I call the 2439th meeting of the Milwaukee City Council to order.

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 on Cable Comcast Cable Channel 30 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 on the table on that side of the room for those at City Hall or emailing OCR at Milwaukee, Oregon.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 username 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 78602.

Servicios de Tradución and Espanol este disponible cuando se solicitado.

Se pide al público que solicite servicios de traducción y otros servicios de accesibilidad por lo menos 48 horas oras antes de la reunión.

Para obtener más información, llama a Secretario de la Ciudad, a Cinco Cerrotes, Siete Ochos César Siete Cinco Cerrotos.

Translation services are also available in other languages.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And then we have our announcements.

And there's a good chance if it rains a lot this week that the volunteers won't be able to get across to Elk Rock Island, in which case they will work in Spring Park because there's plenty of ivy and other things to uh pull and litter to pick up on both sides.

Join the annual celebration at Milwaukee Bay Park to view the Christmas ships warm by a fire and purchase some tasty treats this Saturday, December 20th from 430 to 730 p.m.

The Llewellyn Neighborhood District Association will once again be selling food with all proceeds going towards their community events, including their annual summer concert series.

Please keep in mind that Milwaukee Bay Park is closed for the event, so please park in downtown and crossing the Blafflin Boulevard at Signalized Intersections.

To avoid parking constraints, you can also park in a nearby TriMet parking ride and take the max into downtown.

Visit the city website for more helpful tips on how to get to the event safely.

On the first day of winter and the longest night of the year, join with local neighbors to honor those in our community who have experienced homelessness and lost their lives in 2025.

The homeless persons memorial candlelight vigil will take place on Sunday, December 21st from 6 to 7 p.m.

at Liberty Plaza in downtown Oregon City.

The visual will include reading the names, a candle ceremony, along with words and live music to reflect on.

Since 1990, the National Homeless Persons Memorial Day has taken place each year on the winter solstice.

And this is the fourth year that a memorial has been sponsored by Clackamas County.

Those who attend are invited to bring new warm socks or a new or gently used winter coat to help someone experiencing homelessness.

This free outdoor family-friendly New Year's Eve event in downtown culminates with a 9 p.m.

cherry drop lowering by crane of a seven-foot lighted bing cherry.

The event takes place in the parking lot at Harrison and Main Street, right in front of Historic City Hall.

Help the city's beloved mascot Millie find a new best pet friend 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 likes on Engage Milwaukee.

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.

And I'd also call out that the uh in about two hours, no, about an hour, the Christmas ships should be pulling into Milwaukee Bay.

Uh, and they come again on Thursday and then on Saturday when we have the big solstice event.

So there are three chances this week to see the Christmas ships.

Um, we used to do a proclamation for the Christmas ships, but we uh uh we don't do that anymore.

So I just want to call it out there that um people in Milwaukee love to come watch the Christmas ships, and you can do that tonight.

Oh, it looks like the city manager might have another announcement.

I just wanted to quickly say happy Hanukkah to anyone in our community who celebrates.

Absolutely, absolutely happy Hanukkah.

Happy Kwanzaa, whatever uh holiday, however, you celebrate the holidays, happy holidays.

Um, for more information about each of these events, please visit the city's homepage at MilwaukeeOregon.gov.

Call 503-786-7555.

Okay, and uh this we do a haiku every week, and this one was written by one of our staff members here, Emma Fish.

Bright Reflections Glyde, the shark in a Santa hat slicing through the waves.

So seemed like a great one for the for the solstice event and the Christmas ships.

So thank you to Emma.

All right, and then moving on.

Um we have our outstanding student uh award, and I will uh ask uh Principal Lewis Mayer to come up with his student uh Isaiah Flores.

Scott.

Scott, can you get a folder, like a manila?

Just even a regular part.

Thank you, Mary Betty.

Good evening, board.

Um, it's great to be here again.

The second one.

I know what to expect now.

And also this evening, I have the honor and pleasure to introduce one of our Milwaukee Academy of the Arts, Design Flores.

He is currently has a 3.9 GPA on track to graduate with the Honest Diploma.

His um experiences with leadership and involvement is in the student government.

He is the ASB president, so present.

He's a member of Milwaukee Bayquire and Pony Pipers.

If you never heard of the Pony Pipers blowing their pipes, you need to come in here.

It is incredible.

He's also a track and feel athlete, part of the community 101.

He's also part of the principal's council.

Advanced courses, as you can see there, this man is busy.

AP literature and composition, AP language and composition, AP biology, AP government, APUS history, and AP world history.

This young man is taking all college credit courses right now.

So I'll give you that.

Six courses.

That is phenomenal.

So again, he's another reason why he puts the product pro principal here.

So board and mayor.

Proud to adjust you, student on the month.

Desires for us.

Nice to meet you, Zai.

Nice to meet you too.

Um, can you tell us uh what you plan to do?

When are you a senior?

Yes, I'm a senior.

So what do you plan to do?

Right now I'm planning on going to a four-year university, and my dream is to become a lawyer.

So I want to go to a four-year do my undergraduates and then go to a law school somewhere in Oregon.

Okay.

And have you chosen a four-year or your students?

Right now I'm struggling to accept the photos.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Great.

I guess it is early for that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, that's exciting.

Um love the well-roundedness, everything from music to track to you know, all the excellent grades.

So good on you.

Um, it's it's uh it's always great to see the students that um the principal brings.

Um, and I will open it up to my fellow counselors who may have things they want to ask you about or comment on.

Go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, I'll start with a very serious question.

Today was Crazy Hair Day for Spirit Week.

Did you celebrate?

Yes.

Uh well, I had I fixed my hair for this, but I had my hair.

I had my hair, I brushed it all in the front, and my bangs are so long.

It was covered, it was about to hear in my face.

Awesome.

Uh very impressive.

I I that's a lot of AP plus.

I don't think I took one AB plus in high school.

Uh here I am.

So I have a lot of faith in you, uh, where you're gonna go.

And speaking of the school year decided, I know you've still got letters coming in, but it's all the track and field.

Are you looking to continue that at the next not so much, but I do love running, so I still want to continue running because that's one of my favorite things to do.

It's like a hobby.

Nice.

Yeah.

PSU's gonna continue.

Um, as far as law, what uh have you thought of what law he was?

Environmental law is what I've been thinking about.

Okay, nice.

Yeah, we could use that right now.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Best of luck to you.

And honestly, I I can't say enough about yet another student from this high school.

Um, it says a lot about this community and what our future generations will.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I'm super impressed.

I mean, everyone is here.

Your resume is pretty incredible.

Um you heard the gas around environmental law.

Do you have any suggestions?

What could the city of Milwaukee be doing to help protect our climate or things that you think we should do?

I think just fighting awareness, especially at the high school level, because I think there's so many people who want to be involved, and I think just hosting more events to advocate for climate change and anything about the environment and doing things like the cleanups, like we're doing at Elk Rock Island, just getting the high school more involved.

I think those are great ways to get everybody involved.

Okay.

Um, if you've got some free time, it'd be great to find out to you.

Congratulations, you're doing great things.

Uh I have two questions.

The first question is what's the hardest part about being the uh president of the student body?

Oh, hardest thing.

I think the hardest thing is probably just it's probably just as trying to get everyone's opinion, like trying to hear everyone out because there's so many different opinions at the school, and I think that's the most important part is just hear every single person's and that's what I like to do.

I like to are we have about 30 people on our council, and I want to make sure that I have a relationship with every single person.

Here, I'm gonna give you my seat.

Uh so you're doing great things, but I I suspect you need some help along the way.

Would you introduce your your chairing section behind you?

Oh, so behind me, this is my little brother, Andres Flores.

He is a sophomore at Milwaukee High School, too.

He's also involved in choir.

This is my sister, Vidalia.

She is a senior at PSU.

She's suddenly being an English teacher right now.

Very good.

This is my this is my father, Victor Flores, and he has supported me through my whole life, and my mom, Sonia Flores.

They both supported me so much.

We moved from Albuquerque when I was eight years old to Portland, and those here have been the biggest help.

I got some big smiles on the guys.

It's a nice prison skip.

Well, and you mentioned your sister at PSU, and you may not have heard it because he said it quietly, but um Counselor Koshrabati was mentioning how PSU has a good track program.

And I know you want to be a lawyer, but there are three former ASP presidents at least in this room.

So we would really city city management.

Oh no, be a lawyer, be a lawyer.

Um we have a proclamation to read in your honor.

So I don't know if I have a long, but I I'll read it from here then.

Okay.

The City of Milwaukee is proud to recognize for outstanding student achievement and academics, civic engagement, and extracurricular activities at Milwaukee High School, Eastide Flores.

Let it be known to all that on this 16th day of December 2025, the City Council of the City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation in the county of Plackemies in the state of Oregon, recognize this student as an excellent example of the bright future of this community and nation.

So we thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and we uh wish you the best in the rest of your senior year.

The less semester of senior year can be pretty fun, I think.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Happy holidays to you all you can do.

Thank you so much.

I'll be a good president for the listen to everyone.

Yeah.

Community comments.

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

Before we begin, is there follow-up from this December 2nd comments?

There is Mayor.

We had quite a bit of comment that night.

So I apologize.

I have a little bit of a longer response than normal, but um a lot to respond to.

So I'll dive in.

So at the last regular session on December 2nd, we had several individuals testify regarding the state's middle income revolving loan program, commonly called mural.

Um, a specific as well as a specific project proposed in Milwaukee that would like to take advantage of Merle and affordable housing in general.

Uh, on behalf of the city staff, I'd like to share my deep appreciation for all who testified.

It takes courage to speak in front of council, and much of the testimony was extremely moving about the importance of adding more affordable housing stock in Milwaukee, a goal I know I and Council share.

For clarity, I'm gonna group my responses to last meeting's testimony into two buckets.

The first will be an update on some information um on the work the city has undertaken and is actively pursuing to support the development of affordable housing.

And then second, I'll respond to some specific questions and comments raised about the mural program.

So to start, we've asked Scott to pull up a one-page resource that we've prepared um to summarize the city's current efforts related to affordable housing.

I fear there was a little bit of mischaracterization in the last meeting that the city is not authentically advancing council's goal on affordability, and I don't feel that's accurate, so I'd like to share some details about the myriad tools we are employing to support more income restricted stock in the city.

This is also available online.

Um we had a version of this before, but we've updated it since that last meeting to really show in numbers and in specifics how the various tools in our toolbox have advanced affordable housing stock in the city.

So just with some background, um, the city adopted its housing affordability strategy in 2020.

Um, and then also adopted its housing capacity analysis and housing production strategy, all of which really point us in policy direction to advance income restricted as well as market rate housing in the city.

Um scroll down, Scott.

I you know, again, I I really want to say how moved I was and how uh deeply committed I am as a public servant to addressing housing crisis and adding more stock.

Um again, I I think I I so I completely empathize with all the testimony provided at the last meeting.

I do want to say that I think Milwaukee is doing a lot to increase that stock.

So these are just some statistics since 2019.

Um, we've added 243 units of affordable housing in the city.

Um, that 228 of those are for folks learning less than 60% AMI and 15 for those above.

And as you know, 15 of those units are our affordable homeownership, which is a sector that we're really trying to encourage.

If you looked at what's on the development pipeline right now, there's 175 units in that pipeline as of December, 40 that would be for under 60% and 135 for over 60%.

You can go to the back page, Scott.

So again, I just wanted to, you know, I'm gonna talk about Merle.

Merle is a tool in the toolbox.

I want to just uh share a little bit about some tools other tools that the city is using and has used.

The construction excise tax fund was established in 2017.

It's a tax on development of 100,000 or more that helps seed additional development in the affordable housing space as well as economic development activities.

As of uh right now, we've awarded $2 million to be funding from CET to support affordable housing.

Um you can see some pictures of short stack in Hillside Park Phase One, which um are combined or are over um over 290 units of affordable uh housing supportive through that program, and that fund continues to replenish.

So we look forward to doing more expenditures of CET in the future, um including at the Sparrow site, which you'll uh have for consideration tonight on your consent agenda.

The proposal that we are asking for your support to move into exclusive negotiations on would add 16 to 22 affordable homeownership units on that site.

You can scroll down, Scott.

Another tool in the toolbox I just want to make sure folks are aware of is the nonprofit low-income housing tax exemption.

So this is an exemption again made possible by the state, but the city and the school district in partnership last year combined forces to say we want this to be not something we have to consider on a case by case basis.

If a development qualifies, we will provide this exemption.

Um, so far it's been taken advantage of by Northwest Housing Alternatives at the Walsh Commons property, which was uh built in 2019.

Um, I also want to note that you know we we heard a lot about a specific development on Linwood at the last meeting, just up the road from that site.

Another church is selling land, and we've had some uh pre-applications with Northwest South Alternatives as one of the partners as a group looking to use this exact exemption to finance affordable housing on that site.

So that's very exciting to us and another tool in the toolbox.

Um, and then just we kind of end this one page here with just kind of a the rest of the menu of things we already have in our arsenal.

We can uh we can use support or um be partners on seeking grant assistance again tonight on your consent agenda.

You'll see we're asking for your support in doing that so we can help related Northwest build even more uh units at the Hillside property.

Um we provide pre-development assistance in the urban renewal area.

Um we are open to conversations around STCs and SDC waivers.

Um, there's always a cost benefit to be done there, but that is something in the toolbox and something we're gonna be exploring through the housing production strategy next year with you all.

And then finally, you take action this year to adopt the affordable housing code incentives.

So those are another piece of the puzzle to you know to be in this arsenal of things that allow us to increase housing stock.

So again, this is not at all to diminish the absolutely real testimony about how we need more housing and we need more affordable housing, but I just wanted to um put into the record some of the evidence and examples of things this council, previous councils and staff are doing to increase that supply.

So turning to Merle, and that's it for that, so that you can stop sharing.

Turning to Merle, um, I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the passion and advocacy of the community members who have encouraged the city to explore this program.

Um, first, some of the comments made on December 2nd I felt seemed to imply that the city has said no to Merle outright.

And I just want to clarify that my understanding of council's November 18th conversation was not that the city was saying no to Merle forever, but that council directed staff to the churn in March to further explore the program, including any changes made uh in rulemaking uh at the beginning of 2026.

Second, um there have been some statements made that Milwaukee must hurry to adopt Merle, the Merle originating ordinance because the funds are going fast.

From the staff perspective, from my perspective, I don't believe there's evidence of this.

My understanding is that Coos Bay is the only city to have formally adopted a Merle program.

Other cities like Milwaukee have expressed interest in learning more, um, but are generally taking it slow, like us and waiting for the state to address some concerns and questions that have been raised in conversations with OHCS staff.

There have also been some statements or fears that Portland will gobble up all the Merle dollars.

Staff reached out to staff in Milwaukee, reached out to staff at the Portland Housing Bureau about their interest in Merle.

And they shared, quote, no decision has been made on Portland's use of Merle yet.

We reached out to a couple other cities.

One said, we have not looked into Merle without dedicated housing staff.

We haven't had the bandwidth to explore actions beyond what we included in the city's HPS.

I share these quotes just to put into context that Milwaukee is not alone in having questions about the program that it would like answered before firmly deciding whether or not to advance it.

Third, I feel there was a sense for much of the testimony that the city could take action immediately that would enable a particular development to move forward with haste.

For transparency, I think it is important to clarify.

We haven't, we have not even got to the stage of receiving direction to prepare an ordinance to adopt the program.

I think it's important to clarify that adoption of an originating ordinance for Merle is just one step in a multi-step process.

Applications for Merrill eligible developments couldn't begin until IGAs have been negotiated with the county and the state.

From my conversations with county leadership, I don't believe they have been approached about Merle to date.

So while I have a deep respect for the urgency felt by those who want to see this particular project move forward, I do think it's important to state that even if the city were to adopt a mural ordinance in the very near term, I think we are there's several months of process that would follow.

Finally, there were several statements and questions raised about this impacts to city operational capacity were Milwaukee to adopt Merle.

While some commenters expressed that it was easy to find that the administrative burden would not fall on cities, I respectfully feel the opposite way.

Looking at the Merle program manual that is published by OHCS, it is explicitly clear that quote, if a sponsoring jurisdiction adopts an originating ordinance to accept program funds, it will establish a grant program, which must include forms, required information, and deadlines by which a developer may submit a project application for a project grant with respect to an eligible project.

That manual also states, quote, sponsoring jurisdictions that award project grants to developers must perform oversight and enforce compliance with the affordability requirements.

And then it goes on to include detailed information on what those requirements might look like.

So, in sum, adopting Merle will require the city to capacitate the following setting up a new program, setting up an application process, establishing the application criteria for development projects, reviewing and approving that the process on developer applications, which might include specialized betting and developer financials and cross-checking with OHCS, ensuring that the affordable units maintain their intended use, periodic inspections and annual reporting.

So back to where I started this response, the soliloquy.

As I hope is demonstrated by the suite of tools we already employ.

But before determining whether to adopt a new tool, I feel it is only responsible to assess the full operational impact it will require so we can plan accordingly.

It may absolutely be worth it to take on these administrative actions.

That is a decision you get to make.

But that is not what was in question on November 18th.

We were having the first discussion as a body on this topic and daylighting some questions that we'd have to answer before responsibly signing up to administer such a program.

In reviewing the council meetings and reports prepared in Coos Bay, the one city that has adopted this, they asked very similar questions before agreeing to adopt a mural.

Again, I feel we are approaching this in a very similar manner to other cities.

Finally, I received a question from one testifier about what steps I deployed to come up with an estimate of two FTE needed to administer the program.

In reviewing the November 18th meeting, I did not believe I ever stated a number on the dais.

I do think I shared a potential estimate in a one-on-one conversation with a council member that may have been shared.

As the testifier suggested, when a city is determining what kind of resources may be needed to administer a program, it is absolutely prudent to do outreach to others that may have put this program in place and to do careful modeling internally with city leaders about current capacity and gaps, and then to transparently discuss that with the city's budget committee and council.

If and when we get to the stage of considering mural adoption, those are all steps I will absolutely take.

I was asked to give a high-level estimate of potential capacity needed to add this program if other workload was not reduced, knowing what I know about how stretched our community development and finance departments are already.

But I never meant to share that as a firm proposal or as a budget asked.

I respect the city's budgeting process and will always make resource asked formally backed by data and through the correct channels.

So I hope this information was helpful.

We've already scheduled the follow-up conversation for Merle in March, as directed by council on November 18th.

If council direction has changed, please let me know, and I'm happy to answer any questions on things that I should really appreciate that.

That was a lot to cover.

And I think excellent job.

I know it's not my time, but it's related to what uh what uh the city manager um just mentioned, and I wanted to um say a few words about uh uh this topic, and I'll tell you that uh in that uh December 2nd uh public testimony where we heard a lot of uh heartfelt support for uh Merle.

Um it became known that there was a press release that was uh issued by one of the rural supporters that day.

I had not seen that press release at the time of that meeting, but I did see it the following day, and in that release, I was quoted as saying the uh in the November 18th uh 2025 meeting that I am in no support of the ordinance.

Uh that is inaccurate.

Uh and it can be verified with the uh with the meeting videos of uh of uh November 18th.

What I really what I said was I'm was not in support of an ordinance at this point.

Uh there's a significant difference between those two quotes, and the actual quote is in line with the council's direction to not close the door but to seek further clarification on mural.

I have submitted this uh same topic as a memorandum for the record uh to be submitted in the uh proceedings of tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

I I too had not seen that uh at the time of the last meeting, and I think there are several things uh that are less than honest and less than accurate in that um whole statement, but I think that's for another day.

Uh okay.

Uh anything further on mural.

Okay.

Um just to verify that replicative more gamble will be here on the sixth to also be asked questions on rural.

From my understanding, he was a representative that worked on that program as well.

So for anybody interested, that'll be on January 6th.

And he'll be here um to talk about session generally too.

It's not specific tomorrow, but yeah, but it is an opportunity.

Um I don't see anyone in the audience wishing to testify.

Mr.

Stoffer, is anyone online wishing to testify?

We do have a Zoom audience, but no one's hand is raised.

Okay.

So with that, I will forego the rest of the uh script here.

We don't have any community comments tonight.

Uh, which is nice for you, Joseph.

You won't have anything to respond to at the first meeting in January.

Uh so we will move on to the consent agenda.

Tonight's consent agenda includes minutes of the city council October 21st, 2025 group session, October 21st, 2025 regular session.

A resolution removing Lee Garnett from the tree board and appointing Linda Callahan to the tree board, a resolution defining certain benefits as included in official compensation, a resolution acting as the local contract review board reinstating a banking services agreement with Columbia Bank for general banking services, a resolution authorizing the award of the Sparrow Site Design and Development Project to Dev Northwest and for the city manager to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Dev Northwest.

A resolution authorizing a partnership between the city and related Northwest to submit a grant application for the Oregon Business Development Department's Infrastructure Finance Authority Housing Infrastructure Finance Program to fund infrastructure improvements at Hillside Park and approval of an Oregon Leaker and Canvas Commission application for Bigfoot Cider Company, 3055 Southeast Washington Street, a manufacturer.

Does any council member wish to remove a consent agenda item?

Hearing none, and uh we'll entertain a motion.

Before I motion, I just want to mention in the minutes.

Scott is impeccable at these minutes, or whoever did says he's impeccable because they managed to get the fact that I was late to a meeting.

It says Council Cross Body Right at the meeting at 4 10.

Thank you.

And for the transparency, I just want to say really appreciate a reminder.

And for the record, I want to say the council of course a body showed up for the uh for the section at 355 tonight.

So he made up for it.

Apparently, I got five more minutes to make that work at all.

But with that, I will uh motion to move to approve.

Uh move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda as presented.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no.

Unheard the consent agenda is approved.

Yay.

I have to say, like last meeting we had like one thing on the consent agenda.

And tonight we have a lot and a lot of significant things too.

Yeah, it's great.

Okay.

First business item, historic resources inventory.

Um, so uh I sent very belatedly today.

I sent around a little three-page uh concept paper that the council president and I have worked on.

We've been meeting with um residents, we've been meeting with um uh uh planning commissioner Lisa Grey Chick and folks who Milwaukee Museum and the last meeting we also had the storyline community there um to talk about a way that we might be able to jump start a pilot um on historic um resources inventory um because a lot of the work uh for that does not necessarily need to be staff book um it is things that way people can do uh what's a little bit of appropriate oversight.

Um so I couldn't outline what's in that paper, but I'm I guess I'm gonna assume everybody got a chance to read it, unless you and you can just I I guess I'll ask the council president if he wants to I just stress um the first part of that document describes a little bit about the process of how we got there.

Um council back in 2023 decided that the design landmark commission didn't really have that much work to um address.

The committee didn't need to continue.

Um I think we've seen the idea of a historic inventory code simply that we discuss time space for on the work plan.

I think those discussions are certainly something we can continue to have in the budget process for this upcoming year.

But um, the mayor and I both felt it would be really helpful to have momentum happening with our historic resources in Kansas City if we tried to initiate something that was volunteer-led.

There is so much excitement about this across the city from the planning commission to the Oliwaki Museum to a bunch of individuals who have reached out.

I think that there's a real potential to see this kind of community-led effort to begin this historic resources where we see this really as a pilot for future work to come and setting the foundation for strong code um package as well.

So we're happy to answer any questions.

I really am excited.

This to me is an elegant solution that doesn't require time, um, but also gets us starting to work on our historic resources inventory, which I think is really important.

Questions, and I guess I would invite staff questions as well.

So any questions, any comments?

I I know a lot of people about one o'clock.

Oh, okay.

I do know quite a few community members have actually been wanting to partake in this, and I know the Milwaukee Museum has been a big proponent of allowing volunteers to start taking up historical uh inventory.

So I'm all for it.

That's what people have been asking for more uh ability to help the city in accomplishing what we need to.

And I can uh if everyone hasn't been able to read the pack yet, they can quickly summarize the idea here is that you could have a volunteer-led historic resources inventory.

I live about five food houses that would cost about five thousand dollars if we hired a project manager who is uh graduate student at the University of Oregon with their historic resources or their historic preservation program.

Um we're still trying to shape out the details of is there a local nonprofit who'd be willing to be the pass through funding.

I know the mayor and I have talked about considering our council budget towards this.

We're looking at seeing if there are other two you'd be interested in, you know, offer up to anyone else as council budget if they want to allocate to this.

We totally are um open to that.

I think the hope here is that with a five thousand dollar investment and uh graduate student, this 500 house pilot would get a volunteer committee excited and engaged in the process of historic resources inventory.

They'd be going out with iPads, taking pictures of houses, little badges that say why they're taking pictures of your house.

Um and I think that this would the council body be a really good um vehicle for a lot of the passion that our presidents have for historic preservation.

um open that I think the hope here is that with a five thousand dollar investment and uh graduate student this 500 house pilot would get a volunteer committee excited and engage in the process of historic resources inventory they'd be going out iPads taking pictures of houses little badges that say why they're taking pictures of your house um and I think that this would be concept of audience be a really good um vehicle for a lot of the passion that our presidents have for historic preservation I mean especially as we're seeing cat's different things change in our downtown this historic resources inventory is something that I think is important for us to revisit and have good conversations to be having today have you had conversations with the Milwaukee Museum on this yeah absolutely that will have Steve Bennett from the museum would they be able to do the password well he he's got to take that to his board he's he wasn't ready to commit to it um but he's willing to take that to his board there was also some talk about it being the Parks Foundation um the Parks Foundation has been uh a partner for several other projects lately that were you know some of our grant projects um and so I feel like the parts and board I feel tapped out in terms of that but um so I do hope the museum will be uh amenable to doing it but um but yeah we haven't that down but we really want to come today because Lisa told us um she has the connections to the Oregon University of Oregon program and she's uh and you know she knows she's worked with these kind of grad students before and she says January is when they will be looking for projects to do and so um getting sort of head nods here so that we can um you know start that process of defining that and and getting her help and getting out there and trying to find uh find the project manager for this uh is sort of why we wanted to get to this today um yeah is this what you're looking for is a headline yeah I think so you got a head any more headphones um question mayor who who supervises the graduate student in the plan well that's a good question I mean I guess uh I guess we would probably be count counting on Lisa to some degree because it's her experts her expertise in this field um but um they haven't really we haven't really had a concrete conversation around that I think the conversation was you would have a like the faculty community that is leading this work the putting together um the scope of what the inventory would be in partnership with the project manager and so I think it would be that like committee that is the call collection of different organizations Milwaukee Museum a planning commission um that's trying to direct that work and I don't know if there would necessarily be a day to day manager.

Many of those programs require a direct liaison with either the community organization or a sponsoring organization.

So it might be worth thinking that through to see um who would be responsible for like day to day interactions or questions that may come up and then my other question has to do with um how the inventory would be used um and if it would be an advisory tool or would have um you know some role in regulatory conversations moving forward well I think it would be the basis to start those regulatory conversations at some point I mean obviously doing 500 houses is is only uh you had a little increment um but it would I think the only thing they would be used at this point is to uh send to the state historic preservation office make sure it I mean that's part of the idea of the pilot is make sure it fits their need for the the sort of inventory that they put into their records and then um you know once we know that we've done it sort of to their satisfaction and they have I was trying to get from her and I didn't manage to get it before we sent this paper out as part of why it didn't come out to you last night but um they have a uh you know they have a screen of the questions that people are going to be asked to to know the training people are going to be getting about different how architectural elements and things and so there's a fixed you know there's a fixed screen of data that's collected and then just um seeing how that uh you know making sure that we're doing it well that it's fully controlled and that it fits the needs for the state historic preservation office and in the process of communication with the homeowners or I student also just audience of the home if it's a rental um then like what is the what does the planning look like around um access for like bilingual translation or interpretation when folks are going out and asking questions well first off the volunteers are not going to anybody's door they're not engaging with people unless people come out and engage with them so they are staying in the right of way they are taking photos they are answering these questions about architectural features on the iPad um they are not you know nobody's going into a home or going up to a door um they will have would have some kind of identification and maybe some handouts about the

Well, first off, the volunteers are not going to anybody's door, they're not engaging with people unless people come out and engage with them.

So they are staying in the right-of-way, they are taking photos, they are answering these questions about architectural features on the iPad.

Um, they are not, you know, nobody's going into a home or going up to a door.

Um, they will have would have some kind of identification and maybe some handouts about the project.

And so we could ensure we could ensure that those are done, you know, in a couple of languages.

Um I mean, it might be especially confusing if someone doesn't speak English and then goes out to interact with someone who you know isn't bilingual, who has a tablet who is taking pictures and and making notes about their phone, especially right now.

So well, and I think we would definitely want to you know have something in the pilot about this if it kicks off and um you know that yeah, I mean we would need to do some messaging all around.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm not uh Emma, did staff have any questions?

I mean, I I'll say some stuff and then I will welcome my staff to correct the stuff I get wrong.

Um I did send a follow-up note after the mayor distributed the concept paper just to share some good news.

I mean, I like often I'm here telling you about capacity constraints, capacity constraints, which are true.

Um, but for we're very excited to be getting into 2026, but finally a fully staff planning department, which is gonna be great.

Um, so as we're looking ahead to work planning and budget development for the planning division.

Um, I I think this problem is well timed at the end of the pilot, or as the pilot is nearing it at its end.

I think that'd be a great opportunity for another staff and council discussion about what the larger historic inventory project looks like so that we can scope that appropriately.

Um, I do think for this pilot phase, we will want to make sure we have a staff liaison.

I appreciate what you said about the dual day to be working with your shipbo.

I think also making sure it works for for us.

Um but I I appreciate the efforts taken to um theoretically make this a light lift for staff.

So while we're finishing the TSP and getting those three planners on board, um, that we can kind of keep this fire moving in a bit of a non-totally staff managed direction.

So Vera Laura, anything you need to add?

Okay.

Okay.

Did you know for the pilot?

Is it going to be one neighborhood and do you know which neighborhood wants to bite?

Okay.

Yeah, we don't have enough pilot till February, right?

So maybe by mid-January, by pilot deadline might have some of that, although it's it's probably more likely to be the March.

Both work.

Was there a neighborhood you're gonna focus on?

Because that'll be important.

We talked about um different, I mean, yeah, I we talked about different neighborhoods, and we it may not even cross the line over a neighborhood board.

Sure.

Um, because it's just we're not able with this kind of a pilot to do any whole neighborhood.

Um, and so uh and so yeah, we kind of wanted to put the question of where to the side until we got sort of a uh go ahead on the general idea.

Louise has talked about um this historic resources would be very difficult in one's past because um normally in historic research inventory with houses that are 45 years old or older, and a lot of them it's a pretty modern houses that were constructed in the suburban boom happening in Milwaukee, we want the city's built, would now be eligible for historic resources, and I think that um kind of to your question earlier about so what do we do with this?

I think it's open-ended either because we have a storyline there, they've done some really interesting storytelling about church properties that they're turning into new affordable housing, thinking about like what are the stories of land for the housing is there, time in the world now, and how do we tie this all together?

I think that capturing what's on the land now and thinking about how these kind of phases of development tell Milwaukee's story.

This is purely like the information gathering stage, and I think it would be helpful piece of history to have any context.

Yeah, I really do think of it as kind of ground-to thing.

I mean, we have a we have this GIS list that that data was taken from.

I mean, we have a GIS list that shows every house in Milwaukee and supposedly when it was built, and um, you know, so it's it's really a ground-toothing exercise, basically.

Yeah, okay.

So we'll start talking to the museum and the and planning commissioner Grey Trick.

Let's see if we can get it moving.

Um, okay.

Milwaukee Bay Park intergovernmental agreements update.

Ms.

Sayer.

See, good thing she didn't go in the library.

Really good.

Scott will pull up the slides for me.

Oh, can I grab a clicker from you?

Yeah, you know me.

I like the animations.

The bullets got to come up while I know you can't you can take the consultant out of the firm, but you can't take the consultant out of the girl.

Well, okay.

No, can we finish this?

Maybe we can have a publication.

So hopefully that's what we need.

Okay.

Thank you, Scott.

So spoiler alert, I am not here with IGAs that I've asked me to adopt.

And I am here with an update and um uh some discussion or some questions about where we go next, as well as a recommendation from your appointed uh negotiable team.

Um Scott, is this the one that this is the new one?

I don't think it is.

Sorry, there was a whole two versions saved.

It's the one that doesn't have the word presentation in the title.

It's like RS7B SAGOR NCPRD.

That's another word presentation.

Especially for this talk.

Okay, now we're in business.

Watch this.

Oh, yep.

See all the bullets can click when I click them.

It's so exciting.

Um I am not going to try to give you the whole time sorted timeline again of this process that is documented in the timeline published on our website.

But just kind of a bit of a recap of what's happened over the last two months.

So cast your mind back to October 21st.

That was the strange little speed bump we had where uh we received kind of a proposal back from the county about a separation agreement.

We rejected that.

We clarified this was not about separating or withdrawing from the district, kind of got back on track.

Um, November 4th, um, NCPRD provided updated draft IGAs to the city just before a regular session.

So we didn't have time in that meeting to really talk about them.

And we instead scheduled a special session on November 13th to discuss our response to those drafts.

Um the city transmitted the responses to those drafts on November 14th.

It was a staff to staff transmital.

We were told um pretty, I think on the 14th by and this county administrator that the county uh board um and CPRD board was on break for the remainder of November because of um the association of counties conference and uh Thanksgiving.

So we had a staff to staff meeting on November 24th.

Um Joseph and I and Director Selly and County Administrator Schmidt.

Um they, I believe when they regrouped, had a couple of executive sessions to discuss this.

We received the formal um council proposal to our cancer proposal um via uh county council to city attorney on December 9th.

Um this would become relevant.

You may remember from our November 13th special session.

Part of this negotiation has been around Metro local share dollars for the project.

Um, and we had asked or Justin had asked um for some clarification from Metro about uh whether local share dollars can be transferred in um the loan or uh payback or clawback terms, and we received clarification on December 11th.

Actually, we and the county council received the same email, uh, basically saying no, um, those dollars are meant to be allocated for a project.

They should not be sort of strings attached to them.

So again, just to kind of refresh your memory, because you may not live and breathe this like me.

Um, what were some of the main points that we sent to the can uh to the to the district on November 14th?

So remember there's two IGAs.

There's a cooperative IGA, and then there's the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA looking at the amendment to the cooperative IGA.

Um we were going back and forth on depreciation.

The board had put in some terms about, you know, uh uh both a threshold at which you would capitalize assets and a term length of 25 years over which all assets should be depreciated.

We wanted to counter with let's tie that to governmental accounting standards.

There's something called GASB.

Um we should really be using that, not just an artificial um target.

Um there was some language proposed that would have given the district sort of veto power over city funded improvements in city parks.

So let's use the example of Stop Park or Bowman Bray.

In that case, um, we coordinated with NCPRD.

This new language would have required that we got written approval from NCPRD on any of our construction specs and selections.

Um we didn't feel like that was fair if it's our money in our parks.

Um that we but we we acknowledge that the IGA continues to give them the right to say we can we won't maintain this or upload it.

We thought that would be sufficient.

Uh, and then finally, we um we talked about programming authority.

Uh we'll see in the Milwaukee Bay Park side is the proposal was that we will take over that part that that park, both in terms of uh project management but also future maintenance.

If we are playing to maintain the park, we feel it is our responsibility to manage programming and issue permits and collect any fees.

We also said that we would never um uh unduly withhold, there's better language, unreasonably withhold permission for NCPRD and that they would have priority for programming at the park.

Uh and then finally we we uh requested um some language that would waive certain permit and programming fees for city affiliated events that's cities that's the city itself, city boarding commissions and city NDAs in city parks.

This is has had been historic practice prior to 2025, but has not been practiced this year.

On the Milwaukee Bay Park side, uh our big towner asks on November 14th were in terms of zone one STCs.

We wanted to request the full balance of zone one Milwaukee STCs at the time of signing, and then uh was behold, um, and I framed it here.

Um, and that the SDCs gathered between IGA signing and construction or December 31st, whichever came first, would be held by the city for use on Milwaukee Bay Park.

We did not really give a counter proposal on Metro Local Share.

We said we need clarification for Metro, but we did someone a fair share.

And then maintenance responsibility, they were asking for the city to take over maintenance of the park in July 1, 2027, because of how long this process has taken.

Our request was that that date move to December 31st.

Okay, so now what I'm gonna walk through is a um kind of high level.

Here's what we asked for.

What was the what was the board's response?

So we're starting with the cooperative IPA.

Okay.

So the city requested, as I said, depreciation should be based on government accounting standards.

Uh NCPRD, the latest red lines reject this and say they don't want to reference an outside standard.

They'd like to depreciate assets over 25 years.

They have increased the capitalization threshold to 10,000, but this would not make it asset specific.

This would just be all assets, 10,000 25 years.

Two are asked about not giving the district veto power over city funded improvements, but them still reserving the right to not operate or maintain.

They've rejected that, provided a slightly new proposal.

They still want written approval by the board by NCPRD of any city funded improvements, but they asked that we instead do an annual review of the lists of parks they maintain and operate so that I think at that time they could say, you know, you're gonna want to do something in this park.

Let's just take that off the maintenance list.

So it's not really instead, they're asking for two things.

They are okay.

Um programming authority, this one was interesting.

Um the the response we received on December 9th says that the the auditors for the district um require that programming rights be maintained if STCs are spent there.

There's a little bit of interpretation here on what that means about rights.

Um, and so I think we would need to do some on we would need to do some further conversations.

The upside is we'll say audible.

So we can talk to Baker Tilly before Millie Moss Adams put on that.

And then we asked about the waving of fees or certain fees for city events, and that was rejected.

Um they said that the city can elect to cover those fees.

Um, turning to the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA.

We requested the full balance of zone one STCs and then holding the SDCs um between signing and construction.

They rejected that.

They explained we had some discrepancy about like what the actual fund balance of zone one is.

They explain that while on their books, it says it's 3.69.

Really, several of that has already been allocated.

So the actual fungible balance is 3.1.

That's why they've been offering 3.1.

They also reminded us that they have spent 900,000 of zone one UGMA STCs on design as well as 210,000 of general fund on design.

They did not really provide an answer on the holding zone one city STCs.

They felt that they did suspress all that they feel that North Tlackamas Park is a more urgent route for those dollars.

Metro Local Share again, we didn't really know what to counter with.

They are offering 900,000 of Metro Local Share, which is roughly proportional to what Milwaukee represents of the district population wise, but they want to have a 10-year, they wanted that with a 10-year clawback, meaning if we were to leave the district within 10 years, we would have to pay that money back.

Again, the email we received from the Metro attorney on December 11th, we believe in validates that offer.

And then we asked that the maintenance transfer date to be moved to December 31st, and they've rejected that and have asked that we keep the transfer date of July 1st for easier fiscal year budgeting.

This is just kind of one slide.

So you know, with what we had counterproposed, so going back to November 14th, the city would be prepared to assume responsibility for capital maintenance and repair at Milwaukee Community Center, which could range over five years from about half a million to a little over a million dollars, depending on what kind of roof repair is going to be needed.

And then we would take over all project management, construction oversight, long-term maintenance, and fundraising for Milwaukee Bay Park.

That's going to be 10 million dollars if we get the NCPRD contribution.

What's NCPRD giving if we adopted the agreements that we had proposed?

About 3.6 million of zone one STCs, proportional metro local share, 900,000, a trolley trail grant that by my understanding has to be spent in Milwaukee Day Park, no matter what.

And we're to give on the fee waivers I'm asking for, I think that's max $3,000 a year.

Sum that up.

I think we are giving about 11 million dollars of added financial or fundraising responsibilities over just the next five years.

But what do we gain?

I think we would gain control of Milwaukee Bay Park phase three that we know is a near-term priority for us, and it's not a near-term priority for the district.

Um we would we kind of get that clarity on the waiver of fees for city events and city-owned parks.

By contrast, my cost benefit analysis is that the district would only be really looking at a 5.1 one-time million dollar contribution to the park.

Um and modest fee waivers again, 3,000 a year-ish for city events and city-owned parks.

They would be getting clarity over depreciation and capitalization in our uh corporative IGA, which they've wanted for a long time.

They would reduce maintenance responsibilities as we would take MVP and the community center off their um DACA.

And um, they would still get the ability to provide programs for district residents at, I believe this is the correct statement, Mayor, the most visited park in the district.

Um, and the regional asset.

So I share this in this way just because I think business-wise, it's a very good deal for the district.

Okay, so unfortunately, uh you know, I get to be always the bearer of bad news.

There was a lot of rejections of our counter proposal.

So we met, um, staff met with your appointed council leads last week to discuss that and discuss sort of what they might want to recommend to you tonight.

Um, so this is what we're gonna chat about.

Um, I believe I speak for the full negotiation team that our proposal would be that we prepare a last and final proposal and share that with the board and share it publicly.

And that last slide was not very sexy, would be kind of what we'd turn that into a pretty clear statement of this is actually a really good deal.

Milwaukee is giving a lot to get what we want.

Um, take that out with it.

So, same terms as the November 14th counter proposal, with the one exception of I think the negotiation team feels like it'd be fair to ask for the 900,000 of Metro Local Share, but freeing no loan, no clawback, just a pure transfer of those dollars.

And then the second piece would be we schedule for your next regular session on January 6th.

We would review any response the board provides and discuss pathways to advance the project if the terms are not accepted.

So that is what I've got tonight.

Um negotiating team, is there anything you'd want to add before you get your council's thoughts on these questions?

Well, I would just say that that you know, the slide where you show our proposal and the red rejected rejected.

Uh I've had community members say to me that it feels like we're to put somebody in an abusive relationship.

And that um that slide brings it, you know, bringing kind of brings that to a finer point.

It does feel like we've we've labored, we've labored, we've offered, we've offered, we've met, and uh it does feel like we were going backwards.

I feel like this was when I saw this appell like, oh, this is worse where we were before.

Um so I mean that yeah, I yeah, I'll just stop there and let people let us hear from other people.

I would just say that um in this uh whole year low encouragement.

It seems like the uh goalposts are getting moved.

Um, and so um it's as difficult to arrive and get a path to uh to get close uh to a solution.

So what did I take from that?

I take that is that it's not too much about you know the terms of agreement at all.

It seems to be about political will, and I'm not sure that it's a political will to come up with a solution.

Uh so I I'm I have ultimately been optimistic and pessimistic during the last year of negotiation, but right now I'm pessimistic.

Yeah, I mean, I would agree on a pessimistic.

I mean, I think we'll be coming back on January 6th with a to discuss pathways to do it on our own.

Um, and there's some there are some uh you know, there are some speed bumps in that, I guess I would say.

Um yeah, I guess I'd like to hear from everybody.

Um I guess we could also talk about are there one or two things on that list of things we would want to give in on and not insist on what we said before, but um yeah, like to hear from everybody else.

Yeah, I mean it's disappointing, obviously they rejected everything, but but I think if we just a couple of things, if we just respond back with the same thing, I mean we already know what the answer is gonna be, right?

Um, and I I don't know if we want to even respond that early because it's right before the holidays.

Maybe we let the cooler heads maybe by the grace of whoever you believe in, something nice happens over the holiday.

But um, I don't know.

I'm worried about saying it's the final because then it's like, well, then what happens then, right?

It's not like we're I mean we're not doing them or else this is your final offer because if they can say, okay, no, and then we're stuck right back at square one.

Well, so I have two thoughts on what you said.

First off, the one thing that we haven't done before is that gives and gains messaging that Emma put together, which I think is really strong.

Um, we haven't said that to them.

I mean, we said, you know, you were taking over Milwaukee community center, you don't realize how big that is, but we haven't kind of laid it out like that, and I think that's a pretty effective tool.

In terms of why do it soon and lice at January 6th, I think that sort of plays into trying to get started.

If if they aren't gonna move trying to get started on our own fundraising, and there are some grant deadlines early in 2026.

And so that was part of the why we wanted to go back before the um of the year.

What about calling it the final isn't that a little?

What are you gonna do if we say bill?

Yeah, I think counselor, you know, when we set goals, we sort of heard from you.

Um, and this has been our goal action plan that this year was about getting Milwaukee Bay Park back on track.

And I I really wanted to sign these before I, you know, left until the end of the year, and so that's not happening.

I think the conversation the negotiation team had was so how far into 2026 do you want to keep this particular game of volleyball going versus you know, starting sort of the next strategy to make this happen, um, if delivering Milwaukee Bay Park is still a top priority within your parks and greenspace goal, which today I believe is the direction we've been given.

So that was the point of the urgency was just kind of getting clarity early in 2026 as possible about what are marching orders are.

Are our marching orders to start working on transfer of contracts with uh NPUD, or is it just to almost kind of do what we did on Scott and Belmont Bray and Belfort and kind of chart our own path?

Um so when we say last and final, I think it's the last and final of this series of negotiations.

And I remind you that this negotiations started, I believe it was January 6th, 2025.

You guys sent a letter to the new commission and said, please can we break the communication freeze and get back to the table?

So it's been 12 months and it actually could be an exact year milestone first letter.

So a couple thoughts on that.

Well, actually, maybe this one.

Um, if if the final thing is gonna be, well, then we'll just build it ourselves, and we're gonna raise the money ourselves, then why not take as much money and see if we can leave in the middle of that way because that's a big part two money.

So we can go to 3.6 and get five whatever and give them back the land 100, right?

Because if we got to raise it all ourselves, why don't we just give rid of some of the money that we're that we're asking to give that back and kind of give give up some of that stuff, not necessarily the maintenance on the thing because that's 11 million dollars over that's a lot of money, but some of the stuff we're asking for that they're rejecting.

So let's give them back some of their money because again, do we want to raise 14 million or 10 early, right?

Like that's kind of where we're at chances are we'll either way we're gonna have to raise a lot of money, right?

But once it's built, we also have the other side of the point of the maintenance of the project and everything else that they're already kind of we're already negotiating on, right?

Which we're gonna then have to figure out on our end, which is also gonna cost more money, all right.

So if money is an issue, and we gotta raise the money anyways.

Let's give them back some of the money that they don't want to give us, and then say give us the whatever 5.1 they're willing to.

Well, we enough to we don't know, but I mean, we don't know what they're I mean, yeah.

I mean, all we know that they're willing is all we really know is 3.1 plus the non-target challenges are covering that, right?

And we're taking on you know, potentially a million in the Milwaukee Community Center, you know.

So I mean those funds.

No, but I mean it's part of the why should we give them back more of their funds and take things off their table.

It sounds like either way, we're gonna have to raise the money.

And there's gonna be, I feel like there's gonna be a lot more on our plate as a city to take that on ourselves than it.

I mean, it's it's yeah, I don't want to underestimate what a big lift it will be, but why would we take on the big list of the fundraising and take on the obligations for Milwaukee Community Center?

I mean, and that's the park needles.

You you could well, that's why I mentioned that's kind of the one thing that's bothering me.

So maybe that's the negotiating coin for the the you know, the dice rule is trying to work that out as opposed to the point.

It's like, okay, forget about the key.

Can we figure this out?

And then maybe we have a deal.

That's my point.

Because it seems like it seems like we're gonna have to raise money anyways, and they're making a big deal of clawing back 900 grand and about whatever else they don't want to give us.

So it's okay, keep the money, negotiate on this, maybe split the cost on the uh on the uh Milwaukee Community Center, and then give us everything else that we left.

Because they're rejecting most of the things they're rejecting has to do with the funding.

And some of the some of the wording, yeah, but I'm sure that's how how how poignant were they on the wording that that is a deal.

It sounds like the money and the maintenance is a deal counter.

So I think um I yes, and I would go back to when we started this, we wanted to just do an IGA on Milwaukee Bay Park, but what I think has been the district's larger interest is updating the cooperative IGA.

And so I think you know, we should take your point, we could counter and kind of try to get back into those cooperative weeds, but I think what they really want is the clarity that the community centers on us, the clarity that they get to kind of veto um future uh improvements by the city and and frankly, some clarity on the depreciation, which I really actually respect.

I think there is a need for clarity in that cooperative IGA.

I'm puzzled by the rejection of pointing to government accounting standards for that, and instead adopting kind of an arbitrary 25 year and 10,000 threshold.

So I think it's it's an interesting point.

It's all in that cooperative IGA, and that's really where they they want those, they want us to accept those those terms that they've got right now.

And I would say, like, if if this if we do a last and final, and it it is not accepted, what why we have been very clear that these two agreements go together is then we will just default to our current ITA and our current standard that we would negotiated.

We won't have any money.

We would not have any any of the yeah, NCPRD money formal occupy program.

I mean, yeah, I mean, I think we have to assume we would not have any money.

I do think there's a there's a public pressure campaign on them, you know, that could happen as as planning as we get closer to actually you know having a park plan and and having other funding to on those STCs because they are money that residents of Milwaukee have paid.

I think there could be uh you know, there could be some pressure applied on that, whether it would be successful or not.

I don't know, but um, just trying to give this up to um you know a just trying to move this forward.

I'm just gonna I'm just gonna throw out a possibility, and uh this is just sort of a spitball amongst us is that what if we move just remove the 900,000 petrol local shares and everything else remains aside.

What would people think about that?

Which um they're saying the same thing, council president, I can speak to that nice larger questions.

Um, but I'll wait for this until after we've got the spitball idea.

For that, I would be curious.

What if we get the 900,000 screens here?

But we then agree to do a clock rec revision for 90,000 in our zone one STCs.

So we're willing to pay back over time, in our STCs.

Um if we were to leave the district or the same callback that we didn't even have on Metro Bookers money, which we know is not allowed under the Metro agreement.

We agreed to do for another part.

Because I think part of this is if we're gonna change this agreement with the county, I'm gonna leave as much money as possible because that gets us on the best over to be able to build this part.

And if they really insist on the coback, but we know Metro isn't gonna allow us to just go back on this part of money.

We can still get the money to run back on some other form.

Well, I'm sorry if I'm jumping ahead.

I think that uh the uh zone one SDCs have more of a chance for survival and future negotiations or quite community legal proceedings.

I guess my thought on I mean, I when we first when we were going round and round about the clawback and stuff, I thought about that, and I think they thought about that because I think they've tried to structure you know a way that it's a loan, you know, this idea that it's a loan or something.

So I guess I feel, and I'd be curious to know Justin's thoughts on this since he's the one who's talked to Metro, but I would feel like Metro would feel like that was a work around of what they were, you know, that was sort of deceptive with Metro, and that would be my concern about that.

I mean, I haven't spoken with anybody in Metro since the December 11 email, but uh you know, I I remember my original impression was that they were wise to work around to figure out, you know, you you can't enrich general fund 900,000 dollars, then you've used local share dollars to then do something.

So I think at one point the county at least I heard anecdotally that the county was thinking, oh, we'll just do two separate agreements that way, and I think Metro applies to that.

Regardless of what I'm saying here tonight, whatever happens or whatever agreement is struck, if there is an agreement struck, it will have to go full with the approval of Petro with regards to shooting having to do it the local share dollar because I'm I'm just looking at the projected stuff, right?

So I look at rejected the district wants to keep maintenance transfer d July first.

Okay.

How big is that?

I'm trying to go down each line and say how big is this that we're willing to die on the hill form.

Is that one that we're doing the downhill for probably not?

Um the district offers 900 1000 to give that back to rejecting zone one balance.

Okay, we'll take the 3.1 million.

We'll give us another 500 program.

Districts as a city may elect to cover these organizations or host okay.

I mean, how how big?

Which one I think when we go down each one of these and really see are we willing to completely pull this because of each one of these?

Because if we can turn some of these rejectives into okay, maybe that's not as bad as we think it's gonna be, and maybe that helps us get there, as opposed to saying, you know what, this is it, we're gonna take everything on this, we're gonna have to figure this out anyways.

Some some of this stuff has to be figured out anyways.

So I just think like let's find out which ones and remove them and remove some of those and just stick to the really important ones like the Milwaukee community center.

Let's send them something a little bit more refined.

But if we give in on all those things, not all of them, like the date.

Are you really concerned about December 31st and July 1st?

Is that a big deal?

I would have to ask staff about that.

I mean, if we once upon time, we thought we'd be out of construction by July 1st, and so it wouldn't have mattered, but that's not gonna happen at this point.

So it does mean like taking maintenance responsibility for the parts where we're actually under construction.

Um I mean, I think I feel like like I wouldn't give on the written approval.

I probably wouldn't give on the even though it's only three thousand dollars.

I probably wouldn't give on the concept that we that our residents and our I mean our um you know the city and our NDAs and our boards of committees pay for to use our their own parks that they paid for for many years.

Um there are some of these things I wouldn't give up on.

I'd I'd I would uh defer the staff in the six-month difference of the dates.

Um I guess the one I've always had one of my like the 25 years versus the government accounting standards.

I mean, maybe we just throw in the towel on that one.

Um I don't nobody's ever actually told us what the government accounting standards depreciation terms would be.

I guess it's different for different classes of assets.

It is it's funny you're thinking what our own owners about this topic right now, which is just why that might maybe we could give on.

I just wouldn't want to have an open I'd it's frustrating when lawyers are writing financial policies.

So I'd like to talk to some financial experts, but yeah, I'm not gonna that's on a hill I'm dying on right now.

Maybe this is fine.

I just don't want to balance your check.

Um yeah, I I think counselor masse here, but I mean I really think the big topics for talking about money is money lines.

It's it's the and I think and also counselor for our minds, folks.

Like this is we've done a lot of mobile, so some things we've already completed in the set except on that we're not seeing here, like the community something.

So um so I think these are the remaining sticking points after 12 months of of throwing ideas back and forth.

I think the really big ones are the STCs and the local share.

Um the maintenance one, it would just put in our budget.

So those are big ones, and all they're saying is that we're not gonna give you 3.69, we'll give you 3.1.

But I think they're also not saying we're gonna let you um hold the ones that are accrued between signing and construction, which we and they estimate to be 400 to 500,000 because of hillside.

Right.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they're not giving that to us, they're just saying don't we don't want you to hold it right.

I uh they're it's it's wishy-washy.

They're saying they're they're not sure yet about that, but they really feel like North Clackens Park is where those DCs should go, not logging.

I'm sorry.

That is that is just smoke.

That is just something made up.

Yes, it totally came up in the whole DAC conversations around the system plan.

I was like, why is North?

I've never heard anything about plans for North Clackmost Park, and suddenly it's making your short-term uh list.

And um and got some random comments about oh, well, there's you know, uh it's mainly about the dog New York, I think.

Uh a few other some trails, some other things, but um yeah, it's not our priority.

It's not been our priority, and they identified it as a priority not to do in the public process.

They the staff identified it as a priority, and so it's I do feel like it's smoke.

I totally agree with you there.

I guess I'm intrigued the more we talk about your idea of just giving up the metro local share and going back, sticking with all the rest of it.

Um it's just the one that's that has so many you know strings that we don't really understand though and as the most I just think the other UVS and takes are a little bit cleaner and uh and that kind of thing.

Uh you know, so uh I'm I'm trying to come up with uh with with something that uh you know that I think addresses a valid concern on uh commissioner uh council person bodies point.

Um but you know I go back to my original statement.

I'm I'm not optimistic that if we gave in on every one of these things, I think we may decide on everything.

I I for what it's worth, I I do think from some conversations, staff select conversations, I think the metro local share is particularly contentious for them for the board.

Yeah, so they have other parks where they can spend that.

I mean, it's super disappointing because originally their commitment was three months, yes, of the metro local share.

So now we're down to under a million and or perhaps zero.

Um but and I do if you recall from the study session last week.

I think we feel the metro capital grants of the nature of neighborhoods program might be a great thing to pursue for this project.

So um there's other metro money we can go find, but yes, I agree with Mair that it historically was a three million dollar allocation from NCPRD Metro Local Share.

Um I received larger comments.

I think if we're setting a final deadline or want to imply some humanity, whenever we come back to that conversation to come back with like what fundraising from scratch would cost or strategies to pursue to fundraise for that money, like having a larger conversation, maybe this is frankly a topic for a retreat, as we say our parts like an unexpected term.

Let's go back to the drawing board.

Um, I'll say if we're fundraising to zero, part of why I wanted to focus on the lockbury park, but we're already partway there.

Um, but if we're starting to zero, I think it's also appropriate to have a conversation about like the project be breaking the multiple phases.

There are other parts of areas about Turnburg, water where we as we fundraising for capital improvements.

Maybe we want to do small improvements in multiple parks.

I don't know, and frankly, I don't want to go down that path.

I want to build the locking park, but I think that whatever realignment we have has to be a large conversation about okay, what do we want to do as our parks for um do you want to comment on that?

I do, I totally disagree.

I mean, I just I agree with you that we need to have a conversation about how we fund Milwaukee Park totally, and I think Adam's got some ideas he's been working through, and uh he's kind of got a timeline for a lot of different grant pots and stuff.

Um, but I don't think I mean if we're gonna revisit Milwaukee Park may not be the double and priority, then um then we shouldn't even send this letter.

We should just do that.

I mean, I I think that's the the wrong path to go down.

That's breaking with what we said in our retreat a year ago.

Um, and we should study course, I guess.

And I'm not saying that's something that we should decide now, but I'm saying that we're having a full conversation about what we want our parts of people look like um and what it would look like to I I'm making up stuff here, but we were to pass a 20 million dollar bond to try and finance this, it's appropriate for the bond and is to only go to this project, other things that we want to do, a larger bond, a smaller bond, how are you cycling about this project?

I think all I I see keys flying.

All I'm saying is if we're saying that we're pivoting and no longer pursuing a conversation with the county, I think it needs to be a larger conversation that we have about okay.

What do we want to achieve about?

I think that there's a consentist that we want to build our remote part and build that.

Um I just don't know what it looks like to build that on our own.

I I truly believe that we could have gotten into alignment with the county.

I'm really sad that we're not seeing this.

Um I just think we have to think about what extremity is going for that.

I've got more points, but I think these all the way.

Well, I mean, that cut you off.

So go ahead if you want to go on with your points, and then I'll pull on the others.

I'll say one last thing, and then I can you can go back later into the gives and takes.

I think I want to understand the grant funding deadlines.

Um the January seconds just seems unrealistic.

Like they're gonna be off for Christmas grade.

It sets them up to say no to us.

Um I don't want to take and hold them into a deadline that they can't actually make.

Um, but I also don't know to your point about there are early in the year grants that we have to apply for.

I suppose you hold them to the best timeline, but I do see that if I'm a coming commissioner, kind of chuckle and say, well, we'll go on on vacation for two weeks.

Best of luck.

I I do believe correctly, those who were in this conversation.

I think you could you can wait till the second meeting in January.

Frankly, this was the one that had the lighter agenda.

So we threw it on there.

Um, yeah, there the grant deadlines, the mayor is right, are kind of come fast on the wheels, to be frank.

I think we talked about this in the in our negotiation team meeting.

I think we're probably not even with the Christmas miracle gonna be an awesome place for that.

But I every two weeks you lose, you do lose in what you were bringing up, Council President, time for strategizing and a fundraising campaign and all of that, which again, like Adam's ready and raring to go.

And I think if I think your idea of you know, maybe we do set the deadline for the county response, and then pretty quickly after that have a have a have a planning if it doesn't go the way we want it to, have a planning session for plan B.

I think our staff could absolutely be prepared for that.

And um, yeah, it's more just like how much time we knew this was a near-term priority for you.

And I'm I'm bummed that that 12 back to like 12 months.

I hope 12 months wasn't wasted, but it might have been.

Yeah, very well.

Um, and I will say, in terms of the January 6th deadline over Christmas, yeah, except that we originally had a November 2nd or something deadline.

So I mean, this is we've we've we shuffled back and forth for two months since we gave them a so um I just questioned the council president.

Okay, so are you saying so are you saying this doesn't work out?

That's when we should think about how we're gonna get there.

If like if they ended up rejecting and they say, okay, the negotiations are over.

Are you saying either way?

I think I think I'm not alone in saying if this doesn't go forward six and whatever the date we set it, we should have a conversation about what it looks like going forward.

I think I'm just saying we should have frankly just a conversation about our park school and say what do we want to achieve.

Um what we're just gonna achieve.

I mean, what if they should access the control of the park or design plans already?

If we have to redesign the park, open the cost beat it out.

But is the you cost us to get the park?

What's the cost of the 20 or 20 million dollar bond over a certain period of time?

How would that affect people or there are other uses of money?

I don't know the answers to any of these things, but I think that there are that conversation about where we go next.

It's such a large conversation.

Um, and I think it merits us having a conversation about okay, we're really fundamentally reorienting ourselves.

Scott, I think I'm wrong too, but February will be your month for your parks and green space coal quarterly update.

So you know, I I know everyone's really optimistic.

I guess the only reason I have some optimism is the fact that we're here right now, and we have this idea in front of us.

I don't think we can fiscal to where we're actively negotiation negotiating components of intergovernmental agreement, but we can just want to have a conversation with them and hearing our our proposals for this now.

So I I do feel a little bit of optimism.

I'd feel worse if they were just not responding.

Um, but they're they're whether it's blown smoke or not, and I know that they've probably done a lot of that.

Um they are coming back with stuff.

So I I do think I'm off for sending something back just repackaging it, see what we can live with, what we can't live without, and then let's just give it a shot.

Um but they're they're whether it's blown smoke or not and I know that they've probably done a lot of that um they are coming back with stuff so I I do think I'm all for sending something back just repackaging it see what we can live with what we can live without and then let's just give it a shot here if you want to um well I appreciate points that are being made I worry about our fiscal responsibility and our fiscal capacity um I think I think we all want to set this park up to success but worry about us getting um to a point where we don't have we don't have the capacity to meet obligations um and I think that's a daunting place that I think I think that it's a it's a daunting place when faced with how strongly our community wants this project.

So I'm struggling with that um I think it's it's really disappointing that the responses came back this way um I agree with the point about um maybe pushing it later into January to give them some channel you know a chance to digest things you know and not be crunched by the holidays um and I really I I want to believe that we can have the development of this asset and um make it through this strained partnership um tracking you know between the county and the city I really want that to be um you know a North Star initially to creating this asset for our community so those are my thoughts so by I will say yeah I just want to say one thing and then I'll call on you.

In September October we did have uh in September October I was optimistic I um and I you know I said I know I said we might be able to go out and have a um you know a joint you know celebration of uh what um you know a joint celebration of reaching an agreement that serves everybody in the district um yeah that those days have passed um but anyway uh counselor masse so um I think um I want to thrust um my speech colleagues comments um about the holistic approach to the parks um I think that's you know a worthy idea but I guess I I'm I don't want to get too focused on those big things it has all kinds of disconcrete sort of implications but also we're just trying to respond to your proposal and so I think that's where we need to focus right now your ideas I think maybe you're down the line um but I do want to ask you a question and just said you you said I thought I heard so I I think we could have had a is that what her said no I I said small thing I thought we could have had an agreement like I'm really sad that we to the mayor's bottle I thought that this would something we could have wrapped up in November and I'm sad that we're not seeing I mean I thought the proposal to give back rules and I'm sorry this is the response we got I'm sad November response about the response I got um I just thought these negotiations would go different like and I'm sad that this is a place we're at now um so I'll I'll just get reiterate what I what I said I think that um you know to Adam's point was uh um let's just you know not respond and kind of rejected rejected rejected uh give them some more time um I think that I think I think the uh the Metro share is the one that has the most loose ends on it and then we'll go we're we can that might have a clear path of some acceptance um um I I'm not sure you're gaining a lot uh by the other issues uh you know I guess I'll go for permits just because it's a small amount of money um um but I'm not sure I'd want to change anything else just to you know to get something out there and uh uh I I yeah I I really don't want to say this is the last and final I'm just you know I don't know I my concern is this will just be another goalpost put up they'll you know they'll there will just be another can keep it exercised at some point we're gonna have to say you know this is it because we're gonna say this is it we have exactly and so we don't we don't have any credibility I mean um so can I recap what I think uh the proposal is maybe we'll see how close we are

I my concern is this will they'll just be another goalpost put up and they'll you know they'll just be another can keep the extra side of us at some point we're gonna have to say you know this is it because we're gonna say this is it we have to assess it exactly and so we don't we don't have any credibility.

I mean um so can I recap what I think the proposal is, but maybe we'll see how close we are to an agreement point.

I think the current proposal then from Councillor Maskey is if you pulled um prepare a counter proposal that is largely the same terms we've asked for November 14th, minus any request of local share and minus the waiver of permanent fees.

Ask for a response by the 121 regular session to give a couple more weeks.

Oh, I would ask for it.

I mean, we might discuss it next to 121, but I would ask for the week at 114 in the middle of the morning.

Yeah, prepared.

Okay, but but be very clear because the it's a take the release.

It's a that this is this is what and and use that opportunity to explain this gives and games.

Um so it's very clear why we can't move anymore.

And I think we put this up on our website, make it all used.

Well, I I would like to have the discussion about that because your plan is licensed.

That's a problem solved.

Okay, so let's have a discussion about that because I think there's nothing this there.

Go ahead.

Well, counselor, council president, uh I'll defer on that.

I think speak to your plus.

Um I would say I think there are some things here that could be mess up the show there.

Like Frankie, I think our ask on the precaution, it's not like we're trying to figure out what the best standard actually is.

And to me, we're not at the last and final stage because I'm if this is the pill they're gonna die on here, but I think we can go back to continually this is what we're hearing.

I I think let's let's talk about the on the on the the procedural terms, please.

Frankly, the lawyers gotta get all over it, the lawyers and the the auditors.

I really mean on the financial pencil, the big financial pieces.

SDCs, local share.

Um that's right, yeah.

STC's a local share.

That's great.

Okay.

You're saying you're saying to make that with the the financial is the last yeah, I guess I would say, you know, we we really when you look at the cost benefit analysis to the city, we we cannot accept a an offer that doesn't give us less than um the full zone one STC's balance at time of signing, which I understand they might have some that are already allocated, and then the accrued between signing and um construction.

Yeah, the other terms you kind of can leave with with staff to massage, but I think I think if you're willing to let go of the metro local share and the the fee waivers for city events and city-owned parks.

I think yours counselor masses, but to me, I think saying this is our final financial terms, continuing to massage the rest of the language, press the language or some of those factors.

Um I just you know, again, I'm just I think if uh you you saw your last and final, you know, the you know the possible response for NC parties.

Okay, we'll keep all this win.

Um I think it's hard to do that.

I didn't like this.

I could put this boldly, this bold basically, I think it's harder for them to do that.

At least they could do that.

It's true, but um we have never put it in sort of these start terms like this before.

Um well, I I you know I I think that the uh for whatever reasons the metro share is an issue with the uh uh with the negotiating county negotiating team.

Quite frankly, I think the permits is an issue with the uh district staff.

So we gave each one of them so and then but do we say final?

I mean I think we need to get going on planning and raising money.

We're not saying I would say your staff doing the dance for way too long.

Your city manager's recommendation is I think I think you don't we feel like we've said it before.

We don't feel like we've actually said that before.

I think that all I think if we say financially, there is no more room we can really entertain here, otherwise, I think you're signing up for at least six more months of this because everything just takes every one of these moments takes them another two months of resolution, and so I mean and I welcome Joseph off the table the whole time.

I welcome if he has different thoughts.

Um my opinion is you know, just frankly, I think Peter must be very tired.

So just some clarity on the and I understand that, but if it's let's say it is six months, is it six months worth three million?

Are we gonna raise that much in six months?

See, because we still have the same issue of raising all the money.

So what's the price of six months?

What's the price of a year?

Because the chances are we're not gonna raise three million in six months.

There's no way.

I think if if you have concerted efforts on grant writing and fundraising, you'd be surprised.

And I think if you don't have if we kind of keep letting the goalpost move, I can't get staff started on that fundraising.

Or I I guess I could.

I mean, that's the other option.

We could do kind of a two project, it's just funny to be fundraising for a project that we don't yet actually have control over because we haven't agreed to take control over it.

It's it's not our project yet, yeah.

Yeah, Joseph came to the table, so I guess you might let us say something.

Yeah, the only thing I wanted to say is that manager Sagers standpoint.

I agree.

I think even if we do say this is the financial, I think it's still gonna take a while to massage these IGAs.

I don't think it's gonna be a turn around.

I'm just saying that because I think it's gonna be months and I bring in just the how fast things for you, and that's just on a language side.

I'm talking about the money side, I'm just talking about there.

Still needs to be some more of these things.

I agree, but I think then we can probably I think honestly, they're bringing the full board together to talk about the big money ones.

They don't need to bring the full board together.

I don't like like I need to bring all of you together to talk about all the minutiae details that you will see in the final IGAs, really these big political pieces are these big financial elements.

Um, and so I think it just gives us a lot more clarity about what work on programming city staff to do if we can set kind of a deadline for this process, this phase of this process.

That's my opinion.

Council president.

I'd like to um talk about some minutia of the IGA language, but first, I think we can do a quick is there consensus on the financial piece there being deadline there.

I'm also that is there consensus on giving in on the 900,000 local share in the for fee reduction, the pay labors for I'd like to talk about that.

I'd say on just the money 900,000, giving up local share saying we're gonna have STCs 3.1 and whatever is approved for um signing the saying that's our for financially, like this is the limit of what we would do.

But counselor, I'm seeing nods generally, council salmon.

So hypothetically, what happens if they come back and they say okay, doesn't seem like you want or need the local share, but we're not willing to um provide you're not willing to budge on the SDC's like beyond the 3.1.

I think that's entirely possible.

I think entirely possible.

And so um I just I feel like there's not enough opportunity for us to discuss with them jurisdiction to jurisdiction about what's hard to explain what's in between these lines.

I think if we give, I mean, we we're trying to come up with some suggestions that might get us closer to yes, but we are not entirely sure that they want to get closer to I guess.

I think that's so very obvious.

Yes, this is so it makes me hesitant to then give up any of the financial um you know lines of this, like it's as far as we have come because the likelihood is that they will say okay, and no, and then where will we be?

This so it makes me hesitant to then give up any of the financial um you know lines of this like it's as far as we have come because the likelihood is that they will say okay and no and then where will we be like um if we say that we'll give up a metro local chair but we want some additional concessions um around approval of SDCs then they might come back and say okay we accept your um elimination of the Metro local chair um but we deny the um approval if they reject the approval of STCs and then we're here having this conversation in three months and we haven't moved forward a step I mean I think that I think using language like um you know best and final or last and final implies the seriousness of the negotiations that's been dragging it implies the seriousness of um you know we are at the edge of what the city can reasonable reasonably expect in or I'm sorry reasonably accept within these negotiations um but it's just this is this is making a trick black meal yeah so I appreciate this is put together in the format that it is um I would love to hear feedback from the county board if they were to look at this slide and then reflect on this slide that's what I would actually like to hear from them right now is um is do they feel that this is an appropriate summary of where we are today in our negotiations and are they okay with this summary because this is embarrassing well said I agree um so I guess that's a um that's that's I'm not sure what we are I think kind of full circle I think you know I totally hear what you're saying Counselor Scavenger and I think when we were talking about I think what is it say like the pup public maybe doesn't but I think we were thinking it was a public yeah a board so it's it's the terms it's the seriousness of we cannot drag this out forever and it's that message of the cost benefit analysis looks pretty clear.

The business case for this for you looks pretty clear and the really the response isn't do you agree to sign on the dotted line the response is we can we are we're not willing to negotiate the financial terms anymore.

Um but you owe us kind of a response as to if you're not gonna accept these financial terms you owe us a response as to why this cost benefit analysis doesn't get anywhere but really we're we can't keep this going this volleyball past the end of January.

Yeah exactly so is that a message with keeping in the 9000 of metro local share you're saying I I would say yes I mean that's I think that any amount of money that we can get for this project to benefit the residents of our district and the city we I don't think we should give that up um and I think that the county should answer as to why they are picking at the individual pieces of what should be a project that we're coming together and being proud together to you know to bring forth for our residents I just I just don't that's so yeah I I feel very hesitant to take the local share out because that's money that could go towards this project money that our community um and honestly residents of the whole county wouldn't have to then fundraise out of their pocket and it's money that can be allocated to this project it should be allocated to this project I just don't understand why um we're at such odds and and I appreciate you Emma putting that together in the slides as you have because it really does highlight that we are at such different places about this.

All right.

I have two days, Councillor Mr.

Body.

I I get what you're saying, Councillor Savendroad, and it does make sense, but I mean we've gone down this road with them before and they're not gonna respond to apply, you know, we've been asking for how many years they would kind of already imply, right?

It's politics, of course, that they that's being played.

Um but I don't I don't I don't know if if if losing three three million for nine hundred thousand or flexible, because if we here's where we're gonna find out whether they're serious or not.

If we do offer those financial terms, and they still say no, well then clearly probably not serious because if the money is the issue, well we're we're taking care of that, right?

So I feel like it's gonna call their bluff too.

We go back and say, okay, we'll take this stuff now, what's your excuse?

Right?

And they say, Oh, well, we still want you know control over this, then it's like, okay, well, at this point, we gotta move on separate ways, but I think it'll also call their buff, because if that's a big issue for them, well now we take that out, where do they stand?

But it's gonna be a lot.

I just feel like getting something out of out of the money as of getting nothing.

I mean, we know like we mentioned before, we know what we're dealing with.

Um and if we do it ourselves, I mean we're gonna be out every bullet.

We're not gonna have anyone from that that's gonna come our way, and that's gonna have to be another issue of fighting those STCs.

So I let's call like let's let's see if they're really serious about it.

That's if the 900,000 is is a holding point.

Council, I get no money to give them any.

I I totally understand that, but I think I think we're all clear on the point that they will this negotiation is important the best interest of the community, clearly, or else they would have done what they should have done a long time ago.

Um and that's the sad part.

So we're trying to negotiate honestly and in good faith to Commissioner Tsavas, sure he's gonna hear about this meeting because he does watch it maybe talk about these things.

Um, you know, I like to not call him out, but you know, I've had a conversation with him when I first got on council back in 2022, and he always talked about as long as we're willing to negotiate in good faith.

Well, Commissioner Tavas asked me right now to negotiate in good faith because that's what we're doing.

And I don't I I I personally don't see anything on here that's detrimental to NCPRD or or or to uh the district.

Everything, I mean, you guys are getting the better end of the deal from what you're just looking at the finances.

So this isn't a call out, but this is uh a call to action on your word that if you want that if we're willing to negotiate in good faith, you told me that there's always one to negotiate, so here we are, and I'd like to hold them to that.

I don't know how good that will do, but I've always felt that commissioner's always and I have out of a respectable relationship from our time on the veteran advisory council, and I would hope that still stands.

And if you are willing to negotiate in good faith, this is what we're trying to do.

But if not, then there's another route where it's the book.

Um I kind of want to explore that to Councillor Stevenboard raised.

If we were to come back and say you don't have to give us the 900,000 local share, like give us one of our STCs or planning to I think the county will probably say we're not gonna do that.

And um which gets to like if we really want to do a counter proposal that takes away concedes to almost all of their financial ass, I think the counterproductive that we have to offer is just point one million of STCs in zone one.

Um I'm not capable of that offer, and I think the reason why is that that 900,000 is already whittled down or already little down three to point five to nine hundred thousand, and I can see that a possible difference here is the color of money, like the metro local share money can be used in zone one SPCs.

And I wonder if we make them we're losing about four hundred thousand dollars by giving it for local share in exchange for potential future hillside SDCs.

Um but they get the control share this or else to want to in the district, and hopefully that is intense enough.

But I really think that I I worry that if we come back saying we really want the control local share, it's gonna be such a sticking point like that that they're gonna reject that offer.

Um I think we should get it, but I don't know.

I guess the overwriting principle that I'm challenged with here is kind of like what council coast report is saying.

Although if we just about or if we are willing to concede 300,000 here or there, we should stay in the negotiations and give up that 300,000 dollars.

Um, because that preserves this much money that we get down the line.

Um I just am like, okay, what point do we call it?

What point we're giving up the 400,000 that we can't stand apart with.

Um I don't know, I'm kind of confounded on there.

But yeah, when you give something up, there's the intention that you're going to get something in return, and I don't see any guarantee that we would get anything in return for giving this up.

So what is the point of giving something up if we're not going to get anything in return?

Yeah, the last four months have been a system of us giving up things um that removing the goalposts as you said.

Um again.

Are we sending back a um proposal that includes or does not include nothing else to say?

Are we sending back a that takes out the 900k?

I go down the line and um would you like our counter proposal um to be uh remove the metro local share apparently someone's gonna yes I would say no, you know, with council okay.

Please don't grant it on your mics and you can't be great if you want accident with closure scavenger.

I think that I have set up three.

We're gonna send back this proposal.

Maybe that we can do is I I do think I I don't know, I struggle sending back the same.

I I'm really compelled by what counselor's not saying maybe we agree not to take the future STCs that we would approve, or I guess I'm still that you've sending back the same proposal because I think our answer would be no, and I guess help me understand why you think that's okay.

Um yeah.

So I think that we are at a point where we actually need to negotiate the STC conversation.

We need to find out what they are willing to do and what they're not willing to do.

And I don't think it should be tied to the metro local share.

We don't actually know that they would make a decision that would be tied to the metro, but we don't know that giving up the local share would trigger you know the um that we would get the approval of STCs, right?

It's not a cause effect.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

They're two different issues.

What are we thinking about correct?

Well, I mean, you were saying maybe we'd get the 400 if we gave up the 900.

I'm just saying take something out, change the proposals, but I'm just saying, and if that's a big area of contention, removal it sounded like we had majority of council mask.

I think that we can respond with the same um proposal uh to but the proposal is not the not exactly the same, but other words it's like you know, so this link says rejected we can't reject every site.

Um you're submitting this uh this proposal um uh again that highlights the economic advantages to the district the proposal that we have submitted, and we start off not with all of these other stuff, but we start off this with with with the balance and we frame it that way.

So we don't change any any any anything in the in the in the other police or whatever it is, but we emphasize that it's uh we're submitting the proposal with a high level, the the economic advantage is a good deal that the district might get for your further consideration.

Exactly.

You know you're not getting any additional context.

You're not getting any emotion it you know we I really do I mean I understand the politics I know that they're there.

I know that that's a reality and it's really unfortunate.

It's it's more than unfortunate.

It's just shit.

And yet there is a huge benefit to like we need to take the higher road there's a huge benefit for residents of the county to build this out and there's an economic argument um that is logical that we have put forth and so if we need to further illustrate that for them then I think that's worth a try.

And I I know that there is a really big chance that we'll be back in this room two months from now and you'll all be staring at me saying way to go no but I really believe that like if we explain why this rationale makes sense to us as a jurisdiction within their jurisdiction the county has an obligation to assist the development of economic and and um holistic resources the amenities for all of our residents they they should be doing this it's a message to your constituents as well as a particular board.

Exactly you know I do like the public aspect of it.

Um well I want to say something first which is this is the prerogative of the chair um I like the um I mean like the way you framed it and that we don't change although I would say maybe we say we're you know we're not changing on the money we are we defer to staff on the non-money we just prefer to staff negotiations on the non-money okay um yeah uh can you talk about I would just ask that if we're gonna go that route please do not say that this is the last shot please because if we can come back and still get this giving back at 900 you're gonna say no mayor I don't know we're just clarifying we're not sending a new we're not countering your counter we're just clarifying like hey you guys look at what you guys are saying no to I don't you if we say that's the last bit and then we come back to Must it's like if that 900,000 ends up making the difference are we willing to try it so what if we said as the CD approaches and last and final proposal we are at the edge of what we can reasonably accept in this negotiation and we submit further context on the um on the on where we have landed for your consideration and um and your response to this additional context will help us form that last panel proposal.

Yeah that's this is this is the like I agree that that phrase I agree that that phrase connotes a seriousness and we are at a very serious point.

Yeah we it's really a sure cut they kind of it is I I guess the way I'm looking at it is just like from their end I'm like okay like if I'm on their end and I think like then it's like okay like you threatening to speak.

Well here so I don't think you're threatening I think but I but I do think they really want that cooperative IGA updated.

They really do so I think that is the level I don't think it's not that that they hold all the leverage and we hold none I really do think that that that what they get and then that cost that gains and give side slides shows it is a better deal than what they've been operating under since 1990.

So um I also don't hear the sensitivity on this on the last and final I think what you could also say is and and this again should go in the public message we have been at the negotiation table since January we have a time law that shows how much effort has gone into this how many meetings have gone into this so you could say you know negotiations are never oval but you could say we we we need clearing our constituency clarity on this the city's clarity on this by the end of January.

So you could say, you know, negotiations are never oval.

But you could say we we we need clearing up our constituency clarity on this, the city needs clarity on this by the end of January.

I mean, we just that is a fact.

I I struggle to know how I'm gonna program my national resources staff without clarity on this.

So I think maybe it's not calling this a last and final, but it's it's putting the pressure on that like we we've given a ton, but show you in black and white or red and green what we've given, and we can't just back and forth on forever.

And yeah.

Well, I think that's part of let's put public, let's make it public.

It might be time for people to start going back to their meetings and testifying.

Uh, once we put this out there as a public document, um yeah, I think as a hospital payment.

Well we are don't have you then.

I just feel like this is a bit public to me since I give them council.

You can discuss this in the public.

And we've been putting pressure in the past people.

Well, we well, but we kind of backed off of that the last year.

We kind of backed off of that.

Um there was some public testimony at the Board of County Commissioners meeting in the September or whatever it was, October.

Uh, but generally we've kind of you know not encourage people to and I don't think we have ever shown this, yeah.

11 million added financial responsibility versus five one million of money that they think they're already featured for this project.

Yeah, telling you they're it's probably not gonna make a difference.

Council Government.

I think I've been one over to the idea that we need to show this, but I really do take what counselor is losing because I think we have to show a substance to change somewhere.

So I'd love to talk quickly about some of the proper IJ terms because I think there's opportunities to give like depreciation.

I think I would defer to you to construct the counter argument, but if it seems financially, yeah, that's to me as in the let staff.

I would say the same.

I would say the written approval and an annual review.

Maybe we can see if we do an annual review of what they would gain, um, and we continue to discuss the approval.

But is there something there that we could give with the programming rights?

I think we could have a conversation.

That one I just it needs to be to figure that out, the editors.

And with the covering fees for organizations, like 3,000 a year.

I I really disagree with the principle of the 11 million for spending.

But as we talk about, okay, I'm willing to take on the small expense to get across the finish line, but we can take on that 3,000 a year.

Um, and in terms of the maintenance rates for date, if you think it's feasible to do it earlier, I think we can give on that too.

So I think we could show through those IGA related pieces, not this is we are compromising on these things, but then Council Saver is saying we should have clear financial picture, we explain just doing that in context to the class that we're making.

Well, I guess I go back to what I said before, which is I'm not sure I would concede all those things.

I would just say financial terms, they're standing firm on non-financial terms are something to staff negotiation staff.

Um maybe pick one or two that you're you know, we call out to say we we give up on, but I wouldn't go through that whole list personally.

Um just defer that to staff to come for with that.

Okay.

Okay, let me read let me recap where I think we are.

Well, I think I think the mayor's broad staff to do IG terms is fine.

I really I think there are some that it would be helpful for us to just concede, and maybe that is the fees and organizations.

Um maybe the same for depreciation.

Emma can clarify how big of a difference that is.

It's not I'm fine to allow her to tell that it is a concession.

So there are at least two things meeting uh that we say staff can initiate for the council.

And I think that we should uh just everything only on the matter issues to staff because we're going and we start even on this and that.

Then that just makes their own deliberation clunky, and they'll start arguing about this, and their district staff and all the time that's all those other kind of stuff.

We just want to decide on the money.

Okay.

And uh so I'm just trying to try to back point and help build a decision.

Okay.

So two things.

Okay.

And maybe it is kind of like Councillor Stoppenburg counts the way we present this, the way we're presenting this.

We are willing to see lots of these like what have the discussion and come to reasonable and big properties.

Um, and we'll do that stuff to stay out.

Um, but I we just want to show the willingness to compromise on your terms.

What are you saying?

I mean we're gonna land to the staff, and you're saying we're gonna well, we're gonna we're gonna concede on submissions uh the staff to see.

I don't understand.

I think it needs to be clear.

I think I know what's it.

Okay.

So what I'm hearing is like stick with the money stuff, but show flexibility and willingness to work on the cooperative IG rejections, right?

Like you just want to show them like, hey, okay, we'll deal with the money stuff, but we are willing to because city manager you mentioned that that's the biggest place, right?

That's our leverage.

So if we at least show that we're willing to work with some of those and not just flat out reject everything that they're rejecting.

Leave the money alone, but then just tell them like, hey, we're willing to work with some of this stuff.

Obviously, this is more staff intensive stuff as opposed to council stuff, but we're willing to work with some of the stuff on the cooperative IGA, but we're not willing to work with the finance on the MVP IG.

I have an issue just sending back the same thing and saying that's it, right?

Is it what are they gonna say?

They're gonna send us up in that position.

Okay, like we're gonna show at least some willingness to know that.

And I should reiterate staff have a great relationship with staff.

This is not this wouldn't be a cold email that's just here it is.

So I think you can easily communicate that to administrator Schmidt.

I think I can easily communicate what I think I have her says.

Um we are nearing the end of our ability to keep these negotiations going on the financial terms of the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA.

We are holding firm what what the only way this makes financial sense for us is our full ass comes on one STCs and nine hundred thousand metro local share free and clear for the Metro unit was done on December eleventh.

Um if those terms are acceptable to your board, then we would like to proceed with staff to staff negotiations to work out the details on the other remaining sticking points of the IGA and finalize drafts to bring to our two boards.

Yeah, yes, yeah.

By January 14th.

Okay.

Yeah, because we're gonna take a break too before we get to you.

Sorry.

Um, so we're gonna take a 10 minute break and back at 90.

All right.

We are back on the air with our poet hearing tonight.

Start on it.

Sorry, guys.

Hopefully it'll be quite hearing on the proposed street locations and the hillside park right away.

The purpose of this hearing is your staff report.

Does any council member wish to announce actual or potential conference of interest?

Regarding this hearing I will turn it over to a planning director.

Tonight, uh, council is being asked to hold this public hearing to consider an ordinance that will vacate a portion of the public right-of-way within Hillside Park.

Um, shown here on this map.

It's this section of um of the project.

It's a portion of um Southeast Hillside Court and then Southeast uh A, E, and C Streets.

And this is for phase two of the build-out of the Hillside Park project, which will include any right-of-way alignment and the associated associated dedications that go with it.

Okay.

So on November 16, 2021, council adopted ordinance 2210, which adopted the final development plan and program for Hillside Park, and that was part of the plan development uh file number PD 2021 001.

And then in March on March 19th, 2024, council adopted ordinance 2240, which making portions of the public right-of-way related to phase one of Hillside Park.

So then this is actually the next part of this.

So this plan development proposal is for the entire project at Hillside Park.

We just own it operated by the housing authority of Plackness County.

The redevelopment of the site involves phase demolition of the existing improvements, including removal of the structures, demolition of the existing roads, removal or abandonment of the and removal or abandonment of the underground infrastructure.

A new street grid and infrastructure plan is proposed with streets to be realigned and dedicated to create the entire new development.

Phase one is currently under construction.

Um building C has already opened, and buildings A and B are nearing completion.

Uh phase two of the development, which is the subject of this particular hearing of this um street vacation application result will result in the development of four new buildings that you can see here on the site plan, which will total a total, which will total 164 units across the four buildings, associated parking, um, open space, and landscaping improvements.

Uh in the right-of-way vacation process, there's a very specific process that we um we have to follow.

The housing authority submitted the petition for the vacation.

We prepared a legal notice to be published in the Oregonian, um, which was published on November 26th and December 3rd.

The affidavit of publication was included in your packet.

The petitioner needs to post signs on the site, which they did.

Um, and then the council needs to hold a public hearing, which we'll do tonight.

So again, this is the right-of-way vacation area as identified on the right-of-way vacation plan set, um, which was included in the packet and in the petition application that they submitted.

Um the standard of review for right-of-way vacation um is um outlined in the Oregon advised statutes.

Um, the housing authority is the petitioner and is the sole property owner of the area affected, so consent has been obtained for the for the vacation.

Notice as required has been has been duly given.

Um, so again, the petitioner initiated vacation process involves publication of a notice in the city's official newspaper once a week for two consecutive weeks, which did happen in the um in the Oregonian notice signs were posted on the property on November 20th, giving the public an opportunity to object to the proposed vacation in writing if they wanted to.

Uh to date, staff received one comment about the proposed vacation, uh, but no written objections were received.

And then finally, the public interest uh will not be prejudiced by the proposed street vacation.

Um, as described above, the vacation is anticipated, allows for an approved and much needed residential development to move forward with um an additional over 500 units of affordable housing to be developed.

So the vacated right-of-way will be replaced by new public right-of-way um alignment.

So we're not losing public right-of-way, it's merely being realigned to allow for the construction of the project.

Staff's recommendation is that council grant the petition and adopt the ordinance as included in your packet that would vacate the right-of-way as proposed.

Um, if council finds that the requirement consent has been obtained, notice has been duly given and the public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Vera?

Not seeing any.

I will just uh note the uh one comment was out of concern for the geese, which was just a classic Milwaukee comment right there.

Uh I did have a response to that comment if from the petitioners if you would like to know what they okay.

Um I forwarded the question to um related Northwest and to the housing authority, um, and they responded that the Hillside Park site wide part 58 environmental review was conducted as part of the housing authority section 18 disposition approval by the U.S.

Um and they responded that the Hillside Park site right part part 58 environmental review was conducted as part of the housing authority section 18 disposition approval by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The review examines any impact to endangered species, it follows um consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine Fisheries Service, and NOAA.

Our review of the fish and wildlife critical habitats for endangered species species did not list Canada geese as endangered and did not identify the site as crucial habitat for Canada geese.

Um the type of environmental review requirements were followed, and they were granted authorization to use federal funds on October 29th, 2020.

I would also know to be here for the geese.

Pardon, do we hear from the geese?

Come on, here is on behalf.

Speaker of the yeast.

I uh I also would note there's a good green parcel behind the hillside manor, and there's a lot of green space and undue retention fund nearby and Belfort Park.

So we've we have places for the geese.

Um does anyone wish to comment on the proposed right-of-way vacations?

No one in the room.

Oh well, I should not okay.

Um anyone online, Mr.

Stopper.

We continue to maintain a zoom audience.

No one's hand is raised.

Okay.

So I will not read the script regarding public testimony in light of there being no one wishing to testify.

Uh, and staff doesn't have any testimony to respond to.

So last chance for questions from council.

I'm not seeing any questions.

If there are no more questions, I will entertain a motion to close the public comment part of the hearing.

I need to close the public comment part of the hillside park right of way for vacation break.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to close the public comment part of the hillside park right of way vacation hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

None heard.

It passes unanimously.

The public comment part of the hearing is closed.

Is there any council discussion?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.

Sure.

I move for the first and second readings by title only and adoption of the ordinance vacating the public street rights of way within the hillside park development designated as portions of Southeast Hillside Courts, East A Street, Southeast B Street, Southeast C Street.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded for the first and second readings by title only, an adoption of the ordinance vacating the public street rights of way within the Hillside Park Development designated as portions of Southeast Hillside Court, Southeast A Street, Southeast B Street, and Southeast C Street.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

None heard.

And passes unanimously.

Ms.

Sanger, would you read the ordinance two times by title only, please?

Certainly.

An ordinance of the city council of the city of Milwaukee, Oregon, vacating the public street rights and way within the Hillside Park Development designated as portions of Southeast Hillside Court, Southeast B Street, Southeast B Street, and Southeast Sea Street.

And again, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Milwaukee, Oregon, they creating the public street rights of way within the Hillside Park Development, designated as portions of Southeast Hillside Court, Southeast Bay Street, Southeast Beast Street, South East C Street.

And Mr.

Stoffer would please public council.

Councilor Massey.

Aye.

Council President Anderson.

Aye.

Councilor Scavenger.

Hi.

Council Body.

Mayor Beatty.

Aye.

Motion here at 5 to 0.2259.

All right.

Thank you.

Sorry.

We should have moved you to the beginning of the agenda.

Council records.

Anybody got council reports to give?

This is not an official council report, but I do want to call out uh uh announcement uh on behalf of the forensical library is that uh they received an unexpected uh 20,000 dollar gift just originally.

So that's great news, and we've had a really good fundraising gear for the council with the plant sale and the book sales.

Uh we know what's happening with Milwaukee floral, so the plant sale is in search for a new home.

Uh there's already been a some potential sites to identify, but uh if anyone's got a really great spot that they think we ought to have plant sale, uh let me know, and I'll pass that on to the folks uh who run the plants.

I do want to call out one of the members of the Friendsville Library.

He has been the um treasurer of the Friends of the Library for 17 years, and so Joe Sandper is going to retire from the field.

So and uh think many of you know Joe, he was the uh director of the library for 32 years between 1979 and 2011.

I guess there was a little overlap between that job and the treasury is doing both for a while, and so uh he has a uh total of uh 40 um I'm trying to float it here.

Um 46 years, I guess it was.

Yeah, and so that is a lot of uh of uh contributions to the library and uh we want to thank Joe publicly for everything he's done for the reading public of Milwaukee.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um I just want to touch quickly on two things.

Um go ahead.

Oh, I just I just wanted to make a quick um announcement that um there is a Milwaukee passport being distributed.

Um the uh staff here at the uh city have it, and it's making its way down Main Street.

So um there are uh discounts and freebies from a lot of businesses downtown.

Oh, look at this.

Thanks, man.

Hold on up.

Yeah, there's the passport.

It does feel like that feels and looks like a passport, and it's putty because it has a downtown Milwaukee wall king map.

Oh yeah, I know it's good.

Um so I just want to say thank you to all of the businesses that participated and put some um some discounts in here, and um it's been exciting to hear from folks as they are planning their bulking trips down Main Street.

Um, and then also want to thank um uh Waverly Greens, and um they are providing um a drop point for those that have completed their entire passport, which means I think that you might have to get a tattoo, but um I was told that yes, dedication.

It's just dedication.

Um anyway, so and uh big thanks to the downtown alliance uh of Milwaukee businesses for spearheading this and everyone who's out there doing some good work around economic development for for the city.

So thanks.

Thank you.

I would actually piggyback on that um to say I said in the announcements at the beginning that it's there's three nights of the Christmas ships, but it's a great week to get into downtown Milwaukee to have dinner, to shop, to uh have happy hour, whatever, um, and support our business community.

And uh I did want to call out Councillor Saven Jordan and her business, B Side Records and Vintage, which is as I understand it, hosting the after party to bang in the new year.

We are um we're also having a festivist celebration.

So if any of you have grievances out there, I'm pretty sure you do that.

Oh my cameras will that be filmed.

The revolution will be televised.

Yes um okay, I had two other a little more serious things I wanted to say, which was at the beginning when the city manager um noted at the end of the announcements, um you know, wishing people happy Hanukkah.

Um of course we all wish people happy Hanukkah, but it's um particularly point this year with what happened in Australia.

So um that should never happen.

That's never happened.

We can tell a lot of scores.

Um better people.

Um the other thing I wanted to say was um, and we can talk more in the new year, but uh we did a um video uh broadcast webcast, but and most of the council is there with um that was done from Beaverton with a community of of eight other cities uh about response to immigration uh raids.

We haven't seen a ton of that in Milwaukee, but we need to be prepared, and I think you know some of the people who participated in that have uh forwarded some questions to council and to staff, and Emma's responded to some of that today.

Um, but I do think we will probably need to have some further conversations in the new year about uh what we can do to help our community just connect people and to connect people who are trying to be prepared for a response to that.

Um I've been a little disappointed in what I've in that I don't hear there's a lot of organizing around the schools, and so um I'm gonna try and do a little more investigation of that in the coming weeks, but I do hope to talk about that in January.

Um and with that, if there are no other counseling reports, uh we do have an executive session after the meeting, council will meet in executive session pursuant to organ revised statutes 192.660 to be to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions.

Representatives of the news media and designated staff should be allowed to attend.

I don't think I have to actually read.

Are we staying in this room?

Oh, I guess we are.

All the other members of the audience are asked to leave the room.

Sorry, Jennifer.

Uh representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on or otherwise disclose any of the deliberations or anything said about these subjects during the executive session, except the state and general subject matter of the session as previously announced.

No decision may be made in executive session.

With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn the regular session.

It's been moved executive to adjourn the regular session.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those say no, the regular meeting is adjourned.