forward to seeing it.

Um, I do have one other update.

Um you all are the go.

Great job.

Um, I just I just wanted to give you a heads up.

So we've talked a meeting times over about the downtown main street um CIP.

That's we've been having that discussion, I feel for at least the last year.

Um, and talking with Peter and Jan, and then also just our whole CIP program.

Um, but the downtown, the scope was originally just like transportation and electrical and some plumbing.

But we the scope is increased because we're realizing there's a lot of infrastructure even deeper as far as like sewer, uh stormwater and water that also needs to be addressed, and that we should address while we're doing over tearing up the street.

So the scope has gotten bigger, the project's gotten bigger.

Um, and that's all really to say is that this is going to probably be not this summer or fall, but it's most likely going to be a 28 or 29.

Um not even 27.

Right.

It's not only just the scope, but it's also considering if we do move on Milwaukee Bay Park, if we do move on catalog, an amount of disruption, especially when we're providing uh a lot of investment into building out storefronts and getting downtown really going.

The amount of disruption that project will create on a block-by-block basis is uh just it makes sense to maybe wait a little things cook a little bit longer.

So um you'll hear more about it through the CIP part of the budget process, but I just want to give you all and that includes like doing a crosswalk in front of this building, which is our desperately needed.

Right.

Yeah, there are elements that we'll be talking about.

Yeah, extracting.

There's some on these really us just trying to walk our top.

We've said we want to re make a realistic CIP.

We've an economic development goal, and yes, it's project will help economic development, but I think they're I'll just be speaking for myself, but there's nervousness of we've created such great panelytic momentum.

I don't want to kill it with a year of construction downtown.

And so all of those things, you know, I just we wanted to be transparent that this is what we're talking about at the staff level as we scope out the CIP.

And again, hopefully, yeah, another big construction project happening on the other side of Laughlin with the park.

Um we just want you to be blind spitted in February if we brought this forward that way.

Um we dealing with this with the MERCAC as well, because this is a this is a significant CIP project for the URA, but wanted to just kind of daylight our thinking on that.

Answer any questions you've got and bring it forward in February as part of the overall schedule.

But I think there's pieces we could maybe spin off.

Yes, typing is typing a crossback and a tracker for that needed to be easy.

The Hadley Black.

We're not gonna delay that for more years.

Um there's things on the still.

Okay, no questions on that.

All right.

Well, we got in under the wire.

Uh before Scott told us we had to do a motion.

Scott told me the X can go all night.

Okay.

So mayor, do you need a motion?

I do need a motion.

Okay, well, I'll get that uh extension motion right after.

Oh moved it to the uh second.

It's been moved and seconded served the MRC meeting.

All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no.

Comeeting mission is adjourned.

Good night, everyone.