I know.

I'm always like I want it higher.

Actually, it's not bad.

Yeah, we can solve all this chair.

Oh, yeah.

That we're from Costco or whatever.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

Highly inappropriate.

All right.

So Councillor Seven Jordan is not joining us.

I take it.

Okay.

Well, so I guess otherwise we're all here, so go ahead and get started.

I call.

Oh wow, seems louder today.

I call the two thousand four hundred and fifty second 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 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 for those at City Hall or emailing OCR at MilwaukeeOregon.gov for those on Zoom.

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

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

Comments may be emailed to OCR at MilwaukeeOregon.gov.

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

Please see the information slide, which is not up actually.

Oh, okay.

Uh oh, it's okay.

He can cue up the slide, but I should just push this further back to deal with the feedback.

Um the translation slide.

Okay, perfect.

There we go.

Translation services are also available in multiple languages.

See this slide for details.

We do ask for 48 hours notice for translation services.

With that, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

And now for our announcements.

Vendors, craft activities for the entire family, and more.

Check the city website for all the details about the event.

And I actually had meant, thought about wearing my duck race t-shirt, but the duck race over Kellogg Dam is also during Milwaukee Fest at 1 p.m.

that day.

And the Parks Foundation has some cool new t-shirts that you should check out when you're downtown.

The Milwaukee Arts Committee hosts another year of Porch Fest on three Fridays, Friday, July 17th, 24th, and 31st.

The community is invited to create music from their own homes or walk and bike around the city to enjoy the sights and sounds.

And it really does, I mean, it's grown every year, but this year it seems like it's bigger than ever.

Lots and lots of great acts.

Your responses will help guide future programs, investments, and policies concerning the city's tree can be.gov or call 503-786-7555.

And then I have a haiku this week for Milwaukee Fest.

Music, neighbors, memories.

Fest weekend is here.

And uh I still have a few uh haiku in the queue, but um you can always send me your haiku.

My email address is shown there.

Uh, because I will be needing some more haiku soon.

Okay.

Uh with that I will uh move to the consent agenda.

Tonight's consent agenda includes minutes of the city council June 2nd, 2026 work session and June 2nd, 2026 regular session, and an Oregon liquor and cannabis commission application for Oak Union Brewing at 10909 Southeast Main Street, a new license.

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

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

I'll second.

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

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

None heard.

Uh consent agenda passes unanimously.

I guess is Councillor Stavan Jordan online?

No.

She is not online.

And Mayor, did you want to do community comments too?

Oh, did I skip over that?

Oh, yes, I did.

Sorry about that.

But just for the record, consent agenda passed 400 is the record.

I guess.

Okay.

The council will now hear community comments on city business topics that are not on the agenda.

Before we begin, is there a follow-up from the June 16th comments, Ms.

Saber?

There is a bit, Mayor.

So at our last meeting, we received actually, no, at our last meeting we uh didn't have any community comments, but we have received some correspondence between that meeting and this one, and I want to provide a few updates.

The first was a um letter from the Linwood NDA about uh NCPRD fee increases and the impact that has on NDAs trying to host events.

I just want to inform council and all of our NDAs who were informed yesterday that in the new budget we um did roll forward the additional $500 per fiscal year for each um NDA due to rising costs, including the park fees.

Um good news, I believe uh the district will be considering a waiver or a reduction of those fees um soon.

Um, but the $500 increase to the NC to the um neighborhood event program or neighborhood enhancement program grant to the NDAs will continue.

So um that's one update there.

Um I also uh Teresa Breesaw from the Lake Road neighborhood sent some comments in regarding a uh triplex development in that neighborhood.

Um I wanted to just pull up a few responses that I received from planning about there are several questions in um Miss Breesaw's email, and we'll be providing a written response to her, and I'll make sure that is provided to council.

But just a few um responses to some of the main questions she asked.

She also stopped by my open door last week.

Um one was around fire district review of building permits, and uh just so everyone is aware building permits are reviewed by the fire marshal for compliance with fire code.

Um this proposal um looks at uh lot coverage, and one of the elements um that they're including there is some strips in between um the the driveway.

Basically, there's concrete strips with vegetation in between, and looking at that.

Um, and uh Ms.

Brisaw asked if that creates fire risk.

Um the space between those concrete strips is vegetated, it does count towards minimum vegetation.

Our code does not require certain dimensions for vegetation, just an overall percentage of the lot.

In the case of the proposed triplex, the grass area would have been four feet wide.

The reduction in pavement also assists in stormwater management.

Fire risk of those planted areas is a question for the fire marshal.

According to the fire marshal, keeping the grass green is always helpful and cut low.

Um if the grass were to burn, the flames would be very small, and the likelihood of that occurring is slim.

There were some questions about inf uh filtration testing.

Um, all developments are required to provide stormwater management on their property, and that's reviewed by our engineering division.

Um, so those are some questions again.

I'll provide or some answers.

I'll provide some more detailed ones in my response to Miss Breesa.

I also just want to clarify that um this interest by the neighborhood started because a variance uh application um was put in for that property and the neighborhood appealed it.

That variance has since been been pulled back.

So there is no active development proposal for that lot.

Um Vera just wanted to.

Oh, really?

By that.

Yes, okay.

Um and yes, I think those were the oh, the last one um that was a follow-up just from a process in the last meeting.

We had our hearing on the um appeal on the abatement costs, and council had asked that we look into creating a payment plan.

Um, we did offer that um and communicated that back to the the um individuals.

So those are my follow-ups.

Okay.

Well, Miss Breesaw wasn't here to hear what you said.

Hi, Teresa.

Okay.

Uming to provide comment tonight.

Or get answers.

So I I just responded.

No, actually, just verbally to to counsel.

That's okay.

I um how would you like to do this, Mayor?

Would you like me to follow up in writing?

Well, why don't I think you it was fairly succinct.

I think you can repeat it.

Okay.

So you just was impeccable timing, Teresa.

Um, and so I'm I'm not gonna be able to respond to every single question in your email.

I'll do that in writing, but there were just a few that you raised to me in um our open door that I wanted everyone to be aware of.

The first was your question about fire marshal review.

And yes, all building permits are reviewed by the fire marshal for compliance with fire code.

Yeah, I mean, sometimes.

Yep.

Um, you asked about the vegetation in between um and the fire risk there.

Um, so that's a little bit outside of our purview.

We do count that in terms of the vegetation.

Um, according to the fire marshal, keeping the grass green is always helpful if cut low.

Um, but they also said that if that grass were to burn, the flames would be very small, the likelihood of that occurring is slim.

And then in terms of filtration testing, um, all developments are required to provide stormwater management on their property, which is reviewed by the engineering division during permit review.

Um, and then the last piece that Vera just asked me to clarify is that because the the variance application was pulled back, there is no active application right now at that site.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's it for five.

So if you want to testify, fill out a yellow card.

We're just getting to that right now.

Okay.

Um, just let me read the script.

You can go ahead and come up to the table.

Yeah.

Um, for those in person who wish to speak, please submit a yellow comment card found on the table at the back of chambers.

If you are on Zoom, use the raise hand reaction to alert staff that you wish to speak.

And when instructed to do so, click the microphone button to unmute yourself.

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

You may also submit a comment via email to OCR at MilwaukeeOregon.gov.

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

If you would like the city to follow up with you, please submit your contact information.

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

Because information provided during community comments may be new.

This is not the time for discussion.

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

So I'll call on Theresa Briso.

Hi, Teresa Bris.

Do I have to spell my name too?

Last I'm not spelling.

If you're doing the yellow card, you don't have to worry about it.

Yeah, so the triplex.

Um and I know uh the code allows it outright, but I'm wondering if you know people pass code, they don't always know the practical consequences of the code they pass.

So I'm wondering if you um individually think it's okay to pay basically pay the backyard for vehicles.

Because to me, that's something that is a definite no for me for residential neighborhood.

Um I don't know how you guys feel, but I think the code needs to be changed.

So basically it's going to be a paved backyard for three vehicles, and it's a very narrow lot.

I'm wondering how you feel individually.

So we don't engage on a lot of people.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, I just give comments.

Well, maybe someday you can discuss it between yourselves.

Okay.

So okay.

So I guess I can't ask you questions.

Well, I can ask you questions, but you can't respond.

So okay.

So um I don't know if you guys have even really looked at the information regarding the triplex, which I know you can't respond, but it would be helpful to know.

It's a very narrow lot.

And I don't know.

If you had time to look at it, but it's good to know what your code, what the code says, because if this is allowed, it's not it's not advisable.

The neighborhood was very upset about it, and they submitted so many comments, and I know the variance is null and void, nothing to do with that anymore.

But it's the idea of the triplex on a very narrow lot, 37 feet wide with six bedrooms.

That could mean you could have uh two minimum, uh, probably in each one.

You could have six vehicles, could have more.

Uh inhouse a very small lot, 42 uh 52, I think it is 4,000.

So it's very small.

And for a triplex to be allowed, that's cantilevered with vehicles go driving underneath it and then driveway all the way going around to the back.

Um, I don't think it's good for our neighborhoods, and I hope we can figure out a way to stop it for future development, because I know this one has already been approved, but I don't think it's a good idea.

And I don't the neighbors are very unhappy with it.

And I hope that you'll be sensitive to what they think.

And it's a lack of privacy as well.

Plus the trees and the environment, it's all about the density, good up to a certain point, and then not good up to a certain point.

This is it goes over that triplex, two bedrooms each, six bedrooms.

It's this overkill.

Anyhow, but yeah, thank you.

So um Emma said she was gonna respond more fully.

I would just uh say, and hopefully she can put that in her uh maybe a link in her response.

But last summer, about this time, it was like July of last summer.

We had what was called the middle housing town hall.

And I obviously missed it.

And it's if I would have known so there's a lot of um QA on there, and and it explains what the state has mandated and what we have latitude, and so I would encourage you to look at those materials because some of this we do not have latitude to address.

So the but okay, so the permeability you're saying um the minimum is what they um uh I don't want to get into.

That's fine.

I don't have details here, but um I would definitely encourage you to look at that's all in Engage Milwaukee, and um there's a whole lot of materials there.

Okay and Emma can maybe help steer you to the I appreciate your listening.

Yeah, that's yeah, thank you.

And it's all about the neighborhoods, by the way.

They neighbors they want density up to a certain point.

Anyhow, yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we actually have a uh speaker on Zoom as well.

Uh which I believe is Mr.

Stefan Lashbrook.

You yeah, there you go.

Thank you.

Take me a minute to get unmuted here.

Stephan Lashbrook, I live in the Llewellyn neighborhood.

Good evening to all of you.

Um, I have some comments about the city's relationship with NCPRD, and I want to follow that by telling you a story.

Those of you you all know me, I tell stories.

Um, I want to start by saying I think that the the staff and council from the city certainly have you've done everything you could to strike an agreement with the county um that would enable all the parties to feel good about completing Milwaukee Bay Park.

But I would point out that the county took that project away from the city about seven years ago.

And a number of us thought that, well, that certainly meant that they would move it forward.

Obviously, that has not been the case.

I have to add that the Klein family's been working on this for 30 years.

And it's it's apparent to me, having watched the um the meeting of the county commission at the Concord Community Center in June.

It's really apparent that they're not motivated to move this forward.

They enjoy making it seem as if the city is somehow taking advantage of the residents of the unincorporated area within the district.

And I find that offensive and unfortunate.

So now for my story.

That was facing litigation that uh could have amounted to billions of dollars with a B.

Um, and our little city was struggling to figure out how we would respond in the litigation, what how how active we'd be, what we would do.

And we had a young staff person who is a former collegiate baseball player, who after listening time and again, meeting after meeting, finally said, you know, got the chair's attention and said, I'd just like to say that there comes a time when it's it's time to play hardball.

And that stuck with me all these years.

We did it then, and I think it's time for the city to do it now.

So I have in follow-up to that a suggestion that uh maybe off the wall, but it certainly is uh playing hardball.

And that would be for you to take and in terms of going forward, take all the SDC funds generated by the city of Milwaukee within the city of Milwaukee that are earmarked for NCPRD, and instead of forwarding them to the district, you'd put them in an interest-bearing escrow account.

So you would keep them until this is resolved.

I think that would create some motivation for the district that obviously they lack, because without it, I don't know what would make them do anything for for the next seven years.

Um I guess I I guess I've said that clearly enough.

Is that a crazy thing to do?

Probably.

Uh would it lead to a solution?

I don't know, but nothing seems to be doing it now.

And you you all have certainly tried very hard.

So I'll end this by saying uh this whole thing has made me think of an abusive relationship for some time.

And it's like uh one party continues to abuse the other with the uh the threat that I'm going to do this if unless you promise not to leave me.

Uh it it just doesn't seem healthy.

And I think uh the city of Milwaukee has become the abused party in this.

Um those type of relationships never last, and they definitely shouldn't.

Uh you can read that any way you want to.

I I could talk about this way too long, but I'd be like talking to myself because you all have been over this and over this.

I I hope you'll at least consider my proposal.

Thank you for your comments, and I do encourage you to stay tuned to the uh broadcast because that is the first topic coming up in our meeting uh after we close public comment.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any others with Mr.

Stoffer online.

Uh, there is more than Stefan in the Zoom audience, but that's the only hand raised.

Okay.

Okay.

And no one else in the room.

Okay.

So uh with that, we will close the public comments.

I already we already did the consent agenda.

So uh business items.

North Clackmas Parks and Recreation District Intergovernmental Agreement update.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Scott, could you please pull up the document?

Um, I'm walking onto the dais a document um that we'll include in the meeting record.

Ummarizing uh some questions and topics that were raised at the June 24th meeting that Mr.

Lashbrook just referenced.

So for anyone tuning in, um, for the last 18 months, the city and the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District have been um negotiating two agreements.

One is an amendment to the cooperative agreement that governs the city's uh participation in the North Clackamas Parks and Rec District, um, and a separate IGA to advance Milwaukee Bay Park and namely uh give the city control of uh the remaining design and development of that park.

Um those agreements were approved for my signature by this council in April, and we've been awaiting an answer or a decision from the NCPRD board, which is also the Board of County Commissioners since then.

They met on June 24th.

This was the first public first substantive public discussion.

There was a presentation to the board uh earlier in June, but the first sort of substantive public discussion the board has held, they did mention in that meeting that they've held 33 executive sessions talking about these agreements, um, but this is the first kind of substantive public meeting about it.

Um, the to kind of get to the punchline, they made a motion and unanimously adopted that motion at the end of the meeting to delay consideration of the agreements for three months to allow time for the district advisory committee to review the agreements and weigh in.

Um the DAC, the District Advisory Committee does meet tomorrow night, and I believe this is on the agenda.

Um, but what I wanted to do tonight is there was set it was a long meeting, it was almost three hours, and many uh questions were raised, statements were made that I want to kind of uh provide some city response to to just clarify some things for folks who have been following along with us for the past 18 months.

So we have this document together.

I apologize with the fourth holiday.

It wasn't um prepared to go in the packet on Friday, but we will make sure it is posted to our website tonight and included in the meeting record, and Scott will scroll through it with me.

So, Scott, can you scroll down so we see that first question in blue?

So, one question that was asked by um by one of the board of directors or the directors on the board was would the approval of the Milwaukee Bay Park IGA and the cooperative IGA amendment save the district money?

Um we many folks in their testimony in support of the agreements talked about the operation and maintenance um savings that could be realized if these were approved.

So these IGAs cover a lot of ground and there's a lot of transfer of funds both on the capital side and the operations and maintenance side.

We've put together this little table summarizing what we call gives and gains.

So from Milwaukee's standpoint, we will be giving or really assuming one uh one up to 1.6.06 uh million dollars of capital maintenance and repair costs at Milwaukee Community Center over the next five years.

This is largely from the roof that needs to be replaced.

Um, if these deals are signed, we would take over the responsibility for that.

We would also take over the responsibility for raising the remainder of capital costs uh to build Milwaukee Bay Park phase three, which is estimated at around 10 million dollars.

We would also take over annual maintenance costs at Milwaukee Bay Park once the phase three is completed, and that is estimated at $60,000 a year.

What do we get out of the deal?

What do we gain?

Will we gain control of Milwaukee Bay Park phase three?

We would get the 50% designs that NCPRD developed transferred to us as well as the design contract.

On the NCPRD side, if they sign, they would be giving um 3.1 million of zone one SDCs, which were paid by Milwaukeeans, plus up to 200,000 of SDCs accrued between signing and the construction.

So in total, $3.3 million of SDCs.

They would assign $900,000 of Metro local share to the city for use on the park, and they would assign $658,000 from the Metro Trolley Trail grant to the city.

What they get out of the deal is clarity over depreciation and capitalization of district assets, which has been a little fuzzy in the current IGA.

This really clears it up.

And so if the city were ever to leave the district or withdraw, um, there's a there's a depreciation schedule for repaying any assets of the district as paid in.

And then as I previously talked about, they would uh save money on the maintenance responsibilities at Milwaukee Bay Park and Milwaukee Community Center.

Um lot of money changing hands, but the short answer to the operations and maintenance question is yes, if these were signed, there would be reduced O and M responsibilities at two large properties that the district could then reassign those OM costs elsewhere.

Scott, if you could scroll forward and go down to the next question.

So a large theme of the conversation on uh the 24th was around kind of parity and equity with uh other parts of the district that are underserved or less served with parks.

It is true that the city of Milwaukee, which represents about 20% of the population and land area of the district is home to about half of the parks in the park portfolio.

That is because the city owned parks prior to joining the district and has chosen to spend its own dollars on capital investment and acquisition of parkland.

But there was a large concern kind of raised that if these deals were signed, it would harm investment on other capital projects elsewhere in the district.

So the question raised was would approval of these IGAs redirect funds earmarked for parks in the unincorporated areas.

Director Selley on June 24th did confirm that if these agreements are signed, what would happen in the system plan and the capital improvement plan for the district is that Milwaukee Bay Park and North Clackamas Park, another Milwaukee Park would swap spots.

So North Clackamas Park is currently a near-term priority, Milwaukee Bay Park is a midterm priority, those would swap.

It was very clear that no other near term or midterm priorities in the unincorporated parts of the district would be affected.

So no, this would have no impact on the district's planned capital investments in those underserved areas.

I think that was a point kind of lost in translation.

But that I think is very important because I'll speak for myself.

I think we we agree there are underserved parts of the district that we absolutely would love to see more parks built in.

Okay, the next one is a long one.

There was a lot of discussion about utility rates, and I'm sure any Milwaukee ratepayers watching were a little confused by some of the statements of did Milwaukee triple the district's utility rates overnight.

And so I really want to shed some light on what occurred there.

So middle of last year, our finance department was auditing utility accounts around the Bonaventure Senior Living Center.

That that's our standard practice.

When a new large account comes on, we take that opportunity, good practice to look at accounts around there and just make sure everything is accurate in our utility billing system.

When we did that audit, Bonaventure is right next to Milwaukee Community Center in North Plackamas Park.

We discovered that there was no utility billing account for either of those properties that are operated and maintained by NCPRD.

What we also determined was at those properties, NCPRD was paying stormwater and wastewater rates to WES, Clackamas County Water Environment Services.

We contacted Wes because the arrangement we have with Wes is in properties within the city, the city collects storm and sewer rates, and then we pay Wes for the sewer treatment that they do for Milwaukee properties.

And so this was inconsistent with our practice elsewhere.

The Wes agreed that it was inconsistent and they agreed that it made sense to transition billing for these properties to the city to be consistent with current practice.

When we realized that that though that NCPRD at the community center and at North Clackamas Park had not been paying utility bills, that that's concerning because those properties have been receiving and benefiting from city services.

To be equitable with our other ratepayers and consistent with the city's code, NCPRD should have been paying stormwater, wastewater, and transportation, our safe fee and our SSMP or street maintenance charges.

Those properties just it's complicated, but they're served by Clackamas River Water, so we don't provide their water, they bill that separately.

But that means because they had no accounts, they had been not paying those rates for 30 plus years.

And we estimate that the underbilling means the probably more than a million dollars of money that should have been collected over those 30 years was not from the district.

The district does pay utility rates at the other properties it manages and or maintains and operates.

So in July 2025, Wes ceased billing NCPRD at those properties, and the city began billing for stormwater, wastewater, and transportation in August of 2025.

West informed NCPRD of this change.

I will acknowledge and take full responsibility that the city should have been more proactive in our communication with NCPRD about this change.

That was an oversight and unintentional oversight.

I have offered my apologies to city County Administrator Schmidt and Director Selly about that, and we've updated our communication procedures accordingly.

So this question of tripling of rates, the city's stormwater rates are significantly higher than Wes's rates, but they're developed through the city's biennual rate setting process and they're approved by city council.

I should also note, I think Director Selly mentioned, you know, if they paid those rates across all the properties, that tripling would have a real negative impact.

They actually are already playing paying city stormwater rates at all other properties.

It was just these two that were paying the West rate and saw the jump.

So I completely appreciate the financial situation the district is in.

Um, but those the stormwater rates, there was inconsistencies across the properties they they um they pay for.

And again, according to the city's utility code, all city ratepayers should pay rates consistent with the city fee schedule.

At this time, there are no special government rates or processes for providing a government or a discounted rate.

Then in December, the city began assessing a public safety fee.

We adopted that on utility bills.

So we added that to all NCPRD accounts, because that would be consistent with our code.

That also and the process of that and some auditing, we realized there were some other properties where we weren't accurately or consistently charging um transportation charges.

So we updated those.

That did also increase utility rates to NCPRD.

And at that time, the city and NCPRD did meet in January to discuss all the properties and the accurate billing there.

Um that time also then conversations began where um NCPRD staff expressed that they didn't feel they should be paying um certain fees and charges on our utility bill, things like the transportation charges or the public safety fee.

They didn't feel that those should be charged to NCPRD.

Our interpretation of our code is that NCPRD is a ratepayer and should be paying those.

Um have been in lots of negotiations since then around this issue.

I just want to transparently state that NCPRD has not paid utility bills to the city since January 2026 across any of its 18 accounts until this conversation could be resolved.

Um I think this also got a little bit lost in the sauce on um on the 24th, but we did work hard with the county administrator and director Selly to define to develop language that could go into the IGAs that staff would feel comfortable with moving forward that would revert to the June 2025 rates, the rates that are inconsistent with city code, but I authorized that I would be comfortable moving back to that if we set a deadline of July 2027 to continue these negotiations.

I did not want this utility disagreement to hold up the um the agreement or decision on Milwaukee Bay Park and the cooperative amendment.

I I don't know if that's being tracked by their side, but that language is on the table.

And so if the board decides to approve the arrangements, they would see some utility relief while we continue to have this discussion about utility rates.

That was a lot of information.

Before I go on, counsel, do you have any questions for me about the utility rate, Zaga?

I do not, as um, having been in part of the negotiating team, I've known a little bit more about it, but I certainly understand if the other counselors did have some questions.

One thing that I heard in the video from the 24th was a concern that this was uh increase that had happened on other Milwaukee parts as well.

You're saying that is not the case.

It is only on this property.

It's it's nuanced.

So the big jump that was referenced was the stormwater rate, the West stormwater rate to our rate is is a tripling.

But that change only is occurring on Milwaukee Community Center and North Clackmas Park.

NCPRD was already paying city stormwater rates, those higher rates at the other parks where it applied.

Where there's the nuances, and again, and as we we were utility provider and we audit accounts and we find things, and we did find that we weren't consistently putting SSMP and safe charges on various properties.

So those did see some increases as well.

Um it's around $900 in total across the eight 18 properties a month of increased bills.

I know you mentioned it's a violation of our code, but we're putting forward.

I appreciate your flexibility here.

I mean, we are willing to bend over backwards to make these negotiations happen, and I appreciate you in this moment doing what it takes to make this right and find a pathway forward to continue negotiating in good faith.

I appreciate you saying that, Council President.

And um, I I just also want to say to you know, our ratepayers that it it gives me pause and discomfort to do that because I believe in equity for our ratepayers and our code is written for a reason.

And when one ratepayer isn't paying their fair share, it has an impact on rates for everyone else.

So um thank you for saying that.

It's a compromise that I I thought was important to put forward to show our good faith um interest and getting to a deal here, but I just want our ratepayers to know that I also don't take it lightly.

Um, and we have code for a reason, and and I do believe in equitable application of that to all of our rate bears.

And I really appreciate you laying it out so clearly in this document.

So it was good.

Thank you.

Okay, so can you scroll forward, Scott, to the next one?

This one's the and while I do that for the record, I'll note that Councillor Stappenjoard is in the Zoom call.

Okay.

Let us know if she raises her hand at any point.

Thank you.

Um the next topic I want to address um at the June 24th meeting, Director Sabas um provided some slides, and in it he talked about the district's goals for the negotiations.

He named four fix the financial condition of the district, settle the issue of ORS 222 language in the IGA, achieve parity and fairness across the district, and settle the issue of Milwaukee's potential withdrawal.

Um I just want to uh offer for the record that those goals were never agreed upon by the negotiating representatives of both agencies.

Um if you go back to where this negotiation process started, it started with a letter from this council to the board asking to come to the table to talk about Milwaukee Bay Park phase three, and actually said in that letter they did not want to engage in any discussion regarding withdrawal or withdrawal language, as that was being um reviewed by the Court of Appeals at that time.

Um we also uh have published on our website the notes and minutes of the negotiation sessions that show the continued reiteration of that point.

Um I will say Director Sabas was clear throughout that he wanted to talk about some of these issues, but I just want to for clarity for those following along this process.

Those those four goals that were named were not agreed upon by all negotiating parties as the focus of the negotiation.

Um next question, if you can scroll down, Scott.

The can the IGA yep, mayor.

I would just I would state that more strongly that um not only were they not agreed upon, but they were outright rejected by our negotiating team.

Um we said, and you out you did you document that here.

We said at several junctures we are not here to talk about withdrawal withdrawal.

Yeah.

Um another point raised in Director Savas' presentation was um uh an option or uh a potential of the IGA um the cooperative IGA, so not the amendment, but the actual IGA itself being terminated.

So you may be wondering, can it be terminated?

What happens if it is terminated?

It does uh that that IGA does include a termination clause, but it is it is quiet on what occurs when that termination happens.

There's some statements made by Director Savas that if that was terminated, the maintenance responsibilities the district has in the city would would be null and void, for example.

Um we uh want to clarify that the legal pathway for a unilateral termination by the district and those ramifications are unanswered questions that would require significant legal review.

So any statements about the process or potential benefits should be seen as purely speculative.

And then last but not least, there were a few times a statement made about the district subsidizing Milwaukee.

Um basically that the district spends more maintaining the parks, operating and maintaining the parks in Milwaukee than it raises from tax revenue in Milwaukee.

Um we, as I mentioned earlier, we do not contest that 43% of the parks of the district are in city limits, even though we're 20% of the area and population, but that is not because of district investment.

We owned our parks prior to formation of the district, and we've spent our own money in the decades since acquiring land and investing in capital improvements.

Um we have requested um uh from the from the district uh the day the underlying data of how they calculated the 600,000 to 1 million dollar annual subsidy and have not yet received that information.

If we do, I will provide it to um to you.

But uh that that number was cited and there was a reference to a formula used to calculate it, but we have not received what that formula is.

That is my recap.

Um council, I welcome any questions or any kind of comments you want to make on the proceedings of June 24th.

Well, let's start with questions.

I'm not seeing any questions, so uh comments.

I will just note that um the district advisory committee meets tomorrow night.

Uh it was left uh vague at the June 24th meeting.

I mean, they were given three months um to review and make a recommendation.

Uh I do think there's, you know, uh the packet that is available online at ncprd.org uh under uh upcoming meetings.

Um does have a memo from Director Sally indicating she would like the DAC to make a recommendation tomorrow night.

Uh I hope that's what happens.

Um and that it doesn't drag out longer, but uh that remains to be seen.

Uh encourage people who are we had a great turnout.

I want to thank all the people who were there in the room.

Um, it was a long night.

Uh and people but we had great comments from people.

I really appreciate all the people who came to comment.

Uh and um some of these same points that kind of fell on deaf ears.

Um, so um I don't know.

Turn I'll turn to counselor Massey since he's the other member of the negotiating team if he wants to.

I think the um city manager and you have some summed it up quite nicely.

Uh so comments, questions.

We are uh scheduled to talk about uh this again next week.

Uh a little bit different, but talk about um our downtown priorities uh and projects.

Um we will have another opportunity to talk about this, but anything people feel like they want to say tonight or that they would like the DAC to hear.

Yeah, I just want to there's a couple points that were made that um I just wanted to speak on because it it seemed like they spent a lot of time trying to basically blame us for why the unincorporated areas don't have parks.

And I feel like that was uh disingenuous, first of all, because what what they maybe they they need a refresh on how this works.

They are the direct reservoir representatives of those unincorporated areas.

So if parks aren't being built in the unincorporated areas, look at your county commissioners.

Don't look at Milwaukee.

We're the representatives of this area of our city, and we build parks for our people because that's what they ask.

If the county isn't building parks for the unincorporated areas, it's because the county leadership is failing to do so and they're trying to pass the buck to make it seem like we're doing it.

It's our fault, it's not our fault.

We have no jurisdiction over there.

That's their jurisdiction.

Uh, number one.

Number two, they made a big deal about um narratives and and trying to say that uh we're having our meetings in public and it's because we're trying to spin a narrative.

No, we're having our meetings in public because we're public officials, we're not private officials.

We don't do things in backdoor meetings.

There's no narrative being spun.

Everything's being played out right here in the public because that's who we are accountable to.

If your counsel advised you to do otherwise, then that's on you.

But our council did not.

So we went public, as should be the case uh for transparency.

Um so those those were really the points that I wanted to make.

And and just some of the issues that were pressed.

Uh there was a lot of of misguided anger.

It's almost like you would think here in that meeting we were the county commissioners, right?

Because they held us accountable for a lot of things.

And actually, I really think it's quite the opposite where we do quite a bit of subsidizing.

I'd be interested in seeing how much money the Concord community center costs and how much of that money came from Milwaukee, right?

Because they saw that as a regional asset.

Milwaukee Bee Park is the exact same thing.

It's not a library and and so to speak, but it's a regional asset.

So what was the what's the difference?

How are they able to view one as a community asset, not the other?

Just because it's in Milwaukee City limits and as direct representatives of our public, we decide to spend on money on building parks, and you don't.

You got they're the board and the county commissioners, right?

Like that's that that's that's on them.

Take some accountability for your lack of leadership and quit trying to pass the butt to us because how long have some of you been there, right?

It's another reason for term limits.

Just saying.

Thank you.

Well said.

Uh Council President, you know.

Yeah, I have a few thoughts.

Uh, I want to start by saying that I'm really frustrated.

That meeting on the 24th um comes at the tail end of nearly a year and a half of meetings that we've been doing in good faith as the city um to try and build this park, a regional asset that doesn't just serve residents of Milwaukee but serves people in the entire district.

And the feeling I got watching that meeting on the 24th is that those negotiations were not being meaningfully participated in by some members of our county commission who also serve as the board of NCPRD.

Um, I feel like resources we put forward, testimony we've given has fallen on deaf years.

Um we hear a lot about fiscal responsibility.

We talk about it here in Milwaukee.

We hear about that at the county level.

I just come back to this point.

It is fiscally irresponsible what has happened with this park.

Delaying construction for nearly a decade has caused laps in grants.

And it puts us in a bad position where people lose faith in government because we make promises that we do not keep.

And that is all deeply troubling to me.

It's the reason why we as a city have been committed to getting to yes here.

And I don't feel that commitment from our board of county commissioners.

And that's really sad to me.

It's no surprise that as all of this is happening.

Commissioner's Avis, you talk about governance a lot in the meeting of the 24th.

I think we're open to that conversation.

I want to talk about governance because I don't feel well served by the board as it currently stands.

I feel like we're experiencing Milwaukee taxation without representation.

And I think that we need to have a real conversation about how that can change.

We all want to build this park.

This is an important regional asset.

And I look forward to continuing to work with the county commissioners, regardless of what they say in their public meetings, regardless of whether or not we feel like that is happening in good faith.

I want to continue to work with them to get this part built because I think that is our north store in this process.

And I appreciate that we can continue to have those conversations.

So maybe they're in a step in the right direction, at least when it comes to that, because last time they talked about equity, they shut down the office.

So maybe that's a step in the right direction, at least.

That's uh yeah, that's let us hope.

Um I guess I would just say uh I am not as convinced as the council president that there's a lot of point in further negotiation.

Um certainly if they stick by the idea of kicking kicking this down the road three months, I think that's a conversation we will need to loop back to.

Um but uh you know the 18 months has been pretty frustrating, certainly the time since December, because we thought we had the the outlines of a deal in December, and and here we are seven months later.

Um is counselor Stavangeord wanting to speak?

Yes.

Um please go right ahead.

Hey, Mayor, thank you.

Um so yeah, I think I mean I echo the disappointment shared by my colleagues.

I think that we have um we have taken a lot of very thoughtful steps to maintain our involvement in the conversation with the county.

Um steps that would bring us closer towards some type of resolution, but moreover, closer to um actually developing in partnership a regional asset.

And this should be something that is a win for the county, and they should be thinking about it in this way.

Um we have also we've also left on the table some pretty big concessions to their favor.

So it's it's really frustrating to hear the public remarks made by um the county board.

It's very frustrating to think about trying to regain progress that we've made in the negotiation, or whether, you know, I just um whether it's even useful to be involved in that conversation because we've established very clear guidelines in that negotiation around what we're gonna talk about, what we're not gonna talk about.

And the things that were brought up in the meeting were things that were expressly not uh they were on the list of things we're not gonna talk about.

We we made we have had really hard conversations amongst our uh council trying to get to a point of saying, you know, like we're gonna put the um you know, the conversation about whether or not to leave the district.

We're gonna put that on the back burner because overall we're committed and we believed we were committed together to the development of this regional asset.

Um I'm just really I'm really disappointed.

I think that the comments that were made were objectively inaccurate.

Um I don't feel like that builds confidence within our council, but certainly it doesn't build confidence for me that we should continue prioritizing our time being professionals and being um being committed to this deliberation around our jurisdictions working together.

It's it's it's very immature.

And I thought that the county was going to behave um in a more mature manner.

Um it's just consistently disappointing.

So I am very interested to hear um how our constituents would like us to move forward.

Um I mean, I think you're correct, Mayor.

We have heard consistently from folks that are saying to leave the district.

We have had that conversation on the dais ourselves.

Um the council prior to us also had that conversation.

Um these are not small discussions, but at a certain point, you know, I have to wonder if that's what the I have to wonder if that's what Commissioner Savas is actually just saying that he would rather us leave the district than engage in any more deliberation about how we work collaboratively together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, I think that was a totally, I think a lot of people read that uh last part of the June 24th meeting that way as well, in terms of Commissioner Savas's desires.

Um anybody else any final comments.

All right, well, tune in for the DAC meeting tomorrow, 5 30.

Um we'll see where that goes.

Um with that, we will move on to the Nature in Neighborhoods project and the um community choice grants.

Uh Adam Moore, our Parks and Green Space Coordinator is gonna present that and gave us a very detailed memo.

Uh hey, council.

Uh good to see you again in prime time.

Uh while Scott is pulling this up, I just want to make sure that I give a shout out to our Parks and Rec board.

Um, they all nine of them have been thoroughly invested in this community choice uh program since the very beginning, um, which dates back to uh April of last year.

Um they attended as many of the events as they could.

Uh they uh served the role as table captains um to represent the public and the voices that weren't in the room at the recent February workshop.

And uh in addition to everything that's going on in in the park world, uh your parks and rec board is is really stepping up.

And uh I've never seen uh a group of volunteers dive into some of the discussions that that we've been having uh as of late, the way that they have.

And um it's not just on Milwaukee Bay Park, it's on these ideas and several others.

So I did want to make sure that that I said that.

Okay, so uh this is on the agenda as Nature and Neighborhoods, but Nature and Neighborhoods actually refers to the 2019 bond uh that Metro Pass Community Choice is the program.

Uh they also have a capital program uh along with many others.

So I just want to clear that up.

So this began back in 2025.

Uh over 3100 uh people participated.

Those are individual verified people that participated in the the voting.

Um that is nearly double than participated in Washington County when they did this two years ago.

The uh participation uh has been huge.

Uh this started out as a uh community ideals uh solicitation from the public.

Uh they had two public workshops and two uh public votes, one workshop, one vote, working to uh call down uh 172 projects that were eligible for funding.

Um Metro at the beginning mentioned that uh they had two to three million dollars of that bond money to invest somewhere in the participatory participatory jurisdictions.

So that's in CPRD, City of Milwaukee, Gladstone, and Oregon City based upon the participant uh based on the numbers of people that turned out and participated in this program.

They said, nope, we're spending three million dollars, not a dollar less, not a dollar more.

And that's why uh we saw uh 22 projects get recommended for funding instead of what Metro had been saying before, you know, 14 or 15, depending on how the money stretches.

So um Milwaukee sponsored eight projects in the final vote.

Uh, there was an additional project at North Clackmas Park that was led by NCPRD.

Uh ranked choice votes were reviewed by the community board um from Metro, and they uh will be submitted for final award on Tuesday, July 21st at the Concord Community Center from 10 to 12.

Lunch will be provided.

The public is invited to join in there.

Uh council, you should be receiving an invitation to that afternoon meeting.

Uh projects were recommended, uh, projects that were recommended by funding in ranked order were provided to staff on June 15th, about an hour before the Parks and Rec Board meeting.

So all of the discussions that we had with the Parks and Rec Board were set based on information that we had from May 20th.

Uh, and we we worked on getting PARP's opinion and recommendation should it be necessary.

Um, and again, uh, council, when we talked about this last at a work session, you asked me for uh you asked staff for additional information, and we tried to provide all that should it be necessary.

So, uh, not to bury the lead of those eight projects, uh, seven were recommended for funding.

Uh that's seven out of twenty two river access at Milwaukee Bay Park was number one overall.

It was a huge driver in participation.

I can't say that word tonight for some reason.

Uh, not only here in Clackmas County, but out through uh the Metro counties because in the second vote, uh anyone in the metro area was allowed to participate.

Uh Milwaukee neighborhood Swift Roost uh was number three overall.

Um I don't know what those birds have, but they have a lot of staying power.

Those two projects were up near the top and they remained up near the top.

Um habitat restoration at Spring Park uh was sixth overall.

That's a project that we saw uh jump up from the May 20th uh results.

Our understanding from uh Metro, while they didn't share a lot of specific information, they did mention that over those last uh four to three weeks of the uh voting, they started to see some of the restoration projects rise, rise to the top.

Um treat stormwater uh at Kellogg Creek.

Uh this project is not on city property.

We will talk more about that later, but that's at uh Rao Middle School.

Um that was seventh overall.

That's another project that we saw take a big jump.

Uh Nature Skate at Watertower Park was eighth overall.

Um we have heard some of the concerns that people have about adding skate elements to the park.

Um that will all be taken into consideration.

We just have concepts at this time.

Um, and we'll talk more about what the park projects need in a second.

Uh access to Minthorn Springs, this one fell a little bit to 10th overall, but it was still recommended for funding.

And then the restore the Fernburg wetlands um was 15th.

So uh again, this one uh Fernburg wetlands did fall.

Now the Fernburg Nature Play, um, the two Fernburg projects for a lot of the time in the voting were were together.

And over those last few weeks, you saw them separate.

Unfortunately, Fernburg Nature Play did not make the final cut.

Um, so it is somewhere uh lower on that list than 22.

Uh, it is our understanding that the uh 22nd project that received funding only received partial funding.

So what we know about Fernburg Nature Play is that it's an alternate.

If a project were removed from the funding list, uh alternate projects may move up.

I don't know where Fernburg is on that alternate list.

I just know that it got enough votes to be an alternate, and and that's it.

Oh, you say here is first on the alternate list, no?

Oh, it is first on the alternative list, excuse me.

Okay, it is first on the alternate list.

Yeah.

So that prompted a question for me.

I was first off, I was super surprised to see that it ranked lower than the others because I thought there was a pretty active um, I mean, certainly I participated at one of the tables uh with the planning group for that, and they had a lot of families out.

And I thought that was uh I'm just surprised that that ranked lower.

Um in your staff report, you said it sounded like you had broached the question of could we opt for the nature play over the wetlands?

And they said no.

The answer to that is no, we cannot swap projects.

We are not able to move a project into the funding list.

The question here tonight is do we want Metro to move forward with these seven, or do we want to remove any of these projects from seven?

What moves up into its place will come from that alternate list.

My understanding is that Fernburg is first or close to first on uh on that list.

I don't have the actual list.

That's why I'm guessing.

I only have the list of the 22 projects and then Milwaukee's projects uh in order.

So that's the only what Metro did share with me is uh that the wetlands received about 12% more points uh than Nature Play.

Uh these are points, not votes, because it was ranked choice voting one through five.

They did uh tell us that Nature Play received more first place votes, whereas uh the wetlands project uh received less first place votes, but more of other votes, but it's about 12, 12 percent um from 15 to I guess 23 or 24.

Okay.

So uh the question, as I mentioned, is do we accept all seven of these projects?

Or as we started to talk about at a uh work session not long ago, um, is seven too many because we we thought that there would only be 15 projects funded by Metro.

There was 22.

Um seven projects obviously require a lot more in dollars and in staff time and in work uh to complete.

So I just want to make sure, council, that you're aware.

Um, these projects are just concepts right now.

People have asked me for additional information.

There is no additional information, it's the bullet point budgets and that one graphic.

That that's it.

That's all we have.

Um most importantly, uh these projects uh require IGAs.

We would need to sign an IGA with with Metro, agreeing to uh get other IGAs done uh within two years and then promising to get construction done by 2031.

Uh if a project or two were to show progress but need extra time and extension might be given, but we shouldn't go into this process looking for for extensions here.

Um in CPRD, we would need to work out an IGA.

That is, if the uh current pending IGAs within CPRDs move forward, um, these would be capital investments by the city, and uh an agreement over maintenance would need to be worked out, is our understanding.

Uh, we also need permission of the landowner.

As I mentioned, uh, we do not own raw middle school.

Uh we would need their permission.

Uh that IgA would require them not only to let us build on that property, but the public would need to be allowed on that property outside of school hours.

Uh, Metro has uh tried to get a hold of the school district uh when it became apparent that we did not have a hard yes, we're willing to work with the city to get to yes in two years.

Uh I reached out to the school district.

Um, the people uh that I exchanged information with uh seemed very surprised.

Um they stated that they weren't aware of it prior to me reaching out um and that they would get back to us sometime this summer.

I followed up by asking if they could get back to us by you know tonight's meeting, and I have not heard a response.

Um that was over three weeks ago.

Um just understanding we have two years for those IGAs, that internal budgeting and then construction would need to be complete by 2031 in about five years.

Uh all projects do require that additional development review, planning, design, engineering, land use approval, permitting, any of our internal grant acceptance procedures and budgeting.

That's all things that we have two years to get done.

Um each project has their own construction budget with a 10% contingency, that 10% contingency.

I've got a couple questions on it in uh from the public.

That 10% contingency is for the project itself, what's listed in the budget.

It's not to add things into the budget.

Um so city matches expected to be one third of the cost, and we see that mostly being in the non-construction costs.

Uh also if there were any cost overruns that was would most likely fall upon the city uh to complete, and then any new ideas that people bring into these budgets, we would be on the stake for 100%.

So as I mentioned, right?

Uh we have a pending I IGA with Milwaukee Bay Park, we hope.

Uh, this project can be done without phase three.

I think it works much better uh for both projects and everybody involved if they go along together.

But it probably can be done alone.

We've really been thinking about this in tandem with phase three, but it could go on its own.

That would require another IGA with uh in CPRD.

The Swift Ruse is on property we own, it's already in the CIP.

In fact, uh putting this in community choice did kind of delay that capital improvement a little bit.

Uh Spring Park, uh for the portions of that project that are in Spring Park and not on Little Island.

Uh, we would need to come to a maintenance agreement within CPRD.

As I mentioned, the Kellogg Creek project at Rao Middle School require permission from the landowner, and they would need to change as far as I understand it.

Um, how and where they let the public into that property outside of school hours.

Um, we do have uh stormwater work that we have to do there uh for that creek.

We do have an easement for those pipes and to work on those pipes.

We don't have an easement to build an outdoor classroom on top of where we put those pipes.

So is it possible to get to yes in two years?

Probably.

Is it more complicated to get to yes in two years than these other ones because we don't own the property?

Also, yes, in our opinion.

Uh access to Minthorne Springs, that's in the right-of-way south of the wetland.

Um I skipped over Watertower Park, excuse me.

Water Tower Nature Skate is next.

Uh now, this is one that we have talked to Metro about uh about potentially running into some delays for those who aren't familiar.

Uh hence the name, there's a lot of water infrastructure on that property, and we need to build a new pipeline uh underneath some of that property, and we need to build a new water plant across the street.

That would mean that a lot of the park is going to be uh disrupted by that work that's underground.

Uh, the good news is that the existing playground that's there is um nearly 30 years old and and past uh getting close to being past its useful life.

Uh so we will have an opportunity to uh utilize this project to kind of reform the park on top of that infrastructure and not put a playground structure on top of a water pipe.

That's not very typical.

Now you can put things on top of water pipes, it's just um you know, assets like a playground probably don't make a whole lot of sense.

So we'd be able to correct that as well.

But we did mention the Metro, you know, hey, it's a $30 million water plant, it's a water pipe.

Um that is going to come first, and then the park restoration would come second, and this project would come with that.

What do we do if there's a delay in the water plant?

And they said, no, don't worry, we'll be all right.

Um, so that could be one where we might need an extension in the future.

Uh Minthorne Springs, access to Minthorne Springs, this would provide access and better transportation from 32nd Street to um the industrial area behind it.

This is in the right-of-way just south of the wetland conservancy's property.

Um, some people have asked why wasn't this property focused in the wetlands itself?

And that is because these projects had to be on public property.

Um the school district counts, the wetland conservancy does not.

Uh, our property ownership of Minthorne Springs is a very small little tip of the triangle compared to the wetlands.

And uh there are a lot of access challenges in that right away.

Uh Fernburg wetlands uh would require uh maintenance at uh IGA with NCPRD.

Now there is, I will say maintenance uh and work, restoration work that needs to be done in that wetland.

There's a lot of thinning that needs to be done.

Our understanding is that there's a lot of ash trees that need work on there.

Um we would need to hire a wetland scientist.

So the permitting side of things would get uh more complicated.

Um all of these projects we feel are feasible.

Uh that would be a total award of 1.2 million dollars.

Uh just over a million of that comes from Metro and uh Council We would be on the hook for 513,601 dollars, $661, excuse me.

So when we talked about this last, we started to ask about priorities.

What do we do if all eight of these are funded?

Is eight too many?

Well, now we have we know we have seven that are funded.

Um but uh staff uh looked at seven different criteria uh based on your direction from the work session.

That's planning, design, engineering, and permitting, how complex is it?

Coordination complexity, how difficult is it going to be to work with the stakeholders or the property owners or who's maintaining it?

Uh project need as well as additional maintenance requirements.

So that was kind of twofold.

How much do we need to do this work?

Will it save us on any maintenance dollars, or will it cost us on any maintenance dollars?

And there are capital repairs, uh, particularly when it comes to playgrounds.

That's why it's kind of disappointing that uh Fernburg Nature Play uh isn't on there.

Um because, you know, engineered wood fiber, uh, the playground mulch, if you will, underneath play struck, that needs to be topped off every single year.

Um, the unitary safety surface that we would put in is not only more accessible for intergenerational play and people uh with mobility devices, uh, but it also doesn't need to be maintained every uh year the same way that engineered wood fiber is.

Engineer wood fiber is much cheaper, but it's very costly, uh in fact, more costly over 10 years than a unitary safety surfacing.

Uh we looked at does it provide inclusive access to a new natural area?

And that gets to the uh priorities of the bond.

Uh we looked at relationships to existing projects or an adopted plan.

So, for example, the Swift Roost was already in the CIP.

We have already committed uh uh program dollars for that or capital dollars for that.

Um it will be managed out of the the CIP engineering team.

Um in fact, it's been a little bit delayed uh for this project.

Uh did it follow an adopted plan, right?

So we heard from residents hey, complete the boardwalk and restore the wetlands like it was in that uh 1990s Fernburg plan.

That's that's what we want.

And so we were looking for is there anything that ties this project to our CIP or our existing plans?

Uh and then overall confidence and feasibility to complete it in five years.

Um each project was scored.

Uh these scores were presented to PARB on June 15th.

PARB then uh went through uh an exercise where they ranked each project, uh, which was then added to the staff score to come up and the final vote results to come up with an index.

Now, all of that work is completely unnecessary if you say we want to move forward with all seven of these projects.

That work comes into play if you feel like seven is too many, whether it's cost, whether it's too complicated, whether it's the IGAs concern you.

Um PAR was also asked to assume that one or two projects had to be removed.

They said, okay, we can remove one.

You can go down to six.

And um the only reason we asked them to do that was in case you council wanted to know.

Hey, wait a second, we have the votes, we have a staff opinion, we have parv's ranking, but how does PARP feel about taking a project or two away from here?

They said only take one.

Um, and it was their recommendation that the project at Rao Middle School be the one to take off the list because we don't control our own destiny there.

Um, it's not our land.

Um, and uh could this be a simple IGA to write?

Yes, maybe perhaps.

Um, is the school district willing to do that?

I don't know.

They very well could possibly be.

I'm not trying to make assumptions on them.

I'm just stating like as of right now, we don't have that information and we don't own the land.

So for those purposes and those purposes only, PARB felt it was best to remove that one and focus on six others.

But again, council, you can decide to tell us to pursue all seven, and I will happily let Metro know that tomorrow morning.

We do have to give Metro an answer tomorrow morning.

So your options are take all seven with the future obligations and commitments or reduce that number.

And PARB's recommendation is is there for you.

So, council, what do we do with seven new park projects representing over a million dollars of investment in our parks?

Something that you have no experience in discussing at all.

Um we could do a uh the six remaining as a play to get the seventh to be Fernburg nature play, right?

I'm sorry, say that again.

We by removing if we remove, if we take the PARB recommendation to remove the Rao Middle School project, and we say, so we have six projects and we keep keeping Fernburg nature play.

We could be hoping that that jumps up as an alternate that gets funded.

Well, then we would still have seven projects to complete.

Uh so my understanding is the way alternates work, and I know I put in the presentation that it was first.

That is based on a short conversation that we had with Metro staff.

I have not seen the list.

Uh, so I can't guarantee that Fernburg that you remove one or more projects and Fernburg Nature Play is going to get recommended for funding.

That's Metro's decision.

When I asked about swapping uh projects, uh I was immediately told absolutely not.

Okay.

That they understand people need to be strategic in their commitments that they make.

But Metro Metro IS is not to consider swapping projects.

And we did tell the parks and rec board no, that did not receive enough votes, we're not able to move that up.

Um, but it is the mechanism of the process.

Metro is going to spend three million dollars on these projects.

And um if anyone removes a project, then one of those alternates might move up.

I will say that uh there is a big gap between uh number four on the list and number 23 on the list, or number uh whatever uh 15 on the list uh that was the wetlands and number 23 on the list.

You know, counsel at the work session, you said that you really wanted to hear from the voters.

We have heard from the voters um or the participants in this participatory budgeting process.

You've heard from staff on how we think about it.

Each ones has their pros and cons.

And then you've heard uh uh obviously from the parks and rec board.

So and I do just want to point out I like you gave us a very detailed um chart at page RS44.

It does kind of call out where some of the potential match sources are.

You had given us some of that previously, and um and um, and that's good to have have in our mind because I think the 513,000 might be like a shockingly big number, but it there are some potential sources for healthy chunks of that.

Yes, in fact, we before projects went to a final vote.

Uh we did take some time and um thought it over and talked it over uh with Metro.

And if there are projects that we felt were not feasible or didn't have a source of match or just weren't a good fit for the project, uh the community choice project, uh, that those would be removed.

And so we did see, you know, there was a North Clackamas uh park project that connected the neighborhood that would have had to go on over the creek, out of the floodway, would have had to go on up 90 feet in elevation, all at less than a five percent grade, way more than the 250,000 project, way more engineering than this project uh was was meant to take on.

Great idea, right?

We don't throw away good ideas.

Um, but we did find a couple projects.

There was one on railroad road as well that would uh go along with the the trail that is pending for railroad.

Uh that trail is 10 years out.

We've got to get this done in five.

So it just didn't make sense.

Right.

So I guess long story short is we put a lot of thought into this and what projects would go into the final vote.

We felt that all eight were doable.

Um the only reason that PAR was asked to make a recommendation is we felt like you might need one tonight, and we know Metro needs an answer very soon.

Tomorrow.

Tomorrow morning.

All right, thoughts.

Uh questions.

Yeah, questions, questions, thoughts?

So I I I agree the staff recommendation is to accept all seven projects.

Um, so I'm assuming with that said, is this something this is doable, and we have funding that's not gonna necessarily put us in a funding predicament.

Is that what I'm reading?

So there's two pieces.

There's capital and there's maintenance.

I push back if I'm getting this wrong, Adam, but I think that we are confident on the capital match side that we can uh we either have existing capital projects or we have the ability to redirect funds to make the match for the seven.

Uh I do um, as Adam well said, these will all require IGAs with NCPRD, and the way that our cooperative IGA with the district is written is that we have to request maintenance of um the parks if we make capital improvements.

Um I don't have a very clear answer for you right now on exactly how we would absorb those maintenance and operation costs, were those to fall to the city, but we would explore that if that was the direction we got from you.

So and if and if NCPRD said they wouldn't maintain them, they may agree to maintain them.

Well, I was gonna say, I I feel like I mean Watertower Park is different because it's a you know, it's a built-out park.

But the natural areas, the spring park and the Fernburg natural areas, um bring some benefit to NCPRD, right?

In terms of some of the funding for treating ash trees or removing ash trees, some of the re-vegetation.

I mean, it would be funding that NCPRD could be yes, and and that is that is an opinion that I think staff all share is that um not just on a restoration side, um, but several of these projects do address uh needs in our parks, and that is work that um as our park provider and as members of the district, we would expect to see from from NCPRD if it's gonna be done.

Um, you know, we get a lot of calls uh regarding the wetlands at Fernburg.

We also get a lot of calls uh regarding the playground there.

Um, you know, uh the condition of the playground at Watertower Park has come up.

Um, the nice thing about new things is while you yes, you do need to maintain them, the maintenance is usually a lot less uh early on.

And so, you know, um, I think that we could see um some reductions in the costs um with these capital improvements uh uh there.

They vary from project to project.

But yes, you know, um in the restoration projects, we do see, you know, response to Emerald Ash Bore in there, which is part of NCPRD's plan.

Um and this work would go to to support uh that work.

So it and okay I appreciate that response.

And it sounds like, and I know that we don't have the numbers for like what the maintenance would be for this.

No idea.

But I would have to well, I don't have to, but I'm assuming that staff had some sort of discussion or general idea that there is going to be some maintenance.

And with the recommendation, it seems like we can stomach that.

Right.

Yes, but yes.

I mean, there's there's a lot of there's a lot of ifs and and buts in the state.

And yes, but and you have a parks and green space goal.

I mean, I think that's the the challenging thing here is is um this is a really wonderful opportunity, and it's so great to see how well represented the city of Milwaukee and community was in the process and how excited they are about the projects, and and it's hard to turn away from that uh potential support and and funding from Metro when this is a goal of yours and a priority for the community.

So yeah, and I appreciate I appreciate that.

I I do but I I just like to know like the brass tax of hey, at the end of the day, it's a goal, and I I I want to take all seven because they all sound great.

Um, and I have no problem doing that.

But I just want to make sure that because what you know, I look at the staff recommendation and and I put quite a bit of stock in it because you guys are the ones that have to deal with this.

So when I see that, it makes me more comfortable with making a decision because I think staff has laid out a lot of these scenarios.

So I'm assuming that regardless of the support and the gumption behind it, that we would still be able to look at the what we need to, yes, and make assessments appropriately.

Yes.

So Metro, when we spoke with them uh not yesterday, but the Monday before, uh after the Parks Red Board meeting and we had their recommendation and we talked about, you know, how staff were taking a look at this.

You know, Metro reminded us that when we joined this uh program of theirs, that the goal for all of these projects was to try to find a way to yes.

Try to, you know, and Metro understands that these are not grants that we wrote.

We didn't say, hey, we've got a guaranteed project all laid out here, and look how great it is, and can we have some money for it, please?

Um this is the community coming together for participatory budgeting.

And so Metro understands, just like in Washington County, that maybe one of these projects isn't going to come to fruition.

Metro's okay with that.

Yeah.

Um Metros Metro, I think opinion, and they didn't state this outright, but I think is is accept all these projects, right?

You agreed to participate in this, you agreed that it would be participatory budgeting.

And um, you know, the public did participate extremely well.

Um we blew Washington County out of the water.

Uh I haven't seen the actual individual uh data here, but uh 3100 people involved in a in a public process is is pretty impressive.

Yeah.

Um and so I I I think given the type of project or the type of program that this community choice is, then yes, if if the um people who participated in this said we want seven projects in Milwaukee, then our goal tonight should be not we're gonna guarantee all seven of these projects are gonna be there in five years, but we're gonna do everything that we can to make all seven projects there in the end.

And um the only one that gives me real pause is the one where we don't control our own destiny.

And again, that's not to criticize uh the school district or anybody involved in that project.

It's just it's just the way it is.

We don't control our we don't control our own destiny.

Understandable, not our land.

Yeah, so I guess with that said, I mean I I would you know the public has spoken.

Well let's take all seven.

Okay, thank you, council president.

Can you clarify a little bit about the IGA that we have with NCPRD?

If we did take the um the river access improvement, that's on would we assume maintenance of that new walkway, or is that implying that we would assume maintenance of the entire park by doing an improvement on an unimproved area of the park?

It's all TBD.

So I believe the way the IGA is written, um when if we make a capital improvement to a park, we have to then I have to formally request um that the district assume maintenance of it.

I don't think it's as specific as of that asset or of the entire park.

It's a very it's a little gray area.

So I think we'd be walking into a slightly uncharted and untested waters.

Um at a time that we know that the end that NCPRD also is facing operations and maintenance constraints.

Okay.

Okay.

I feel like we should add this to the gives and gets that you just went over because they get, if they sign the IGA, they get to have these discussions with us on each park.

If they don't sign the IGA, they don't have to do that.

Yes, but the language I'm talking about about requesting maintenance is in the current cooperative IGA.

Okay.

Yes.

So currently we have the we have the right to make due capital improvements in our parks, but we they still have to request continued maintenance of those improvements.

I like how you think, Mayor, but yeah.

That's helpful.

I was assuming that we do any capital improvement on the park and we potentially take on all maintenance.

That could be the case, but that's not it's a it's a could.

Okay.

It's a could and it's a request to the director of the district.

Okay.

Uh in terms of the recommendation here, um, I think last time we met, we talked about wanting to respect the will of those who participated in this process and the 3100 people who did.

I mean, that is really impressive and commendable.

And I wouldn't want to try and undermine that participatory process to try and leverage a separate project or kind of find a workaround to advance one project or another, um, especially if that's not a guarantee.

Um, and I also think that that Rao project is the only project that we're seeing in Lake Road.

And I think it's important to me as we're doing these improvements that we're seeing improvements in every single neighborhood.

Um, and Fernburg has a really great project in the wetlands um there as well.

So I would say we take this recommendation and we have fingers crossed that we get additional projects for Fernburg.

I will say uh if it's helpful, um these projects went through Metro's community engagement process uh under the requirements that are there for uh all of the 2019 bond programs, not just community choice, but also the capital projects, the uh the transformation vision projects.

Um so, you know, there like I said, we we don't throw away good ideas.

We try to find the best fit uh that we can for the project.

And so, you know, that Fernburg nature play idea that that's not going anywhere.

That's something we heard before community choice, and and um you know, we we're gonna have an opportunity to to revisit that.

Uh, we could apply for, you know, should council decide, we could seek other funding for that project.

And we've already done community engagement that shows us that um while it might not make the top 22, it came uh very, very close, and it is a well-thought out project that would replace a asset that is nearly 30 years old and requires a lot of annual maintenance.

So on the point of other keeping an eye out for other funding pools, I will just note on the um access to North Clackamas Park from the Lake Road neighborhood.

Um it was pointed out to me at the table uh where that was workshopped that um that creates a way to get from Rao Middle School to North Glackmas Park without going on Lake Road, uh, because there's a route through back neighborhood streets, um, which I thought is is actually a really, you know, uh goes with our our uh you know our priorities at RTSP and everywhere else about um safe routes.

It was pointed out to me at the table where that was workshopped that creates a way to get from Rao Middle School to North Glackmas Park without going on Lake Road because there's a route through back neighborhood streets, which I thought is is actually a really, you know, goes with our our uh you know our priorities at RTSP and everywhere else about um safe routes um so there is a NCPRD is working on a trails plan.

We need to make sure that this is getting lodged in their trails plan.

And um also I just happened to notice that Metro on Wednesday tomorrow, tomorrow has a regional trails round table discussion.

So I I feel like we should be uh thinking about that as a trail connection and um and trying to tap into some of the trails funding that might be out there.

And just um to give you an idea because of the way the topography changes from uh I believe it's sprout lane down to the park.

You've got about 90 feet of elevation.

Um so it's it's more like a bridge over the creek and the floodway than it is is a trail.

If that gives you an idea of what the cost and engineering load would be.

There's also a city owned detention pond uh in in the way there.

That is infrastructure that we uh do rely on that would need to be moved as well.

It's also need to be moved.

Or it would need to be bridged as well.

Yeah.

Um that capacity that's in that detention pond would need to be recouped somewhere else.

Yeah.

Okay, good to know.

Um, Councillor Massey, did you have to do that?

Yeah, so um, you know, I just wanted to say that uh I think that this has got really gone through a very, very robust process um on the public side, and I gotta tell you in the PARP side, it went through an equally robust uh process.

And uh Adam uh put the PARP through, I think it was three different scoring uh exercises during our last meeting, uh, but it really flushed out things and really uh caused people to to uh make uh hard choices and trade offs.

And there was a there was uh some interesting discussion about you know Fernburg and that kind of thing, and they said uh you know there was uh some discussion about at one point there was discussion about Fernburg not being uh uh represented at all.

And so they said that's not fair.

We've got to get one of these things in there.

And so I really appreciated the you know the active participation of the par, but I think you we've got a good rec good recommendation here for the council.

So you're saying yes to all seven as well?

Okay.

Well I agree.

So um do you need more from us?

I don't believe we need a formal resolution.

Okay, so based on this, uh I will shoot our uh counterparts over at Metro, a quick email and let them know to move forward with all seven as they are.

Uh and and I suspect that should another project from another jurisdiction be removed and that Fernburg nature play be an option to move up, that you would also direct us to pursue that one as well.

Is that correct?

So we could we will move forward with seven, and if that alternate does move up where there's possibly eight, we would take all eight.

Okay.

We're gonna need to find some money for maintenance.

We're gonna need to find some project managers.

Uh, but we do have five years to do it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

It's your recommendation.

That's right.

We just are a recommendation.

Okay, does anybody need a break before we go on?

Oh, okay.

Uh next up is the residential high density redevelopment strategy presented by planning manager Vera Coleus.

It looks like uh community development director Laura Weigel.

Hello.

Hi.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Here to give you an update on the residential high density zone project.

Um, housing production strategy.

We've talked about this many times.

So I'll keep saying these three bullets.

I've said these three bullets many times.

Housing production strategy, uh, we adopted it in 2023.

We've got nine things in the housing production strategy that we are required by the state to explore in the period of six years.

So we're three years into that process.

And so tonight we're here to talk about one of the strategies that was identified in the HPS.

Um the goal is to produce, you know, to hopefully bring on more housing in the city of Milwaukee, and what are the ways that we can find to get more housing built here?

And that's what we're doing with the HPS.

And so this is one of the things that we're talking about, and we're going to talk about uh DLC funding DLCD funding and where we are with this project and just give you a brief update.

Okay.

All right.

As Laura mentioned, we did get a grant from DLCD to fund the project.

The objective of the project is to revitalize our underdeveloped RHD zone by by doing a few things, conducting a pro forma analysis to determine feasible densities within our existing RHD zone, adjust the zoning code if we need to to be able to bolster that, identify tools to support redevelopment of underutilized parcels, explore rezoning additional land to RHD if needed to be able to meet those housing needs and to encourage that higher density residential development that we want to see.

So as we laid out in the um in the staff report, in the scope of work, the um back in October, DLCD offered the city a grant to fund phase one of the project because funding constraints, the overall project that we had described was split into two phases.

So the first phase would be funded through DLCD funds.

Um it would be two consecutive phases, with the second phase starting immediately on the heels of phase one, and that would be funded through the planning division budget, and that's already been budgeted into the next biennium.

The um we detailed out in the staff report the sort of the basic parts of the the phase one work.

Uh the code audit, which was identified in the scope of work is underway.

We received sort of initial draft of their code audit and some initial comments included the lack of permitted commercial uses within our RHD zone.

When we did our consolidation of our high density zones, we identified a couple of different um commercial um allowed commercial uses, um, office and personal service uses.

But the code audit revealed, and not surprisingly, that's it.

That's not a lot of commercial um opportunities in the RHD.

So focusing on the so that could be a possible recommendation that comes out of it that we broaden those commercial uses that um are allowed in the RHD zone.

So focusing on the success of the RHD zone and and expansions if warranted could allow for more housing density and some more commercial activities in those areas as well.

So not trying to get ahead of ourselves on the recommendations, but that is something that could likely come out of that.

The deliverable from phase one is going to be a final opportunity, opportunities, barriers, and preliminary recommendations report.

That preliminary report is likely to be prepared somewhere in the late fall with the final report completed somewhere in the winter of 2026.

Um, and that's when we would move into the phase two, kind of immediately on onto that.

So having that preliminary report with the um market and feasibility analysis, the developer interviews, the displacement risk analysis, all of that kind of packaged up into that final um final preliminary recommendations.

Um then we would move into um the phase two piece, which is the community engagement part, where we bring all of those recommendations to both planning commission and city council, of course, um, as well as community meetings to kind of get a sense of where everybody is sitting with whatever those recommendations where those land.

Um that final recommendations report would include um any changes to both code um and map amendments, if that's what came out of it.

Um, and then those code map um materials and assistance through the amendment process are all part of that phase two.

So kind of the analysis piece is the phase one, um, and then bringing that out to the public and and to other folks and sort of going getting that through the adoption process is how we were packed, how we were splitting up the project um to phase to phase two.

Um, I just want to jump back really quick.

We did do um on June 8th, um, we had a site visit with um with Eco Northwest, our selected consultant.

Um, and we did a site visit of um all of the RHD zoning areas surrounding and the surrounding neighborhoods that the project team would get a sense of kind of what's already built in our RHD zone and what those surrounding neighborhoods look like.

We also did a um a windshield survey of both the King Road and the 32nd AV corridors, sort of a precursor of of things, kind of things possibly to come.

Um and the consultants are gonna use those observations to finalize their feasibility study area.

So I'd never heard the term windshield survey before.

But that means you drove them through.

We did.

We did.

Okay.

It's a planning term.

Um sophisticated.

It was also pouring rain.

So that was it was one of those days.

But yeah, so we that's how we landed on that.

Um, so yeah, so phase two, and then the next steps are to continue working through that code audit report, and then we actually have a meeting with the project team tomorrow to prepare that final feasibility study area to move forward with that.

And then the next next steps.

So council direction has been to complete this work for the housing production strategy, of course.

And then to begin corridor planning for 30 second AV and King Road.

So that's kind of where we think that we might be continuing this work.

And then we could continue, of course, council discussion after phase two needed.

Discussing discussing any spot zoning or so on throughout the city for those small commercial nodes.

But we need to kind of get through this part first and see where we see where we land for the next piece.

So that's where we are.

It's still pretty early days.

Getting the contract with DLCD took much longer than we thought.

So that's why we're still still fairly early on in the process.

But like I said, by winter, we'll have that preliminary recommendations report.

But we'll be able to come back to you folks with continual updates as we go.

So I guess I didn't realize we had consensus on corridor planning for King Road.

I knew we did for 30 seconds, but I didn't think we had consensus on that for King Road.

It's certainly been discussed.

I think we didn't direct staff to as a whole council to look into corridors.

I I mean I I concur with staff.

I think that my takeaway for the direction had been to look at both corridors.

Um I actually thought there was kind of more agreement on King than on 32nd, but um we we can have continued discussion and clarify that direction tonight or in the future.

I think this is as the title of the slide says next next steps.

This isn't like urgent, but um, but yeah, I think that that my takeaway from previous conversations on this topic, which have I will admit been a little bit swirly was we thought we had consensus direction on on looking into both corridors.

But let's talk about it.

Yeah, yeah.

And also that would be a year at least a year out from now.

So yeah, I I I thought we were looking at some stuff with corridor plan, but I didn't think we were actually like gonna be pulling.

Because I don't think we actually had a full-on discussion about corridors.

That's my recollection as well.

We're not there yet.

I guess there's still some time.

So yes, I guess anyway.

My sense is this is not a commitment to do anything on those corridors.

It's a commitment to study whether you do something on those corridors, which is I think what we had agreed on saying that we're interested in corridors, the two corridors that look most realistic in the city at this time is 32nd and King Road, both of which have 15-minute headways with us dropped a transit service and amenities that exist already in neighborhood hubs.

Well, that's not a commitment to do anything, but a commitment to look at those areas.

Well, I I I think uh push back because I thought we I thought 32nd we were a little iffy on because it was more of a neighborhood street as opposed to a because it's all housing wasn't.

Well, it's already been zoned.

Sorry.

Um there's a chunk of you know six or eight blocks that have already been rezoned as a neighborhood hub.

Okay.

Um we talked about activating, you know, counselor Stephen George was here to talk about act, you know, some measures to activate that because we it's been designated like that for a decade and we haven't seen any activity.

We had some proposed that didn't happen, but yeah.

Not not to get off track, but no, I know I think I think this is helpful.

And I I think that this the slide is maybe too direct at saying council directed we begin corridor planning for these.

That that's not what I think is implied here.

It's but it's that yes, that when we talked about um what comes after hubs and where do we potentially look at um after the RHD work beyond the RHD that you had indicated an interest in looking at corridors and these two corridors in in particular, but we can soften our language about what the actual direction was.

Well, and I guess I wonder what about 42nd, right?

Because 42nd is also designated as a hub now from King from King down to whatever it is to the church.

Um that was law again at the same time as 32nd.

We called him neighborhood main streets back then and not hubs, but um I guess my understanding was the King Road hub was in some ways the area stretching from the Wichita hub going over to the um Harrison hub that is a 42nd, the safe way and frankly kind of Harrison Street, then as well, because that's chapel theater down to the GMU zone.

So I think it is inclusive of that 40 second area, the Harrison area around the church.

I wonder if we say this, because I think right now we're kind of picking things off a map.

What if we say this?

We're gonna do the RHD work.

Yeah.

At the end of phase two of the RHD work, we're gonna talk to you about where you want to do next.

And I think you are interested in corridors, and we'll talk about what corridors you're most interested in at that time.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

You didn't put your goose up.

Well, no one else did, so uh, I'm not, you know, I'm just uh being in the in-crowd, I guess.

Um so you know, when I uh was looking through the staff report and and that kind of thing, I went back and looked at it the zoning map.

And and I will I will agree, you know, 32nd Avenue, you know, is you know, I I think it got rezoned around uh comprehensive plan time, is that right?

Or earlier.

Before earlier, earlier, okay.

Yeah, it's like maybe 2015 or something.

You know, it it to me, you know, and and you if you just look at the uh the RHD zone zoning along 30 seconds, it actually looks like a corridor, okay.

Um and if you if you go down 32nd, it's it's kind of got some pockets for potential things to go on, you know.

There's some zombie buildings around there and some other things.

Uh, and so you know, uh we've had some hits and misses there.

Um, but when I looked at King Road, yeah, it's a kind of a big place, but it it it the zoning is just more like of a spot, it's more like a hub.

Um, it's not so much a corridor from the zoning perspective.

Is that is that correct?

The King Road Corridor is sort of um it's bookended by commercial areas, right?

So the Wichita Plaza here, the Safeway Plaza here, and then it's it's a quarter by it being a linear route, it's built out, has the bus lanes, etc.

But from a zoning perspective, the majority of it is RMD in fact.

Yeah, I would agree.

That's that was my point.

Is is the Wichita area uh zoned or RHD?

I don't think it is.

No, Wichita Plaza is um is uh is a CG zone is a general commercial zone.

And part of it's in the county.

The only point I'm making is that is the 30 second looks more like a corridor, and King Road looks less like a corridor to me.

Um and so um uh yeah, let's let's study it.

But you know, we've you know we've had these zoning changes for uh a long time, and you know, no one's really taking us up on it.

I don't know uh why that is.

Uh I'm sure market conditions are part of it and that kind of thing, availability of land.

I don't know, so yeah, it it it needs some analysis.

Okay, if I could just add, I'll just share a little piece of exciting news.

So the site across from Milwaukee Cafe that's been vacant the whole time that we had had a proposal many years ago.

Well, it's back.

We have a pre-app meeting with the same owner, except for this time it's a food card pod that they're proposing.

Oh, really?

Did you say the same owner?

Yes.

Oh my god.

Well, you guys were on planning commission then, weren't you?

Yeah, yeah.

Uh okay.

It looks like Emma has a goose.

Are there other comments from council?

I'm not seeing any.

Is Counselor Stavangeworth still with us?

Did she raise her hand?

No.

Okay.

Because one thing that has come up in uh one-on-one discussion with me and a counselor is um single stair reform.

And I wanted to know if that counselor wanted to say anything about that tonight.

That's true.

I guess we had said something at our last meeting as well, um, in the last work session.

I think that that's something that I've read a lot as about being a barrier to development, especially on smart parcels, and would love for that to be something that we look at.

But I think that's inclusive in the developer interviews and the marketing feasibility analysis, looking at whether or not dual-loaded corridors are something that's prohibitive.

So is this like a discussion part?

I think any questions or any no no questions, but more comments.

So I I have more of a of a concern with the RHD, and I I don't mind looking into it, but but my approach, I would rather us look into something that's more of a that's more targeted for RHD, because I feel like we're giving a lot away to enrich developers who are already rich, right?

And we keep giving stuff away to these market rate developers, and it's not doing anything, as I kind of was on the soapbox a couple weeks ago.

Hasn't changed anything, right?

And you know, I council president, you and I have had a conversation about this, and a lot of times you like to use Austin, Texas as a reference.

However, Austin, Texas is uh the population of Austin is over a million.

Milwaukee just hit 22,000.

The size of Austin is a lot bigger than Milwaukee.

So it's hard to come to compare that because I know the argument for RHD is like well, will you build all these units and then it'll bring down the price.

But you'd have to build on a scale like Austin's scale was 10,000, 15,000 units a year, is what they were building at one point.

They're building a massive amount.

We don't have that kind of infrastructure nor that kind of ability.

So I worry about just saying, okay, let's do the RHD.

I would rather us be more targeted because if you look right now, I did do a little studying.

Just in the last three years of development in Milwaukee, and that's that's three years from and that's when they got their final uh letter of occupancy, okay.

You're looking at 1,126 units, okay?

That's over five years.

Well, I'm just looking at right, but I'm just looking from when the because the dates I have here that was provided to me is as the earliest is 2023.

And that's the final, that's when things were finalized, right?

So you're looking at 1126 units.

You know, Hillside only accounts for 39% of all those.

Do you know Hillside is the only development that's affordable out of all those in terms of affordable housing?

Do you know the rest aren't?

Do you want to know what they are, what they cost?

Let's start with Axl Tree, because that was done about a what, 2019, Axel Tree opened?

Okay, seven years.

Axle Tree one bedroom, which is all they have right now available, one bedroom, one bath, is $1,772.

That's the cheapest that they have available right now.

One bedroom, one bath.

My mortgage on a three-bedroom, two bath house is $14.90.

Uh let's look at uh next one.

Um, seven acres.

I love this one.

One bedroom, one bath ranges from the cheapest available right now is sixteen hundred dollars a month.

The highest for a one bedroom is 1734.

Two bedroom, 2628.

Let's look at Berman Burnham Oaks, Waverly, 32 units, also 2023.

Right now, they have a two-bedroom, two bath going to for 5450.

$5,450.

Hanley Place.

Love that one too.

178 units, 2024, May of 2024.

Right now, one bedroom, one bath, 1645 to 2250.

Damn.

And then two-bedroom is 2360 to 3150.

You can add a religious figure before the damn on that one.

Um, Bonaventure, which is a senior living, that's starting at 5480.

Lava Drive.

One in one, fifty six, hundred, fifteen ninety-nine starting.

That's 13 units.

Monroe, they just issued the permit, so that one's not not final.

Uh, that's 45 units.

You got Harmony Road Apartments, which is 15 units.

They don't even list the price.

You have to request it.

Gee, I wonder how much that's gonna be.

So here's my concern.

Are we just doing RHD to do RHD and say, hey, well, we did it?

Or are we actually trying to accomplish something?

Because right now, we haven't accomplished anything.

The 30, and I don't mean that in that way.

I mean that we haven't accomplished anything in really driving the prices down because that's been the argument, right?

There's this argument of filtration.

But I like infiltration to trickle down economics.

You know why?

Because everything that you build new is going to the people who can afford it.

And then once the idea is once those people move into the new stuff, everybody else can move into what they used to have, right?

That sounds really similar to Trick-O Down Economics to me.

Where you give all the money to these people that have that that that have it, and eventually it makes its way down to everybody else.

So I don't like the idea of blanketing RHD.

I don't like giving that away for nothing.

I think we should be, we should be targeting our approach to development because A, we don't have a lot of space.

So right now, most of the stuff has to be redevelopment, right?

So I would like to tailor it more to that and more to say, hey, maybe the RHD is a bonus we we we give, an incentive of something, but I would rather tailor more things to the developments that we want that we need, as opposed to just development in general, because as I said three weeks ago, two weeks ago, it is not working.

Filtration isn't working.

The idea, the scale that you would have to build on is nowhere near what we're at right now.

And I'm not building, I'm not building anything really, but the city isn't doing all this for somebody who doesn't want to live in Portland anymore to come and take that space here because it's cheaper.

Because I don't care about Portland.

I care about Milwaukee.

Right now, this doesn't look like RHD is doing what it's supposed to do.

And I and I get the arguments for we're going to be on the other side is gonna be, well, it's because we're not building enough.

Well, where?

Where?

And if honestly, I would rather not build anything if we're gonna get stuck with two bedrooms at 2360.

That's ridiculous.

Do you know how much you know what that is on a mortgage?

That's that's about a half a million dollar mortgage.

You know that 23, 2300 a month?

It's about a half a million dollar mortgage.

Way more or way less now.

And and you're talking about a two-bedroom, two-bath, maybe a thousand square foot apartment, right?

So this is where I have the problem with this massive push for RHD all over the place.

Because it's not, it's not working.

The trajectory is doing this.

Axel Tree was seven years ago.

And it's 772 for a one in one.

So I'm open to the idea of RHD, but I want it targeted.

I don't just want to blanket everything and say, you know what, this is the best way to go because clearly the numbers don't lie.

The numbers do not lie.

And you know, we've had discussions and we have the studies, and again, we can't compare Austin.

We just can't.

I mean, their median income is almost a hundred grand.

It's not even what we're at or near.

So I'm all for doing more residential, more high density, but I I just I think that it needs to be very targeted.

Um, and we cannot just keep giving away the farm and putting money back into the same pockets of the people who helped get us here in the first place.

It's just it's ridiculous.

I'd rather see a push for RHD for more local developers because I don't know what Seattle's developers are gonna tell me that we need in Milwaukee.

What's Ben's developers gonna tell me about Milwaukee?

On your website, you talk about that about how Ben price people up.

This is what we're doing.

Do we not see the trajectory?

And not only that, but keep in mind that stupid rental cap bill that the state likes to clamor about, right?

That does not apply to any one of these.

You know that, right?

Any new RHD or new rental development, it doesn't apply.

It's got to be 15 years or older.

That doesn't help anybody because last time I checked a 15 year old and older properties are actually pretty much cheaper, right?

So what exactly are we doing?

The whole reason for that rental cap bill was what?

As rep Fahy said, to not kill development.

See what I'm saying?

We're always worried about the developer.

The concern is about the developer.

What can we do to make it easier for them instead of what can we do to make sure that the people that live here and have lived here have a say and can actually afford what's being built in their communities?

Because a lot of these things are built because Portland went through some ish, right?

They had a everybody was leaving, everybody left that place, dude.

Nobody wanted to live in Portland.

It was a wreck.

All this is being built so everybody that works there or used to live there have a place to move to just outside of Portland, but close enough to the big city.

That's not what I'm interested in.

I'm interested in the people who work here and who live here that can't afford to live here to be able to build for those people so they can stay here and create some generational wealth.

And I don't want to take away the ability to build the homes that we need that actually give people that opportunity.

I don't want people in perpetual rent.

It does nothing for them.

Nothing.

All that money gets thrown away.

All of it.

So I'm not against this, but damn, this should be the other way around.

39% of units should be market rate.

Right?

And 61% should be affordable.

That's how that's how it should be.

Because there's a lot, a hell of a lot more people that need affordable housing that they need market rate.

That's just a facts.

So unless we're gonna tailor this to actually address the issue as opposed to the relative cost of living, because nobody cares about relativity, everybody cares about reality.

Then that's I'm open to that.

But if we're just gonna say, well, we need this because we need them to just build, no, we don't need them to just build because they're doing it now and they're failing us.

And now I'm off my soapbox.

Thank you.

So that prompts me to ask.

Um that conversation about incentives and about how permissive we get versus creating incentives for ownership, for uh, you know, keeping price points at affordable rates, et cetera.

That's all stuff for phase two after the uh the report is done, or that stuff that a conversation that needs to happen for the report and the scoping that the that Eco Northwest is doing.

Well, I think remember, this is one piece of the housing production strategy, right?

We have a lot of other strategies in the housing production strategy that we're required to, you know, look into.

So we've got developing a land banking strategy.

That's something that you all have been talking about, and that's one of the most important we adopted that already.

Yeah, I know, but it's already done.

But that was one of the strategies that's to be done, right?

And so the idea is that if we have the land, we own the land, then we can have partnerships that we can make sure that we're getting affordable housing, right?

So that is one strategy in the HPS.

We also have part of this is the it's called MUPTI.

It's the um multi-unit limited tax exemption program.

That's something that we are gonna study as part of RHD to see if we can do more to encourage affordable housing and more mixed housing units.

And so that is something that we are actually studying in this phase of it.

Um we already did the evaluate incentives for affordable housing.

We put that update in our code.

We did that.

Um and there's a couple of things, a couple more things we've got the revolving loan fund for homeownership assistance and develop housing options and services uh to prevent homelessness.

So we have a whole menu of things that we are we're looking into.

This is just one of the things.

And the biggest challenge with the RHD is that it's completely built out.

It's existed for a very long time, and we have been uh there's only I think it's six dwelling units per acre that that's what it's built out at now.

And our zoning code has allowed for 25 units per acre for years, but we are not seeing anything come in.

And what we do need to do is build more housing, period, across the entire region across the country.

So we're looking for ways to develop partnerships and have more affordable housing opportunities, but we just do need more of we need more units, period, across, and that's what brings down prices overall to your trickle down.

So there's a little bit of that economics in play as well.

So I think that I agree that we're not gonna always be able to get affordable housing on every single piece of property because we don't have the tools available to us to require people to build affordable housing.

But we can develop partnerships and we can do land making and we have those other opportunities, but this is just one tool in our toolbox to ensure that we're just we're getting more housing overall built.

And and we're required to do this through the state and everyone because the you know the state and I think the city of Milwaukee is really committed to having more housing opportunities across the board.

And I completely understand that, but there's a value component to this too, isn't there?

Wouldn't you say?

Like regardless of it, like aren't our like our values matter too.

And for a city so small with such limited space, I'm just saying, like I would hate for you guys to go through phase one and then I come out and tell you all this, right?

Because I'm not saying I'm against it.

I just think that whatever we study, I don't think we should put so like, for example, developer interviews, like let's not interview the big guys that help put us in the city.

We don't interview all the big guys.

I mean, if you if we when we just did a recent study, we talked to all the local developers and we talked to local, uh, we talked to uh Short Stack and we talked to uh related Northwest and a few affordable housing developers in order to help us develop the affordable housing incentives codes.

We're not talking to big developers at this point, and a lot of the stuff that's being done, not the actual trees, not the Henley places, they are local, more local developers that are building in the city of Milwaukee.

You know what I'm talking about, because I mean Tom Bernicke, you can say he's local, but he hasn't built anything in Milwaukee that's affordable.

Let's be real.

Well, and this did this piece of the puzzle isn't just about affordable housing, it's about housing across the board.

Right, I understand that.

But our value should be based on housing, of course, housing across the board, but our value should be based on housing that people can afford, right?

It's not just like the impact, because I get it, prices eventually will come down, but do the the scale that you would have to build on is enormous.

It's not just build 1,100 homes or build like the state isn't even building enough to drop prices.

The whole entire state.

We're building like what, 10 to 15,000 a year as a state.

Well, that's part of the reason we've all we have to all have now housing production strategies in order to start addressing this actual issue because for years we had um housing capacity analysis, and it said, hey, we have all this zone capacity, but there was no incentive to get anything built.

No, there were no tools in place.

And so I think in credit to the state, they are saying now you had these housing capacity analysis.

Now you actually have to figure out how you're gonna produce that housing that you say that you have the capacity in your and I would all jurisdictions.

I I I hear a lot of what you're saying, counselor, and and agree that it's something that makes sense in an economics paper doesn't always make sense when it's happened in reality.

And yes, supply and demand are real things, and supply constrained supply is going to lead to higher prices and increasing supply should in theory bring down uh prices, and we're not seeing that happen.

You're absolutely right.

Um, and that's not just a Milwaukee problem, that's an Oregon problem.

I think what's interesting about the what the state, what the state is doing and what our HPS is doing is this gonna take a lot of tools in the toolbox.

This specific strategy is looking at the zoning tools.

But I think what I also hear you both saying is zoning might may be one way to make things easier, but it might not change the cost of capital and the cost of building, which then also has an implication on the cost of rents and the cost of home prices.

And so I I think this is really one tool in the toolbox.

And what I hear you saying is okay, that's great, but let's not lose sight then of the other tools in the toolbox that can actually make a material difference to income restricted or lower cost units being developed, which I think is frankly, my opinion is not going to be just a zoning solution.

It's going to have to also be a financing solution.

Right.

And I do understand it's more tools in the toolbox.

I guess my thing is when I was on the housing uh uh capacity technical committee, that's where we found out that Milwaukee is pretty much built out.

The most that we'll get uh in terms of of housing in terms of units in terms of building was our infill in terms of like, you know, like uh what is it?

Um tiny homes or or building an ADU, things like that.

Like because you can get what, 3,000 to 6,000, I think the number was.

It was a pretty large number of units that you can get, right?

But unless people are selling the property, or unless there's, you know, unless you have money, and if you have money, the chances of you building something that doesn't make money is slim to none.

So I I guess I'm not saying that I'm against the RHD.

I just I I hope that there's a better way to do it to where we give more opportunities to the nonprofits who are actually building for the right causes, right?

None of these developers are building to help solve the problem.

Majority of them are building because it's money, it makes good money.

If you're building at 250 uh dollars a square foot and then you're charging 500, I mean, you're making hand over fist.

That's a ton of money.

Why do you think they don't bat an eye when we charge them 70 grand for a tree fee for cutting down a tree?

Because they're making money.

You think they do this without making money?

I mean, how many developers have you guys had conversations with, and they are not very nice people, right?

We've had this discussion.

So that's what I'm saying.

Like, I just want to make sure we're not putting our energy to benefit the wrong people.

That's all.

RHD is a is something that we can work on.

But there's a very, I think there's a there's a very specific way we can approach it that doesn't give away the farm and allow these type of developments that continue to price out Milwaukee's, especially a community that that's getting older that can't even go to Bonavent.

I mean, build a severed senior living house that nobody here can afford.

It's crazy.

So I'd like to attach opportunities, if there are any, to match RHD with finding a way to prevent these type of developments, because I'm not going to sit here and say, oh, well, the developer at Waverly who's charging 5450, oh, well, it's just the market.

No, it's not the market.

Oh, it's market conditions.

No, that's a choice.

That's a choice.

You decided to build something so extravagant that it would have to result in a $5,500 a month rent.

That's a choice.

That's not a code issue.

There's no code there.

So that's the thing.

I just want to make sure that this isn't what we're basically perpetuating by doing this stuff.

I just want to be very targeted and very specific on what it is we're trying to do here.

Because yeah, building needs to be we need to build to build.

But right now you got houses that are building built in Portland that nobody can afford to sit empty for months, years sitting on the market because you if people can't afford it, I don't care what you build.

It's not going to solve a problem.

That's all I'm saying.

I just hope we we take this approach and we're more targeted.

I'm just tired of seeing these developers walk away with causing the cost of living in a community to increase, and they walk away laughing to the bank.

Because that's all they care about.

Council president.

Yeah, I think you're right.

This cannot be the only work that we do.

And I think completing the entire housing production strategy is going to be really important.

And then looking beyond that to figure out what else we can do.

Um, since we adopted affordability as a goal, we as a council have only really added 22 units of affordable housing into the pipeline that wasn't there before.

And I think there's a lot of work that we can do if we want to change the percentage of like what's built affordable here versus market rate.

I think the city is gonna have to find ways that we can step up to really encourage hopefully through our land banking strategy and hopefully being more active in this space ourselves.

Like, what does it look like for us to be in the market of producing more affordable housing?

Because I I just don't see I think you're right.

We cannot leave it to the market alone to do this.

Um, the challenge that I see, and the reason why I think that something like this is a possibility right now.

How do we fund the affordable housing projects?

It's through the construction excise tax.

That alone is not gonna be enough over time.

That's clear that money has not been enough.

But I think that we need to be thinking about okay, what does it look like to build a robust system for the public to start delivering houses because we can't trust the market alone to do this?

I think there's also things that we've talked about that are outside the housing production strategy, like uh Iliad is.

We'll quit go back to what you just said.

So your solution is to give that money to the same people who helped us.

Because you're gonna build out the you have what I'm saying?

You're gonna make you're allowing more of the market people to build what they want by doing something like this, right?

Which which in turn because that's the thing, we're gonna wait till we get enough money to do something, but we're gonna keep giving my else away to the people who are.

The way that we fund affordable housing right now in Milwaukee has been through our construction excise tax.

That tax alone is not, I think we would probably agree is not giving us the capital necessary for us to be building units at 80% of what's being built in Milwaukee.

And so I think that disconnect is something that we have to really think about and figure out how this city can more actively be producing units.

That's the tension that I'm feeling.

We know we need to be building more units.

We know we want to build more affordable units.

I don't want more, like if I could wave a magic wand and make every unit coming to Milwaukee affordable, I absolutely would.

The challenge is how do we get the funding to be able to do that?

Right now we have said construction excise tax will deliver us that funding.

That 1% tax is not giving us enough funding to make my pipe dream magic wand a reality.

It's not giving us enough money to even make the inverted 36% dream a reality.

And so, how can we meaningfully deliver more affordable units is I think something that we should continue to think about and talk about?

Yeah, of course, but that's difficult to separate stuff.

The second thing I was gonna say.

You can we can keep I think that there are things outside our housing production strategy that are low-hanging fruit that we've not done.

One thing that is being adopted by a lot of cities that we've talked about a little bit is homes on wheels.

It's one of the most low-hanging, easy ways to allow for units to be built.

Um, Ilya de Torres, one of our local residents has a good model to be able to produce this.

And I think it's a conversation that we should have as a council.

It's a simple co-change that we could make.

Um, there are other things that are, I think make it more possible to do low income and accessible developments.

And I think we should be considering those.

I don't see this as like the silver bullet to solve affordability.

I think that the reason this is on the housing production strategy is one tool in the toolbox.

Um, I guess I would just um I don't I don't think we need to belabor this more tonight, but um I do hope that what we see come forward is some kind of a tiered approach, and that um it it's maybe an expansion on the on the affordable housing incentives that we already passed, but is a you know, you can go up to this much density, you know, 25 units per acre uh for market rate and you know, 35 units per acre for affordable, or you can go this higher, you know, another floor or whatever.

I do I think do you think I hope we see a proposal for uh for a tiered sort of approach that um and I think I hope that you know I sit at I attend a lot of meetings around SHS.

Um have another one long one tomorrow coming.

Um, that uh I think um I guess I just wonder if there aren't other communities that are finding new ways to incentivize.

Yeah, we'll never be we'll never have a CET to be able to build everything, but how do we make Milwaukee more attractive for the groups that do um get federal tax credits and other things to build affordable housing, you know?

So yeah.

I do think this is a go for it.

I do think um we talked a little bit about revisiting our affordable housing code after we give it some time, and we haven't seen developers take advantage of that.

I think two things that I'll say I've heard one from Dev Northwest, um from Dev Northwest and other folks is allowing affordable development by right, not setting like dramatically removing the zoning barriers on affordable development makes it more possible for these good faith developers to build in Milwaukee and seeing more um broad sweeping allowances for those affordable developers is something I think we should think about.

The other thing that I'd say is um I totally would agree.

We've seen uh different cities across the US do different affordable housing incentives, and one of the most successful ones was an added floor or being able to build additional floors.

I think that's more appropriate, not in our RHD, which is in our neighborhoods, more appropriate maybe in our downtown or GMEO.

But I think that finding spots where we can do those types of programs, we certainly should do.

And I do think I mean what I'm hearing kind of is we had already talked about wanting to revisit the affordable housing incentives.

Maybe that is a that re-evaluation is maybe a component of what we look at when we talk about the incentives here in the RHD.

So I'm gonna suggest something slightly different.

I think we're trying to shoehorn a lot into the RHD conversation, which is making it complicated.

I think the RHD scope is scoped, and we're moving forward on that work, and it's a part of the HPS.

But I think what I'm hearing is that there's still a hunger, and this is actually on your goal action plan for affordability to scope out other strategies that are focused specifically on increasing the supply of affordable housing in Milwaukee.

And I think we need to have that conversation.

I've heard things tonight that range from um further incentives and density bonuses and those kinds of things to zoning uh changes to deregulation and more by right development to frankly like inclusionary zoning uh styles or increasing the CET.

All of that's great, and I think we can talk about that.

I don't think it's very productive to talk about that within the RHD umbrella solely.

Staff, would you agree with me on that?

Like, so I'm gonna recommend that we because it's it's on this quarter for your affordability action plan that we set aside time specifically for that throw us some things out of the wall about other affordable strategies that maybe are in the HPS or aren't in the HPS yet, but that you would like us to prioritize and we can work on programming that into staff's work plans rather than trying to broaden the umbrella of the RHDPs.

Mayor, with your point that you'd like, you know, as we look at the the analyses and the incentives within this scope, we do keep that affordability lens there.

But is does that yeah, that and that's what I was just that's all I was saying.

I wasn't trying to create a whole new I just want to make sure we're laser focused on what we're doing with RHD, and we get as creative as possible to make sure we're not just giving it away and you know, blanketing the city as RHD and just saying, oh well, this is gonna work.

I'm not saying staff is gonna do that because you guys have never done that, but I don't want us up here to think it's that simple, and just by changing the zone to RHD that we're gonna start seeing things change and prices drop.

Because again, the fact that you can get something here in Milwaukee at 5,500 a month is asinine.

Right?

And the reason they're not taking advantage of affordable incentives is because they're trying to make money.

It's pretty simple.

Why do that when you can charge 5,500 a month?

Why?

Okay.

I think that might be the last word.

Um we will look forward to so you won't be back to us till the first of the year, or will you be back this fall for some stuff?

We'll be here for with periodic updates.

Okay, so as we get up to some kind of a something to present.

Okay, yeah.

Yes, okay.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie.

I appreciate you guys.

All right.

Poor Katie.

Katie.

Poor Katie, who's who's here for something that should only take about two minutes.

She went farther and farther to the back started up here, and then she slowly was like okay.

Tree code, HB4037 amendments, an ordinance up for the second reading.

I'm gonna go ahead and start, even though Katie isn't up here yet.

Um the continued public hearing on the proposed tree code amendments is called to order.

Because the first vote on the proposed ordinances was not unanimous at the June 16 regular session.

The purpose of this continued hearing is to hear the second reading of the ordinance title and conduct the final roll call vote on the ordinance.

On June 16th, it was moved and seconded for the first and second readings by title only and adoption of the ordinance amending municipal code chapter 16.32 tree code for the purpose of complying with Oregon House Bill 4037.

The first voice vote on June 16th resulted in a 3-2 approval of the ordinance as required by the city charter because it was not a unanimous vote.

The ordinance title was read once on June 16th and will be read for a second time at this meeting today, July 7th.

Ms.

Sager, please read the ordinance by title for a second time.

An ordinance of the city of Milwaukee, Oregon, amending municipal code chapter 16.32 tree code for the purpose of complying with Oregon House Bill 4037.

All right.

Um and Mr.

Stoffer, would you poll the council?

Council President Anderson.

Aye.

Councilor Stavan Jordan.

Aye.

Councilor Costerbody.

No.

Councillor Massey.

Abstain.

Mayor Beatty.

Aye.

Motion carried three to one with one abstention.

Ordinance 2264.

Mayor, if I may explain my vote.

Certainly.

You know, when we took this first vote, I voted no because I was I was concerned just as uh Councilor Corsabody was for what you know I think both of us saw is is uh state overreach in this area.

And uh I still share that concern.

Um so um uh I couldn't vote yes because of that continuing concern.

Uh but I couldn't vote no after giving it some thought because I didn't want to uh put the city in a um uh potential uh situation of risk of uh of um trying to circumvent state law.

So I chose a middle ground of not being able to say yes or not being able to say no.

Can I just to inquiry?

If we had had three abstentions, what would have happened?

The vote would have failed.

We have to have a positive of major quorum of council, so three voting in favor of it.

Okay, thank you.

There was a reason I didn't explain that before the vote for that very reason.

Well, I will say, I mean, I share the concern about state overreach, but this is only about the 18th time we've had to pass something that the state has overreached on.

So in the scheme of things, well, we reach a limit, no, you're we reach a limit.

Okay, okay.

It was the 19th.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I think it would be fun to sometimes say no and come up against the state.

I told you it's amazing.

All right.

It's a challenge next time around.

But okay.

Um you got what you needed for this one though.

Yes.

Katie, you're the best.

Katie did not say a word.

Yeah, we yeah, we'll thing.

Okay.

Did you did you tell that?

So we can scold them.

I don't know.

Um exactly.

All right.

Mr.

Stoffer has an update for us on the Clackamas Cities Association dinner.

Yes, very, very quick reminder.

Council, we the city of Milwaukee is hosting the Clackham Cities Dinner in October, the fourth week of October, which is a week before the primary uh the midterm election on in the first week of November.

Um real quick update.

Last time we checked with council, there was interest in holding our event this year at Fream, and we have secured the upper room at Freem for our event on the fourth uh Thursday of October.

So that's done.

Uh that comes with built-in catering then, so that'll be easy.

We have not looked at menu options yet.

They do it on a uh every few months they update the menu.

So uh later this summer or September, maybe we'll visit with them on that.

Uh so two parts of the pillar are done.

Um the other part is the presentation, and there was council discussion uh or consensus to talk about uh ask our behavioral health staff, library staff, and loved one to present, and all of those folks have confirmed that they are would be available.

Um just also being in historic city hall would be an opportunity uh potentially for Joseph to speak to uh the redevelopment of that building as well, since they'll be there and that project featured in our last CCA dinner when we were in this room talking about that.

So all those things are confirmed.

Uh pretty straightforward report.

Just want to make sure council knew we were on on track for that.

So I have one other point, but happy to take any questions about our hosting in October.

We might even be celebrating the building being on the national register by October.

I don't know if it'll happen that fast, but yeah.

Any questions for Scott?

No.

Okay.

My other pitch on CCA is that we have seen several of our sister cities in the county council their events in the last few months because of low turnout.

And I know uh there are different feelings and opinions about elected officials getting together uh and and doing things like this, but um I would just encourage council as they're interacting with their fellow councillors to make make the elevator speech pitch as to why their colleagues should come visit other cities and ours in Milwaukee in October, of course.

But um I think it's the next one, right?

We are the next one.

Yeah, it's off for the summer and early fall, and then it's the only one for the rest of the year because then it's and we don't do it during the holiday season.

Um so just a pitch if you're out and about, uh kind of make a pitch that we do have a full slate of CCA City signed up for next year, except for January and February, which it's kind of hard to do that in the the months with the weather, but anyway, CCA could use a little bit of a renewed energy, and and it's often fallen to Milwaukee in the last 10 years to do that.

So if you see your colleagues encourage them to attend, but otherwise, thank you.

Thank you.

I will say the last one I attended in Oregon City a couple months ago was fairly well attended.

Yeah.

Um, but anyway.

Um, we have council reports.

We have a couple of letters.

I think uh councillor Massie has a letter.

Are you the one?

No.

No?

Okay, there's a letter on Kellogg Dam.

Somebody put it in the it's our letter of support for the grant.

I thought it was you.

Oh no, we did that one already.

Did we just do that letter?

I don't believe so.

It's in the package for tonight.

It's uh why don't we talk about the other one while I try to figure out what's going on?

Okay.

Ah, yep.

It's the last document.

Joseph says, uh huh.

There's a letter request for a Kellogg grant.

55 million from FF uh from the Federal Highway Administration, I believe.

Scott should have it ready.

FYI.

Is that the one that's labeled Portland Critical Energy Infrastructure?

No, it's the very last thing in the packet.

It's page 8788 of our packet.

Or 8485 in the RS numbers.

I didn't stick it in.

It's not me.

I think the mayor's letter looks great, and I'm happy to sign it.

Oh, well, no one's claiming the letter.

Joseph is claiming the letter.

Joseph is claiming the letter.

Okay.

I I clearly know what all my staff are up to.

All right.

Um, any uh concerns about the letter.

Everyone's okay with having staff sign for us on the letter.

Because this application is due before our next meeting, so we can't punt this one.

Is this the one that was originated by Nicky Wright?

Yeah, it's been substantially rewritten, though.

I thought you rewrote it.

So I guess Joseph rewrote.

Um okay, so I think we have oh, Counselor Stavajor.

No, no, this is the letter.

This is the letter.

That is the letter.

The letter is on the Kellogg leadership team.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'm not hearing any concerns about the letter.

We're all okay to sign the letter.

Okay.

And then there's a second letter to an Eagle Scout.

Is that in our pack?

It's not in our packet.

No, yeah, it's not in the packet.

Um, turn your mic on.

Yeah.

Thanks.

It's not in the packet, but it is here.

Uh, and I was hoping that if you guys uh are okay with this, then we could print it and hand sign this one.

So this was a letter.

The mayor and I got an email from Jackson's mom.

I don't know if you remember Jackson who came in.

He's oh, you all got it.

Okay, good.

So he he came in and spoke about you know his sister and and and the the uh drug epidemic.

That's that's uh been taking over our country for the most part.

Um and uh his mom asked to have if we could write a letter, he's he's gonna be becoming an Eagle Scout, and uh I just think he's he's a hell of an example.

Uh was very well written by our very own city manager, MS AGOR.

So I appreciate this very much.

Um but yeah, take a look at it if there's anything you want to change or not.

Um afterwards, if you're good, we can print it and just hand sign each of it and get it mailed out.

He actually has his ceremony on August 16th.

You guys wear that at 130.

So if you guys are available to make that ceremony.

I do have his mom's and I thought we invited him.

You we we did, but we told him you had mentioned because the I think the the ceremonies are offset, not everybody's getting it at the same time.

So I think you said to maybe come back later once they all get maybe to ask the kids if they want to do all of them together, or if just Jackson wanted to do by himself, he said no pressure.

I don't think she got back to you yet all that.

Okay, okay.

I'll follow up with mom.

But in terms of the letter.

I think the letter looks great.

Will you remind me or tell me what date and what time it's happening again so I can add it to the calendar?

August 16th.

Sunday, August 16th, 1:30.

Milwaukee Lutheran.

That's on Lake Road.

Um looks great to me.

I'm good.

Yeah, okay.

So yeah, he'd like us to print it out and try to sign it.

And we have an exec, we have an executive session still, so we'll have time to pass it around and sign it.

Um, other council reports.

So you wanted it formatted and ready to sign tonight.

You don't just use the digital signatures.

I wanted a hand signature just because I feel like it's gonna mean more to the young man when he receives it.

He doesn't know it's coming.

So yeah, there was a there was a par meeting, but Adam pretty much covered it.

We it was all focused on uh metro choice.

Okay.

And I had put a couple documents in the record.

I don't particularly need to say anything about them.

One was the um the critical energy hub stuff in Portland, Portland's getting some Portland's doing some things I think are very common sense in terms of uh seismic safety and reducing the size of uh giant oil tanks that are sitting on the banks of the Willamette.

Whoever decided that was a good idea 50 years ago uh should have their head examined.

But um waterway.

Uh the um the they're getting some pushback from the fossil fuel industry, and they just wanted to share with us because they knew we were hearing from some of them.

So that's really just purely informational.

Nobody's asking us to necessarily take any position on that.

The other thing I had in there was notes from uh sorry.

I had it open and then I closed it inadvertently.

Um, notes from the Clackmas County Mayors and Chairs meeting, which um was yeah, the day before the infamous NCPRD board meeting.

Um anyway, if nobody had any questions about that, I don't need to uh belabor that.

Uh yeah, tomorrow I have a SHS meeting followed by a DAC meeting.

Um, those have been back to back for three months now, so it's it's been interesting on Wednesday.

Um, anyway, anyone else?

Can I just share a couple good news stories out of the MPD?

Uh we uh our our hearts go out to our to to Councillor Stavanger and her family in B side and another local business that were broken into a couple weeks ago.

Um we've really stepped up downtown patrols, and I'm I'm happy to share that we did there was an arrest made of some prospective burglars um last weekend by MPD during one of those diligent overnight stakeouts.

So um that's great, and I'm so impressed and proud of the community of how they really rallied around our businesses and supported them, and we're thinking of you um Rebecca as as you guys get back up on your feet.

Um canine Flora also struck again um late last week.

Catherine detective Meyer and Flora were about to head home at the end of the day and got a call from Canby, asked to come down and support um and Flora found a cell phone that was critical evidence in a disturbing case, but um and and helped bring Flora justice.

Um just a lot of great stuff happening um at MPD.

Oh great.

That's good to hear.

Uh I do have a this should take about five minutes, maybe maybe a little bit longer, but it is very important.

Uh, this was uh uh an event that Jenny and I actually went to.

First of all, there's two events.

I think last week, was it last week or the week before?

The 25th of June.

Um it was with Love One in the County, the county's uh social services division.

We did a laundry event out in um uh was it where was it?

Sandy, that's right.

We did it in Sandy.

I was trying to think where exactly where it was.

Yes, so we did it sandy.

We did some, there was a laundry event, they were providing laundry meals and everything for for people, and then we went around.

Some of us uh from CAB volunteered for that event, and we went with some county personnel to ask, you know, what are some barriers, what are some of the needs.

Um, and and it was it was incredible uh to talk to them, and we got a lot of good good information after that though.

We also had a a forum.

Um it was a community forum in Sandy, uh, where we talked about it, it was a little bit more specific to Sandy to what some of the barriers are, what's some of what are some of the issues?

Um and some of this stuff was was pretty pretty incredible.

Uh the information on here though is specific to the county.

We got these, we got these handouts on affordability, and this is some information coming from the um from the needs assessment.

And so on afford affordability specifically, you know, I'll read you one of the quotes here.

One of the quotes that that a participant said is turn off heat most of the day and use sleeping bags to stay warm.

Um go without, especially medical care that is not covered by insurance.

Uh these are from the respondents.

There are simply not enough livable wage jobs within the county.

Um we have found and kept work despite my disability, but even two earners is not enough anymore.

And I try to thrift, buy use or recycle, trade labor or goods, sell items I have, forego payment on other bills to pay for priority essentials.

Uh one of the graphs that they had was during the past 12, and this is a comparison from 2021 to 2026.

During the past 12 months, how hard has it been for your household to pay household expenses?

Not hard at all.

Went from 39% in 2021 to 24%.

So 15% of people increase in more people struggling to have to afford household expenses.

A little hard, uh, plus four.

Somewhat hard, plus five, very hard, plus seven.

So just to get an idea of the trajectory.

Income sources.

During the past 12 months, which of the following did your household use to meet your spending needs?

Regular income sources, that increased by 4%.

Money from savings retirement accounts, that went up 9%.

Unemployment benefits went down 9%.

Well, there you see the correlation, right?

More people are using savings instead of relying on unemployment because Oregon also failed at that during COVID.

Uh credit cards or loans, plus six.

Borrowing from friends or family, plus ten.

And then SNAP went down 2%.

Um access to resources, primary barriers, and again, this is all coming from the public.

This is not coming from, you know, a couple consultants sitting around the table.

Prior uh access to resources, primary barriers to access.

One is knowledge, don't know about resources, two is eligibility, don't qualify for assistance.

Three is time, time constraints, competing responsibilities, four, responsiveness, resource hard to contact.

Five, availability, resource limitations, and six transportation.

Can't get to resource.

So I just made notes that said at least uh make at least a few of these more accessible, remove these or lower, how how to address each one.

I just put little notes for us to think about.

This is something they heard over and over in housing, rising housing costs and per persistent refusal from my employer to pay a living wage, being paid just enough to not qualify for assistance, but not enough to afford basic needs.

In housing, 58% struggle at least sometimes to pay their rent or mortgage.

19% believe it is somewhat to very likely they will have to leave their current home within the next year due to eviction or foreclosure.

64% struggle at least sometimes to pay utility bills.

Food security.

Uh how to address these is another good question.

You got 17% sometimes or often don't have enough to eat.

That's up from 10% in 2021.

45% used a food pantry or food bank in the last 12 months, up from 37% in 2021.

35% reported needing help with food, but not getting it in the last 12 months.

50% less food list food assistance as a medium to high need in the future.

Food pantries run out of food in our area in 15 minutes, have to drive over 10 to 15 miles to get one that doesn't run out.

Transportation, so it's for you.

Report lack of transportation stops them from doing daily activities.

59% struggle to afford car ownership, cost of gas repairs, maintenance, insurance, registration.

Actually, at the laundry event, that was a big car repairs, was a huge, huge one.

52% use public transportation at least sometimes.

Main barriers to using public transit include safety concerns, which is legitimate, limited service, they just cut some, and longer travel times, which is true.

Um health and well-being.

This you'll get a kick out of this one.

Top three health care needs, primary health care, 78%.

Dental care, 72%.

Mental health, behavior health care, 41%.

Top five barriers to health and well-being, cost of care, difficulty fighting providers, transportation to and from appointments, long wait times for appointments, cost and loss of insurance.

And every single one of these, I wrote a note how to address these.

Because I think this, if if there's a way to do something with this stuff, this can go a long way at affordability.

Um top 10 future needs.

It's the last one.

Number one is dental services.

66% said they need dental services.

Number two is food assistance at 50%.

Number three is health insurance assistance at 49%.

Number four is asset buildingslash financial education at 48%.

Five is utility assistance at 45%, which is I know we're working on that.

Six is mental health care, 44% people need that.

Seven is housing assistance, 41%.

Eight is physical health services, 38%.

Nine is job training, employment services at 33%, and 10 is education assistance.

The craziest thing is that of the 10 future needs, none of it has changed from our 10 past needs.

There's not changed from what our 10 past needs used to be.

You go 20 years in the past, I guarantee you this list is pretty darn similar, right?

So yeah.

This is just kind of what we're looking at from the looking at from the county.

And that was the last statistic.

So in the in the forum we asked about questions.

So what stands out to you about the survey results, what's missing?

A lot of people said transportation need, increase in income, a usage of savings, um, underlying circumstances, pre-existing conditions, demographics, peer support services.

This is what's missing.

Underlying circumstances, demographics, peer support services, special community needs or specific community needs.

Question two is what do you think are the main reasons people are struggling financially in your community?

Um, what we were talking about in our group, which Jenny was our note taker, uh, lack of basic infrastructure.

There was a big thing for lack of base, just basic infrastructure.

Uh social security increases lacking, cost increase uh for for medicine is a big one, time and health outcomes, um, and lack of good high-paying jobs.

So I mean, there's a theme, right?

And we're not, I mean, we all know this stuff.

What kinds of programs services actions do you think will best support people struggling financially in your community?

Universal basic income, work with city to understand need and implement policy, increase qualification opportunity for existing programs, infrastructure investment, microtransit, grant funding for keeping rents at 30% of monthly income, which is stuff that we were tossing around at the table, and that's the last one.

I don't know how I read any of this because my chicken scratch.

But um I bring this up, and I know I I talk about this stuff repeatedly and repeat.

I'm not trying to be a broken record, and I know everybody, we all care about this stuff.

It says I constantly think about it consistently.

Um, and I know we're doing a hell of a job, but really, this kind of speaks to the last, I don't know, four years of county leadership, kind of everything got worse.

Obviously, it's not just county, it goes all the way up, but this says a lot.

This says a lot.

So we got another community forum happening in Molala, right?

Just we're trying to nail down the location.

We'd like to do one here, uh, community forum.

We just need to lock down a spot, whether that's city hall, the library, but we'd like to hold a community forum.

The county would like to hold one here.

Hold on, social services and cap.

So yeah, and that that is it.

Would it make sense to hold it like somewhere like Wichita Center where they might tap into some of the people who are yeah, yeah, that might be.

If they could, I mean the Wichita Bar would be cool too.

That's a cool spot.

But but yeah, I mean I didn't know you hang out at Mars.

They got all kinds of billiards and games and odds, fantastic.

But anyways, um, yeah, Wichita Center, I think somewhere somewhere where we can get enough people.

We had it was a nice coffee shop up in uh I can't remember the name of it, but anyways, she was in Sandy.

Ant Farm, that's what it was.

And she they were fantastic.

Yeah.

So yeah, that's it.

Well, I mean, and we can't, you know, obviously what we can address is limited, but I do feel like, you know, back in when we did the 2016 housing needs analysis and stuff, we did create a website with a like a lot of housing info on it, sort of a housing navigator kind of a website.

And I feel like some of the stuff, I mean, you called out that somebody said uh, you know, lack of information, not knowing about the programs.

Is there something we can be doing through our website, through the pilot, through whatever, to like try and connect people with more of the info, and not that necessarily we're the hosting website.

There are probably some other ones out there, but can we, you know.

Can we help be an information clearing house to get more information to people?

And I I would love to take some of this and kind of compress it and then with our affordability goals, see where we could potentially remove some of these barriers.

Let's talk.

Yes.

Okay.

If no other council reports, I'll read the little script here after the regular session.

Council will meet an executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.66 F to consider information or records that are exempt from by law from public disclosure.

And with that, I will entertain a motion.

Move to adjourn.

All second.

It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the regular session.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed said no.

None heard.

We are adjourned.