Oh, right.

Oh, right.

So it says stop sharing.

That's right.

No matter.

Okay.

Should I stop sharing?

No, it's going to go to your video's going.

I can see.

You can see the next year.

I can see his audio's on.

I can see the recording.

What end is definitely our shift?

No.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Oh, the DAC or hello everyone.

Sorry, we're just getting set up in the front.

Are we being recorded?

All right.

It's our uh what is today?

July 14th study session on downtown capital improvement priorities.

Prioritization.

I'll turn it over to Emma.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thanks.

We do have a Zoom audience tonight watching us.

Um we're gonna dive in.

So uh why?

Why are we having this discussion?

Why have we dedicated a uh study session to this topic?

Um you know, I think this is actually a really exciting uh conversation because it's spurred on by this council and previous councils.

Some of these projects have been have been on the docket for many, many years.

Um the real momentum we have in our DAC account and the real desire to invest in some transformative capital improvements that could reshape um downtown for generations to come.

I think what's also really exciting about all those projects that we've been talking about for years is that they really hit all of council's goals.

They hit parks and green space, they did economic development, and they could support affordability in terms of affordable housing.

Um that's the awesome part.

There's no dearth of great ideas and great opportunities in the downtown core of Milwaukee.

The sort of reality check part is that resources are limited.

Um, because these are all in that downtown core, they all potentially compete for urban renewal um area dollars.

We're very excited and happy to see that the tax increment in the um urban renewal district is doing its job, it is growing, but it's a finite pool of money as well, and it cannot cover every single thing we might want to do on the capital front downtown.

We also um have a wonderful staff, but we don't have uh a limited staff, and and these projects, I kind of jokingly call them the downtown mega projects.

Um they they are big and they're in some of them are gonna be multi-year, and they're gonna require a lot on the design front, the construction management front, the community engagement front, and um we're gonna need to be judicious in how we apply staff to that.

We also have a finite amount of space.

So you do a lot of construction in an area, you gotta put all the vehicles and the equipment to do that.

So we have to think about construction staging, and we also can think about construction impacts.

It's really um easy to think about how great it's gonna be when projects are done.

There's that painful middle, no one likes construction, and we've built such a great momentum in our downtown core with um thriving small businesses that we have to be mindful of the disruption, construction and cost.

Uh it's very important, I believe, that we prioritize and we make sure staff are aware of how you as council want us to prioritize these major projects so that we can deliver this transformative change but in a sustainable and strategic way.

Okay, so what are the projects we're actually talking about tonight?

I'm gonna see if I can collapse the little bit.

Okay, it's gonna say that.

Um the first one we're talking about is our main street enhancements project that is uh highlighted there for you on the map in blue.

This project is currently in the capital improvement plan that's in the adopted budget.

Uh that plan had design occurring in fiscal year 28, construction occurring in fiscal year 29.

The total cost of the project is about 7.6 million dollars.

And this is an integrated project.

So it has URA funding, um, but it also has transportation funding, wastewater, stormwater, and STC funds because all of those utilities would get upgraded in addition to the streetscapes that we would do.

That's project one.

Project two is Milwaukee Bay Park.

This is currently in the CIP, partially funded.

Um design uh slated for 2027 and construction slated for 2028 again in the adopted CIP.

We're gonna talk a little bit about that tonight.

This project, the total estimated cost, if we don't get the existing designs and the existing trolley trail grant for the project would be 13.6 million dollars.

If we do get those, even if we don't um get the other funding, it's gonna be 12.2 million dollars.

Um funding for that.

Did we say that again?

Sure.

So um if we were handed by NCPRD, the plans for that part, uh the 50%, we're saving some money.

It's already been about a million dollars invested there, but if we don't, we have to do that design.

The funding that's already allocated in our budget for that is 1.65 million of URA.

Well, that's not much question.

My question is to your comments about the trolley trail.

Sure.

Sure.

Would you just say that again?

Yes.

So in the agreements that we've been negotiating with NCPRD, you're very aware I'm sure of the SDC we're asking for, the Metro Local Share we're asking for.

There's also a grant that NCPRD has received for Momonky Bay Park for the trolley trail segment.

Right.

We would um even if we can't do a deal, if we are building that project, we would of course make the ask that that grant be assigned to us because it's already allocated for that project, can't be used for any other purpose by NCPRD.

So there's 1.4 million dollars difference, she's saying if we don't get that grant and the disc from it.

I understand that I think the plan, there's you know, there's a question mark of the plan is I just don't look at the chart rail as being questionable because it's gonna be used for anything else.

Well, it put it it it had actually hasn't been assigned to the city the correct results.

But no, but I I understand what you're saying.

I I feel more comfortable about that than I do about the design about that money coming.

So that's that's what it's I love your optimal.

Yeah, when you with this figure, it looks very simple to the figure um that we solid design ago.

Why is it not increasing?

That was anyway.

What is it?

This is a function.

But but but it's very important that every day it gets more expensive.

Yeah.

Um I will tell you that that's but that was 9.5, I think.

Well, yeah, let me let me just tell me if I'm wrong here, Peter.

Is it is it that's that's kind of a cryon inflator?

You know, it's just it's just taking the CL construction uh you know uh data and just applying that to the raw numbers, and so at some point, you know, that prayon is gonna have to be sharpened.

So these are good planning figures.

Yeah, I we we did have some detailed numbers for uh October of 22, where the you know the NCPRD has engaged with you know not studios or for two week and and their GNGC contractor, and they were you know fine-tuning those estimates.

So we have some really good construction estimates 22 uh estimates based on the design and the construction drawings being in sort of that 50 percent mark.

So what they were doing there, they were they were fine-tuning those numbers looking for opportunities to reduce costs based on some value engineering, changing out materials and things like that.

So at that time, we're we're working with those numbers.

And as council masses said, we were we're adjusted them based on CO construction cost index and other related related that we I guess they compare it to when we talk about our budget forecast going forward.

You said at the end of our budget sessions that you're being smooth and gloom as possible.

And my question with this is is this number as doing as human room as possible, or is it there a chance that we're gonna have to find 10% more and look for 1.3?

Well, I I think we feel relatively good about where we are in terms of those numbers.

So we we have built-in side contingency we recognize that uh even if we get the plans from and the sign from uh NCPRD that the design or the or the construction documents are still a little stale.

There's some updates related to code that we need to do building code tree code, those those types of things that have changed over the last four years.

So we've recognized those things.

So I think we we feel pretty good where we're requirement right now those numbers, but you know that's it uh it it it still exists so but we have it can see built in the that includes that's the scope as previously defined but did not include additional swimming assets.

It does it does include uh however it does include that community short advance that we're gonna do but not of floating out all right so oh sorry I would just say about this I mean um I mean I can't imagine you have another slide but with some of the other numbers here but um I also think it'll be a fight but if we don't get agreement on the IT is I do think we fight for our SDCs I think we shouldn't ride off the SD shirts now I I know you're gonna go through your deck but are you gonna talk more about what exactly the main street enhancements look like because I can close my eyes and picture a lot of people I frankly can't do that for mainstream no I we don't have more details but maybe I can't under design but it really is um improvement from Washington all the way just past city hall yeah um and making everything ADA compliant as far as the sidewalk goes and ramps um new water um infrastructure that could electricity electricity um they're buried the electric for the whole thing we probably can't bury electricity all the way through it's mostly about unless you want to spend more money mostly about having electricity it's it's having sort of electricity yeah for like entry watering pain baskets it's having that consistent aesthetic for the sidewalk that's so there's some aesthetic consistence with the block that we built right consensus with with new tree wells ADA accessibility improvements and then uh you know we're gonna overlay our grind for the grind and on the streets so there's some beautification yeah accessibility beautification and storm water needs to be addressed along this upper side some safety and third mounts I think well the water pump done we did I think we do have some retrofit on extinct what pump and water the other yeah the component there's some this section of the city has probably some important 1949 percentage so there's probably um that's where I found it on soda we weren't using it but we found it when we actually got up to install the new line I agree if the Romans used basic area so they have a big empire part of the promise in the URA is for eight the TIF dollars we invest them to get more you know that have as positive keyboard well walkie bay park like I'm much more familiar with it it's much more sorry I'm much more invested in that but walking through a good fate like what is the economic benefit that we're getting with mainstream enhancements what is that like why is this that valuable of a project to invest and I I would I'd let Joseph answer that but I think I think it's more in a direct alignment with our URA five year action plan.

Are you I agree with you on a lot of the Bay Parks economic development improvements or benefit but that's not mentioned in the five year action is it a lot of rent no but just answer your question somewhat simply um is there's a lot of scholarship about the actual increasing park space increasing green space actually increase the number um that'll be part of the conversation as we move forward and you can say the same for all public infrastructure as well but obviously we want in the end it's about increasing dollars over time.

I should also say it's it's not very sexy but we have um our code every city code in Oregon means the Jason property owner is responsible for right of way improvements.

Um, and that frankly was done like in as a good faith demonstration to our business district that we know we don't we don't want to saddle all these folks with code compliance issues, like hey, go go repair that sidewalk.

Doing this kind of investment in some ways could be seen as subsidizing those adjacent property owners and not saddling the business community with um doing those upgrades to improve access um and safety on the right of way.

Would you guys agree?

Let me let me ask a question.

I think this is a great idea to kind of level the plane, so to speak, but at the same time, I I get concerned about the the business owners have an expectation that the city is going to fund this stuff.

Sure, you know, for the next century.

Sure.

And so I I'm, you know, I just want us to you know put a pin in that at some point, you know, we say, okay, everything's up today going forward.

Yeah.

Is it the property owners that have to maintain it?

Or is it the tenants on it?

Um might I add to this street of thought.

Um I think that there is an assumption on the part of property owners when a URA is put into place that the deferment of those um of that tax funding will result in some type of communal improvement.

So I think I think there is an argument to be made there as well as an argument to be made to say, excuse me, yours.

Um an argument to be said uh that there's this is not it's not a perpetual URA district.

It will eventually come to you know a sunset.

Um piece I would add to this though is that there are entries to many of the stores that are not APA company.

And so there continue there continues to be a need for conversation with those building owners to align during this construction to make sure that those are compliant while the city is upgrading the public infrastructure, they need to still upgrade some of the private infrastructure.

Sure.

I hope that that's a part of the dialogue with the business owners.

Have we given you what I mean?

To me, it's kind of like the way Council Rassy described it.

The main street enhancements is a real favor to do for our local business community, right?

And it has added lovely appeal of that there, but as we engage with the business community, they've been varying system that we should build big park.

Yeah, have we proposed these two?

And to be able to do that.

No, I'm gonna I'm gonna put a pause.

I gotta get through the full breadth of what we're talking about.

And then I think we're veering into sort of prioritization web conversation, which is where we gotta go, but let me explain the whole thing.

Can I ask one last mainstream problem?

As we are having development on our downtown main street, I think about Jefferson and Maine.

Are they designing as a condition of their development new sidewalks or bringing that up to code or is it helpful for them to have uh like model main street to build towards, or are they building towards the standard that we said?

We have that already in public work standards, so it needs to be building to that standard as far as that goes.

Um, and that's cell cells that'll go in as well.

Okay, like the second assumption, right?

Uh yep, yeah.

It's okay.

They're exciting.

I know they're exciting.

Okay, but just to wrap up Milwaukee Bay Park, about 13.6 mil price tag in terms of money you've already allocated 1.65 of URA, one million of general fund, which is a combo of metro local share plus a little bit from um climate natural resources, and then we have applied for several grants.

We've applied for a big metro capital grant for two million dollars.

I think probably in that number wrong.

We've applied for the state grant.

Um, we've obviously got the metro um community choice um grant as well.

Kell up.

So Kellogg is currently in the CIP construction 2028, but that's a little bit finger in the wind.

The total estimated cost of the project is 113 million, plus in terms of what the city has in its CIP.

We have one million of URA.

This is a I kind of wish I had edited this out because we don't have sewer money.

We don't have wastewater money in the CIP.

That is something we want to question mark.

That's something we want to affirm tonight.

We do not have wastewater money in the CIP before Kellogg.

Ongoing city operations and maintenance is unaccounted for.

So this is again kind of my bearer of potential harsh financial news is that Kellogg is such a cool project.

But it creates a big green space for us to take care of.

And I think it's logical to not assume our parks district will be obtained.

Yeah.

Um, I will say, I mean, they on the on the sewer relocation, they have gone for an earmark, right?

No.

No.

No.

I was told that when I was in DC, they asked Mercury and Wyden for a five million dollar earmark or 3.5 or something.

We can follow.

Really?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Was it for the super just in general?

No.

That's what I was told.

Okay.

And then these next two, they're kind of quasi capital projects, and they are not in RCIP.

So the first is the Harrison and Main Lot.

Metro owns half of that lot.

Um, I think kind of maybe a new piece of information.

And you don't spend a lead on this these conversations, but they did.

You're you're right.

Yeah, they did.

Five million or three point five.

3.5.

3.5.

Okay.

Um Metro owns half of the Harrison and Main Lot.

Um when our um DDA with TOHO ended, we did um staff to staff explore Metro's potential interest in that property.

Um Joseph, you're supposed to interrupt me when I say things that are wrong.

But my understanding is that they are not interested in a land swap.

However, they are interested in or willing to have conversations about us buying them out of field property, which I believe is a change from the past.

Um hard number on that.

Um, they are working on some appraisal figures.

I will give you a ballpark, is probably between 500 to 7,000.

Really?

Sounds like a bark.

Add that to the town.

I mean, that does sound like you are also correct, so I just want to show you my yeah.

Well, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't remember we know when they pay for it when they log out the Texaco stage.

No, I don't have that.

Um I think it's it's it's what the market is saying.

So that's what that one is.

That's why we can I mean if you if you figure in the value of Coho.

And the potential bogey for for that you know, half a billion.

So like a pretty good deal.

To control it a full month.

There's a lot to do.

And and you know, we um have only had very preliminary conversations about a vision for that lot.

Um, at the time we had that conversation with Metro, you you guys were articulating priorities that included community event space, um, included green space, included still potential housing development.

So I don't want to um represent that we have some clear, this is what that would be, but we but I think there is interest, there has been interest in this council and previous councils in talking about that as a development opportunity.

Um similarly, COHO, not currently in the CIP, again, not really a capital project.

We've always kind of envisioned that as something that we would um advance through with public private partnerships.

Um the co we we control most of that site except for the corner, um, which is owned by private owner.

Um we could explore acquiring that, which would have financial needs.

So my assumption with both of those is that we would probably be looking at three years between a visioning process, deciding what we want to do, an RFP process, etc.

I think that is a very fair if yeah, maybe I think three would be ambitious.

Which property are you talking about?

I I would say probably go faster with the CO if because there was a point.

Yeah, and if if housing is still the goal on that, then yes, I think it would be faster.

But if there's other ideas, because it's why we have this one.

Well, the other thing is Coho has its um, I guess not perfect, but it has its mainstream frontage where it's yeah, redone was done to the new standards or to the standards of the South Downtown.

Only partially not completely done.

I'm like this.

We were waiting for that.

We were waiting for that because it would destroy it during construction.

Yeah.

So it might give some lots.

But the ongoing maintenance estimates for Kellogg and for Milwaukee Park, assuming our process district decides not to follow maintenance.

What would that look like on a year-to-year basis?

We had to guess.

Catalog is very hard to estimate.

I'll let Peter share a number if he wants, but actually next week we're going to be talking some Krumberg concepts, and I think it really ranges.

And I would also say, well, I think we can expect what MCPRD might say.

They are still our parks operator, and we should still ask them to assume maintenance of that.

Milwaukee Bay Park, I think we have a clearer sense.

I believe NCPRD is spending about $60,000 on maintenance a year.

That's a current design.

So you add a splash pad and bathrooms and more trees.

You know, plus, I mean, we would more than likely start the contract contracting that out.

I think the numbers that we're looking at was about $30,000 a year for the maintenance group, just know what you require.

A full 13 acres a lot that's still sort of water space.

A lot of that, a lot of it doesn't require like intense maintenance, but there's still some maintenance work that needs needs to happen.

And we're working with the project team to sort of develop what that looks like.

But you know, I would probably add on to that, and then uh you probably want to be 50 to 60,000 a year at least there.

And then when you look at Kronberg, and if there's potential amenities associated with the Killard Dam project that we'll be talking about there having to take care of that space, we're probably at least another 100,000, probably looking at about 100,000 a year for the Killard space.

Uh in terms of in terms of maintenance personnel costs.

Well, especially given what we heard about the amount of time the underpass would be underwater.

We've got every year.

And and some of that as well, and then you know that grows every yeah from other stuff.

So I think you're looking probably combination of at least like 200,000 between the two long-term starting off and then growing.

And that's not something we have budgeted future budget directly.

So that 200k would be mission to remember our space.

General funded stormwater would would be utilized.

But I think these estimates are sort of what I would call good steward estimates, you know, in other words, you're trying to do everything right.

But I also say is that you know we all deal with the household budget and we do what we can afford.

Sure.

And it may not be that high because we can't work.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so that's the five projects.

Things when you're when you're thinking about all these projects that I I think could be bouncing around in your mind, are as I said, they're all great projects, they all support um a council role, if not multiple council goals.

Um, I think we should think about funding availability and assignments.

So some of those I showed you already have budget in your CIP, some of them don't.

Um, some of them uh have grant dollars that we secure or are trying to secure, some of them don't.

Um alignment with adopted plans.

Um, some of them are kind of pre-conceptual in Harrison and Maine.

Some of them um are like we mentioned the main street, it's been in the CIP for a while and is in the five-year action plan.

We're gonna ask you tonight about some appetite for debt financing, because doing it all will absolutely require us to acquire debt.

Umpact on downturn commerce.

I already talked about this, construction, the end goal, the end result's great, the living through it sucks.

Um, community expectations and clarity of scope and priorities.

Again, I think you can chart all of those five on a spectrum of how solid the design is versus how um maybe conceptual or still engagement we'd have to do to really pin down a design, and then project controls and dependencies.

So some of them are fully in our control, some of them are partly in our control, um, some of them are in our control, but doing it adds an ONM cost.

You guys we've already started talking about a lot of these things.

So it was in your packet, um was three scenarios that we are gonna ask for your thoughts on tonight.

And this again is really staff trying to strategically look at what could be realistic.

There is one scenario where you give us direction to prioritize the main street projects, primarily the main street enhancements, which again is fully funded in the CIP.

We've got designs almost or designs working, like we're we're we're grooving.

It supports economic development.

I think if we did that, we could also begin Coho and Harrison and Maine planning alongside that work.

It's kind of actually nice that we're doing engagement with the downtown stakeholders to maybe uh find some synergies there.

Um this would also, because this really is also deprioritizing construction of Milwaukee Bay Park, it might give us a little more time to talk about parks governance and plan for those OM costs.

And as I mentioned, it'll line to the URA five-year action plan considerations.

Um it's disruptive to Main Street, it's gonna be whenever you do it.

Whatever you do, it's gonna be disruptive to Main Street.

Um you do a lot of new business at opening, so it might be destructive in the very near term, but yeah.

And then I it looks like very few bullets, but I don't want to um undersell how big this bullet is.

It delays that waterfront redevelopment that has already been delayed for so long and is so desired.

Well, okay, and my question about that one from this from what you from the packet is it sounded like you weren't moving that up from 2029.

If you're moving that up and starting that next year, I think that's worthy of a conversation.

If you're not moving it up from 2029, you mean Main Street.

Why on earth would we do it?

You mean Main Street?

Yeah.

I don't think we could move it up.

Yeah, we don't we've I mean we're root we the way that we've programmed those dollars, it's the the bulk of the three the three million in the euro really uh the other utility work is not available until when we the next budget.

Yeah, yeah.

So I guess unless you're stealing some of the Milwaukee Bay Park URA funds.

Well, I think URA funds, but I I guess that's borrowing, sorry, I guess design who's working as I was helping that staff report together, the the prior to station was uh on but we're talking about mainstream, just keeping it on at the same time.

We'll not push it with that you can get on the same button.

I mean, that means we're talking about Milwaukee Bay Park in 2030.

Well, and that's and I think that's why we're saying because we would have to take those dollars to from URA.

So let's talk about this because this middle scenario.

So I think also the last I think when we went through our budgeting process, Mayor, we were optimistic, we were gonna sign some IGAs, and we were gonna have a real good chunk of speed money.

And I think we are way less optimistic than than we were.

So that's that's what's really forced this question.

We can still deliver Milwaukee Bay Park on a very near-term timeline, but to do so is going to take reallocation of URA dollars to make that happen.

And that reallocation of URA dollars would be from the main street project, which would push that up.

So that's I think why it was sort of why you don't get the benefit of the main street jumping up, was the big change is the lack of the NCPRD funding.

Um, that not coming in.

If that had come in, I think we'd be in a different situation.

We could actually do the advance both, maybe without debt financing.

But yeah.

Um so in the Milwaukee Bay Park, obviously, it makes good on a long-term vision, um, supports multiple goals, sustains momentum, and I think the faster we move, the less time you're gonna have to spend on any kind of redesign because that the scope and vision is still as fresh as it can be eight years later.

Um we still have a funding gap to close though, even with the reassignment of the URA dollars.

Um, we've talked about this contract piece from NCPRD as a as an unknown.

I do think we would want to delay big visioning around Coho and Main Street a bit.

I think we could maybe do some, but I think it's um I think it's a little more challenging than if we're really just focusing on that main street core.

Um we would also you have a million dollars for Kellogg in the URA.

I think if you really tell us it's Milwaukee Bay Park, give Milwaukee Bay Park done, we would advise you reallocate that.

That then provides less flexibility if and when the Kellogg funding comes through.

Um, and it is saying we're prepared to assume those on M plus.

Advancing both.

Again, I love all these projects, and I'm always up for a challenge.

But if we want to do it all and we want to do it all on uh the timeline that we were hoping in the CIP, and we don't get these NCP or DIGA signed, we're gonna have to do some debt financing from the URA.

Um we would both have to do debt financing, and then you'd also have to pay for that debt service, do less in the way of URA programs and grants.

Um I think in that scenario, if we're doing both those projects, Main Street and MVP.

I think we have to be honest.

Coho and Harrison and Maine are probably put off for 30 years.

Um again, that less flexibility, we're gonna need every dollar.

And so if Kellogg suddenly comes up, we're gonna be a little bit in a pickle.

Uh and that's a lot of construction activity to sequence and manage.

So what we I will shut up because I want to hear you guys.

We would love to hear what option you're leading towards.

We know you're putting we're putting you in a bit of a tough position here, but um, we want to make sure we are putting the dollars, the staff time, the energy in the place because you like us to do that.

Um if if the consensus is leaning towards the advanced both, um, we'd like to know uh if you're we'd like to make sure you understand that debt financing uh requirement.

Um and then the Kellogg question.

So again, the current financial assumptions are that we are not we have no financial outlay in the CIP for the sewer location.

We have held out one million dollars of URA funding, and we are talking, depending on how you want to move forward.

If it's the Milwaukee Bay Park scenario, we would propose that we reallocate that.

Um, that puts us maybe in a bigger bind if and when catalog funding comes comes forward.

Um I also would love to just make sure we're still moving forward consistent with your direction on the sewer piece.

We continue to get some pressure on that, but the direction I've given the staff who have were working great with the project team and trying to be great partners, is the city is not funding the sewer relocation.

The city does not have the funding set aside to fund the sewer relocation.

So I need to reaffirm that so we can take a meeting tomorrow about the sewer process.

Is that the bottom again?

It's always simmering.

Well, we have another code to God meeting.

I thought we had a code that got meeting.

So that's I just need to affirm that that is still there's no change in that direction.

No, no change okay.

That one's easy.

That's the easy question of the night.

Well, and that's why they went for an earmark.

Yeah.

Can you help me understand?

There are two things that I don't really have clarity on with the main street improvements.

There's 3.3 million dollars URA funds that we could reallocate to um Milwaukee Bay Park.

Yeah, yeah.

What would happen to the other 4.2 million dollars in stormwater funds?

Would that mean that we're able to do half of a main street improvement?

Would that be given back to ratepayers?

Would that be reallocated to other stormwater projects?

Well, and that's not all stormwater money.

So there's only two thousand of stormwater.

So those transportation wastewater dollars and SDC dollars, we would need to reallocate those to grass other projects.

Um of the things we were utilizing the URA for in this case was also all of the water that we were going to do downtown because we have some really large water needs for really elsewhere limited plus.

Uh so that's gonna defer that work, all of its work downtown.

And as you said, we'll have to re-allocate those uh to other projects, and perhaps there's a project uh that we have that we push down a little bit further that we can reallocate those into the next logus, for example, maybe that one moves up of Wellboard, perhaps all the ways.

I appreciate you mentioning another PFOS here.

So I guess I'm just trying to think through this as if we take all the URA funds out of main street.

Are we still able to do half the project?

Are there components that we're obligated to do, like PFOS work and waste or water downtown or we would the whole we would not touch Main Street.

Okay, it would be dispersed also.

It'd be a street software or remain in the reserve for a delayed start of Main Street, correct?

We'd still have to come through and get the wire work at some point, just so you know, because those are probably led joints, and so I'll let you speak code by 37.

This is part of the 37.

So part of the way of the issues and the challenge that staff decides to is there's work that has to be done.

So you do want to work on Main Street with no improvements or like the street up twice.

And plus it's like, what do you all do?

So I don't think we're saying we push off Main Street forever.

We push it off for they probably re the next budget cycle, right?

We reallocate when it goes, like I might change when logus and when well there's a cascading effect.

Also, it's really hard to scale these projects geographically when you're dealing with contractors that have given you bids on an entire stretch.

There's like an economy of scale that you know, if you if you bring a whole team in, like um the best example would maybe be like when new buildings are constructed, it's a buttload of money to bring a crane.

Yeah, you're not gonna want to do that twice.

So you need to be able to make sure that the project in its fruition takes place as it's as it's designed.

Yeah, I I I would the one thing I would add to also because you know we did look at if we've put the CIP together.

We had a discussion uh this past year developing the budget and developed with the CIP.

We used to have a prioritization matrix, and we actually look at the main street project that scores higher than the Milwaukee Bay Park.

Uh and the reasons why that is because of the weighting related to regulatory requirements.

There's some accessibility things that we need to take care of now, and also uh sort of a fiscal stewardship component.

But like we have some really old assets that that are at the end of their work cycle that we replace.

So like water base, stoop sewers, but things like that.

So it scores higher in that respect.

Um but this is helpful.

I feel like I understand these remains what's better.

The one outstanding question I asked us with Milwaukee Bay Park.

I don't understand how that gets us to where we need to go for 3.6 or 4.2.

I'm seeing that we have to in our CIP right now.

We have 2.6 million dollars.

We add 3.3 to that plus one.

We're at 4.3 plus that 2.6.

We've applied for about $4 million of grants.

Okay.

So we continue to apply for grants, we would do private fundraising.

Um, and we would fight for our SDCs.

Yeah, I was gonna say I do think we have to keep that.

SDC isn't that yeah.

I mean, we we we got 1.75 million metro grant that was just awarded the last month, but we've got I don't think we've told you that we got the 1.75 metro capital.

I mean, Adam kind of tinted at that, but yeah.

And then we have the uh we've applied for the LTGP grant.

And we're applying for the federal grant in in the fall.

The we see after land of water conservation fund grant.

So but that 13.6, that number there represents uh the cost of if if we don't get the contracts assigned, and we have to redesign uh the con the project, uh, and we don't get the trolley trade assigned.

So that's like worst case, the worst case number of what we think we would have to come up with.

Uh and then the gap is dependent upon those other grant resources for gonna get in the bucket, right?

So I have a question for what that's the business development.

Which project do you think juices this is development for the Milwaukee Bay Park or the Main Street enhancements?

Um, I'd like you to rephrase the question.

Um it is it's very hard to compare these two projects in the scope of what fuels economic development because the main street enhancements are really a response to different, and so it's the main street enhancements are a necessity, so that when people are coming here, they are not tripping and you know, falling and hurting themselves.

But they're already here.

Right, but that would that would assume that they're already here.

Um we I would I would counter that by saying they're trickling in.

There's they're more and more and more people coming and visiting our economic hubs, including downtown.

Um I think that there's a certain amount that of that that will just grow regardless of what we do.

Um I think it's really difficult.

Because Milwaukee Bay Park, if developed, of course, is like a huge boom to our economic that supports the businesses, it supports our city as a destination.

It supports um a huge amount of very accessible green space, even more accessible than has been.

So the the problem is that we would still be dealing with aging and failing infrastructure.

So when you ask me what spurs economic development, Milwaukee Bay Park, because infrastructure maintenance doesn't spur economic development unless you're watching about the aesthetics of you know the street tree wells all matching or street trees staying relatively above grade.

We're pulling box new new ventures.

Yeah, all of that things that they contribute to a sense of place.

And that that definitely in um it in improves people's experience when they're here, but the infrastructure itself, I don't think brings people in as much as a HML has that enough, right?

Yeah, but they might be got the HP.

But I do think on the on the founder to NASDAQ and lose businesses if the infrastructures are providing the services that they do.

Right.

Right.

Yeah, yeah, I'll give an example.

Our our business, I'm not personally responsible for the grade of the entrance to our main shop, but it's not ADA accessible.

And we hear complaints about it all the time.

The property owner is probably not going to fix that in the immediate future.

Um maybe not in alignment with the time frame of main street enhancements.

I don't know.

But if we continue to get complaints about that accessibility issue and it starts to impact our business, we might look for a different location.

It's just, I mean, there are like the aging infrastructure in terms of loadings and their lack of of being retrofit to meet the needs of today's communities.

That's that should be a concern, but um that should be highlighted.

We might be losing businesses because of that.

Sure.

But that's not the city's project so much as what the private local groups are doing.

The what I'm hearing.

I will say I'm leaning towards the prioritizing Milwaukee Bay.

My harper like challenge here is I worry that we're signing up for something that we can't afford.

Like it's like choosing between to me, Milwaukee Bay is clearly the better option, but we have six million dollars and more or less in URA that we'd be able to give to that one million in general fund.

Who knows what happens to our general fund going forward?

Um we are finding an additional five million.

Like I didn't quite, I'll be honest, I didn't quite pick up to find all the grants you laid out on an additional seven million dollars in grants to protect us there.

Like I just I'm not sure what the six million in it we don't have that much.

The six million is take our existing contribution, take all the money from Main Street and Kellogg and totals to about six million, it's five by five.

But then you have about one million dollars in general fund that we've given to it, which who knows what happens to most metro local share.

So it's it'll go it would be safe.

It's metro local share anyway.

Um what's yeah, so then is it grants, then what do we know what the gap is still the fundraising gap?

Well, I I think you know if we're able to cover the you know, the force of the 4.34.5 million from NCPRC parity uh and we're getting the trolley trail peak, the trolley trail grant.

And we're utilizing the utilizing the if we're able to cover that with the UR dollars, we're and we get the grants that were in good shape, right?

If we don't get those other grants, then we have that that gap.

So basically, is is Milwaukee Bay Park does the development of the park hinge on any money from NCPRD?

Well, they're trying to cost it together, yeah.

Yeah, it's if we prior because it still feels like there's a huge gap.

Like I would want to prioritize Milwaukee Bay Park, but there's a lot of unknowns still that we don't know about.

We don't know how much the operational maintenance is going to be yearly.

It's not just a one-shot $13 million payment that we're done.

There's a lot of other factors, as you can see listed there that we really have to consider.

Um we're looking at sorry, I'm calling up Adam's spreadsheets.

I don't feel comfortable making that decision without knowing a little bit more about finances, but they can basically I think Peter said it was hundreds of 100,000 a year, right?

Oh, then totality.

So and Peter, I want to look at the right spreadsheet from Adam and B.

Plan B.

Um, so the city's contribution would be 7.6 million dollars, which is a combination of metro local share, city general fund, 250k, which we already have in the budget.

Um the 1.65 of urban renewal already in the budget, and then additional 4.9 that he right now has finance bond or raise.

I think we can cover most of that through reassignment, the UR, the URA reassignment.

We this is assuming we get the 658 trolley trail from MCPRD.

Um, and then we have applied or will be applying for 4.62 million of grants, and we right now have we can estimate 93,000 in combined donations, so that funds the project.

So we have to claw back for the CD.

No, no, because we may be reassigning that from other URAs.

I should say thus.

I mean we we would have the assurance that we have the URA money, and so that would be our budget to start, but we could still parallel track be working on getting our SDCs back, whatever happens in the NCPRD dialogue in the next year.

Um yeah, we're not gonna give up those SCCs without a fine.

No, I know that's what I'm saying.

There's still a lot up in the air.

But then we can reallocate if they come in, we reallocate that the four things you were describing is not connected to NCPRD.

It is money that could be supplanted by NCPRD, but it's not connected, so we don't have to worry about that.

Yeah, that's what we would have thought of the IG8%.

Right.

And you're saying that the city, when you say city is still significant park costs, that's just building part.

Yeah, building and maintaining it.

Yeah.

What how surveillance questions left unanswered?

So that's the thing.

I don't I think just looking at it, like obviously we want to prioritize Milwaukee Bay price, so I don't think it's that simple of an answer, just saying yeah, go ahead and do it because there's so many other variables.

None of this is simple.

Well, I mean, if you look at Google's name is the main street because it's already first of all, it's been sitting for five years, or it was actually part of the five years, right?

So we already have the that's already kind of in, and it's more than it's more about it's accessibility too.

But with the Milwaukee Bay Park, there's still a lot more questions left out answered.

Even if we started, when do you think shovels would be in the if we did like based on what we have built, but don't look at if we get SDCs, if we get no, I think if we if you gave us their clear direction tonight, it's building Milwaukee Bay Park as fast as possible.

I think we could get it done in calendar year 28 FY29.

We're we're probably getting it um in 213.

With what we have now, we can build it by 2020.

Yeah, we don't need any money from NCPRD or anything else.

This is what I'm saying.

For the trolley trail, that's what I'm saying.

Like with what we have in our hand right now.

When I go buy something, I'll buy it based on what I get between.

I buy it with what I have in my hand now.

So in our table right now on debt, we can build this part.

Well, no, because there's some grants and I think and that's where there's this little gap.

There's about 2.7 million dollars grants that we don't have confirmation that we that that they've been award that we would have to make up with other reallocation, some additional reallocation.

But these are the same grants than N C PRD.

Yeah, we're saying a lot of numbers out loud.

I thought I heard 4.6 million dollars in the grants, but now I'm hearing they have two million already and then an additional 2.7 out state.

Exactly.

So it's it's it's 4.6 if we get the state, then federal, and then we already don't get the federal so we've applied for the state, we'll be applying for the federal.

They were already awarded.

The metro local share is not the double company as general funding grant.

It's two separate.

No, two separate.

And this is Metro Nature neighborhoods.

I'm gonna bring up an issue that's not working.

And uh I think that we're with the community and said you know what we've been talking about all the time for the past few years as we walk into park.

We're just gonna set that aside, they're gonna replace some sewers on Main Street.

Yeah, that's not like that.

That's not going over well.

Yeah, that's we're right.

But reality is also money.

The numbers are just understanding you, right?

Because I just asked you the hundred thousand dollar maintenance, where's that gonna come from?

You said you don't.

I don't know.

Do you have some money?

Do not think that I mean it is your job, but I mean it is um right.

I think I think people would want to be what would want to know that you know if we gotta take debt out for some of the stuff.

I think that would change some things.

Yeah, so it's not as easy as saying what we've been saying that for over a decade.

And that's the reality check conversation I'm trying to have with you as your city manager is I don't think we I think we've been operating a little bit, and we thought we might get these agreements that would have changed the the landscape, but with where right now I feel comfortable advancing option A or option B.

Option C scares me.

Yeah, but I serve at your direction.

But you're comfortable with option B.

I am comfortable with option B.

Doesn't mean that that I don't think there's still questions I'm gonna be bringing towards you about how we fund parks on them and what that means in terms of governments of park district.

I think that's a pretty big question.

Well, we're gonna have that conversation then no matter what, we're gonna be able because because I it's kind of what I daylighted the last regular session too, Adam.

That this is the challenge of having a parks and green space school when we don't have our own parks department.

So it there's a lot of success stories here.

You guys have helped you in the community have helped secure seven nature and neighborhoods community choice projects.

My fear, that's great.

You guys, and you said last week, let's go accept all of those.

We want to do all these projects, and they're awesome.

All of those will come with an OM and operations of maintenance for our stack because I truly don't know if we have security, we'll continue maintaining those parts.

So we have to ask this question.

There's a little bit of a chance.

It's not just about Milwaukee Bay Parks.

So if that's a hundred, what's those other projects?

We're working on we're working on those that see the trajectory, yeah.

Right?

It's headed towards our own parts district, and that's a much larger and expensive conversation to have then because what do we do?

If we're gonna take on all these projects, where is that going to?

So we just and I know I'm I'm pushing you guys in uncomfortable ways, but tonight we're talking downtime CID.

We are going to talk on August 18th about parks ONF.

That's how I'm gonna call them, I'm gonna call it parks.

We're gonna talk about parks, operations, and maintenance.

I hear you, but I also feel we're here's why why I put this on the agenda is I feel a little bit like I'm talking about two sides of my mouth.

We're putting in grants for Milwaukee Bay Park because we have a meeting and drum, it's Milwaukee Bay Park, it's Milwaukee Bay Park.

It's it's stressful to have two million dollars in grants coming from Metro.

If actually we're going it, I need to check in because if you guys said no, it's no longer you know, unfortunately, things went lust in this IDA negotiation, so we've changed.

I need to know that sooner rather than later because it changes where I put staff resources and it changes where we put capital with funders.

So I know I'm I know I'm asking a lot of you, and I can't give you the full crystal ball, but I I'm coming honestly to say it can't all be a priority.

If we don't prioritize the main street projects, what fails first?

Well, I mean, I I think you we already have some things that are starting to fail, like our sidewalks, right?

You see those, and we've gone out there and done some maintenance on those.

Uh you know, we have some waterways, you know.

Well, we may have we may see we haven't had a lot of water main breaks down to them, but we may just start to simply stop them, and we'll have to do repairs.

Um those water names are there's some of the oldest farms that we have in the city.

Uh they're almost a hundred years old.

Uh so that that would be the place that I think of right now.

The pay there's some pavement failure that that occurs.

Are they generally in the street or under the sidewalks or the street?

The water.

But I I think those are the things that we would see.

We have some stormwater that is on our emergency and main lot.

Um, that'll have to be that that's part of this project is to move it into the street into the right-of-way, so you really do something on that property along with storm water along the whole stretch to be providing treatment or that it's not it's uh it's been nine parts, right?

It's a mean non-parts, right?

We're we're we're pieced together.

Um the tree infrastructure really that's part of the reason why this is also come to us is because we've said, no, not enough trees now.

Like, wait, there's we don't have the proper tree wells and trees in our downtown to support that infrastructure.

So maybe that I think that's well and if and if business association partners want to do things like light up downtown or like healthy instruction, right?

We've gotten lots of requests, yeah, and flower basket and things like that, right?

Right.

Put along that actually.

I mean, a lot of those things come with the infrastructure of like benches like rats.

I'm circle surviving.

There are two things I share you like.

Okay, how do we make this pencil out?

And I think it is comforting Emma that you say you feel like we could deliver on option B to prioritize Milwaukee Bay Park in this option we chose.

There are two things that I think of that helped me feel better about choosing that.

The first is um you mentioned like there's an upper trajectory.

I think if we choose B or frequently option A for that matter, we're doing compressor or dispel, then it's hard to do.

We're saying we're not gonna do something.

I think we mentioned that you toys us.

Eventually having our own parts station, which you know is a very expensive.

This I would not talk about.

This I think is true, and we're continuing to push more costs into our general fund deficit that we are going to base in the next budget, which is like it is nebulous money, but it's deeply concerning to me that we just keep piling into that hole.

The other number that I think makes me feel better about option B.

The mayor was kind of alluding to this.

What's the delta and time frame of delaying these two projects?

The delta between doing main street and 2029 construction versus 2020 2032 construction is three years versus the delta of doing Milwaukee Bay Park in 2029 versus sometime in the future is much longer and it makes me feel more comfortable.

The delay that we're seeing to me feels more manageable on option B an option, but I do still take a point.

This ON general fund poll.

Like what scares me about option B is not committing to Milwaukee Bay Park, it's the how big of a deficit are we gonna face next week?

And I and I should just point out that that O and M class, which scares me too, would have been the case if we signed on IDAs.

If MCP are not sending the IPAs.

So when you guys authorized me to find those, I mean we're already saying we we were prepared to absorb right.

We didn't have to absorb the entire cost.

Exactly.

That was the trade-off, right?

At least we're getting through moving in terms of construction costs, very so it actually beat it out.

This doesn't even have this is 13 million and right.

I I wouldn't say though, what we're we're we're still it's just where we allocated capital dollars, and it's not operational dollars.

So we're looking at dollars that we're building to capital that we want to spend.

So in this case, main street, is it main street versus reallocating those dollars to the lucky day quark?

I I I agree on that future trajectory that can be there or what would happen of what that looks like, yeah.

Like what are those as what are those long-term cost, but as I'm as you know, Emma mentioned the IGAs that we drafted.

We were we were basically agreed to take on that cost of the locking, and we had we were starting to do some of that program.

And I and I I don't know what I've put in like we have to have this parks conversation option I be yours.

It's gotta be it's coming, you know that's following the obviously.

I just wish they had more.

I've been knowing how much Milwaukee pays Milwaukee's gonna cost.

I don't know what everything else is gonna cost.

Sure, and the problem that I'm having is I'm trying to look five years ahead, right?

Because I don't want to put the city in the same position as CPRD is right now, or put future counseling in first position in there because we have so many other budget issues that we're looking at.

So my thing is this eventually we say, oh, sure, we have some funding to do some ONE.

Yeah, well, that funding eventually is gonna get more isn't gonna run out.

Yeah, at some point we're gonna be back here asking ourselves the question, how do we pay for it now?

There's gonna be two options, our own parks history or a tax increase.

Either way, you're gonna get a tax increase or a bond or some sort of increase.

That's what I'm that's where I'm seeing this going.

Is it's gonna keep going up until we get to that point.

So at some point, the cost is gonna get more.

We don't know that.

We're not we're not really used to that.

So then what so I that's the thing?

I don't want to make it like I hate to make a decision based on right now.

I'm pissed too about, but that doesn't mean I'm pissed enough to make a decision that's potentially going to put us in a financial line that's gonna bring us later on down.

Sure.

Because the goal is also to not make our city more expensive, right?

Is that part is that we will so that should be considered, and that's the thing, it's hard to make a decision.

I don't even have a ballpark of what that whole picture's gonna sure.

And I hate to pile off the doom and quote because I'd like to do that.

But I'm gonna out of how on if we are trying to solve 6.7 million dollar budget over the first year of the rank.

Add on to that a hundred million or a hundred thousand dollars, add on to that, whatever other ongoing general fund obligations we commit to.

It feels like the presumption is we have to go out for a property tax increase, which I do not like operating that we have to go to voters asking for them to raise taxes.

I want to find differences how high and it is yes, and I have no sense of this deficit that we have.

How I would have to ask voters to go like there is so much unknown there that makes me deeply uncomfortable and feels I agree with it so there's an option D, which is nothing.

But I think I need to know.

I I think the staff need to know.

I we we can't operate under the sex event, which move everything forward.

So you're getting a little bit of a wake-up call where we've all been sitting with.

I completely deeply respect and really appreciate as your administrator that you guys care about the budget and you care about balancing it and you care about all that.

It's it's a little chicken and egg, like it's hard for us to get a ton of financial clarity until we know your priorities, but I understand it's hard for you to name the priorities until we provide some financial clarity.

So we're trying to get you as much as we can when we can, but I do think it's helpful to I mean we have been very consistent on this Milwaukee Bay park.

So that is what we are trying to affirm.

And we we can't, it's it is you have like I'm giving you the I think A or B or C pred option B and do nothing are all justifiable defensible paths that I will back you up to the hills on, but I we need some direction.

Let me uh let me throw in some nodes or already money situation, and that you know I've heard you know about the parts computer, and so you know that's in the whole you know whole governance thing, which is I really don't want to go too far in that because I think it's you know black hole to talk about, but you know, I I think that when we talk about taking on all these at least because I would have uh responsibilities, still make in the district, you know, you know, our 54 cents you know, levy is going to the parts district, and so we don't have to we're gonna have a lot of control there, you know, it's going in there, and then they're saying, Well, we're not gonna maintain this.

So to me, in many respects, that's the worst possible situation to continue on, but that's kind of the road we're on right now, is that you know, we're taking on OM responsibilities without being able to tap that 54 cents, you know.

Uh, at least if you have a government's route at some point, at least you can tap into that.

Like without raising, like we could.

I'm not saying this for what are we maintaining right now?

What are we maintaining on our own right now?

What parks that we maintain our own?

Well, maintenance are we taking well we do storm water and stormwater in Milwaukee Bay, but we also do what little gets done, I guess, on our rock island, right?

Yeah, it may be more is done there.

I mean we take care of some more infrastructure, which is expensive, you know.

We don't get um we don't get utility fees from the walking park to maintain utility infrastructure out of it.

Or to use our sewer system from the aquatic center.

So I will say um, you know, uh six months ago, I was like, let's you know, we were in negotiations, let's get these ideas sign.

Um you know, the governance question and the future of the parks district, you know, will come.

I think the things have piled up over the last six months with the county starting to talk about a levy, the county's starting to talk about um all of that, and in the last two meetings for I think most of you watched them, but for those who didn't watch in the last the June 24th board meeting and the DAC meeting last week, a lot of people seem to want us to leave.

Um so um I do think that conversation about the future.

I mean, and frankly, the county commissioners could short trickle all of it by just deciding to go out for a new structure, right?

So reform the district.

They would make that would make us have to opt in or out.

That would make the litigation kind of irrelevant.

That would, you know, that would change the thing in a fairly short order.

Um they think of doing that.

I don't have no idea.

Um they focused on the levy because that was the easy thing, easiest thing to do, but then they decided, you know, the whole we told them a levy shouldn't go this year.

All of that to say, I mean, I hear what you're saying about lack of clarity and lack of you know what we're getting into, but that's true, either way.

That's true, you know, whether we prioritize Milwaukee Bay product or not.

And so the points that counselor mass made um about yeah, what what does the public say when we say put Milwaukee Park on street improvements on Main Street?

Yeah, just yeah, I I can't see saying that.

And I and again, I think we start the conversation.

I mean, you know, we start the conversation about how we get our SDCs.

We file a petition or whatever for dedication of SDCs to this regional asset within Milwaukee Park.

We figure out the process for trying to get those independent of the IGAs if the IGAs are thinking they're gonna take that which meantly well.

I I think the main I think the meeting was clarifying.

I think there may be a slightly different playing field, just yeah.

I think the DAF meeting on August 12th will be very interesting.

We strategically put our conversation about parks funding and governance on the 18th of August, so we can kind of see where that comes from.

We're doing some financial analysis um that keeps the prism of affordability and uh 54 cents, but um it uh to where what counselor masse was saying, it is hard for me right now to see the financial upside of the event.

And it just with the direction they seem to be going, and the capital improvements you all want to see.

Yes, a monk, but other parks.

I don't see a future that we aren't assuming we're O and M without the revenue, if we say that's strange.

Okay, I'm I'm gonna kind of looking at time and I'm gonna I I think uh yes, no project doesn't have it.

You all would think maybe it's clarifying maybe it's not uh I think the problem that we're trying to get with prioritization is with every project, all these projects are we're starting to uh put assigned dollars to the no matter how low or how much like we're putting portions of our budget towards those things, so one project is staying static for a while, and and also holding those dollars happen.

Well, maybe another project is a little bit more as animal wheels has more energy to actually get done.

So you have to start spreading on these dollars, and we have a bunch of projects that are kind of just on your spaces.

So I think what we're trying to do right now is that's not that's not how we've been working because we've been putting a little bit of resources towards almost everything, and it's kind of locking us up because we're not going, you know what?

There's five projects, let's move four into this one and actually get done.

So I think that's what we're trying to look at.

And then we're gonna get kind of bogged down with a lot of the numbers because again, these numbers are they're they're not gonna, and I just got comps for I just got comps for uh Harrison and May, and I'm off.

So sorry, I'm done.

It's gonna be between probably 800 to one point.

That would be the metal.

So you take that other off score we got exactly today.

There's another list of sales common roles, so I just mean sales comps come from Metro.

No, they did not.

No, this is this is our idea.

Um, anyway, so I I add that to the mix for when we're trying to prioritize and get some direction because these things do I think we're just delivered really stuff, but we want to get it done.

And we I think that was a really well.

So I mean, one way to think about the question that is the Joseph question, but if we're not just don't think about the money for a minute, like how would you prioritize it?

It's context.

I know, but I just I think that that that actually I will tell you this, it does not give me heartburn to put terrace in the main office.

It did not give me heartburn to do that, right?

Um, and I liked the points that Joseph made earlier that um Coho could still go because we prioritize it as housing.

If somebody came in and wanted to do housing, pick that up, and you know, so I like that.

Uh you know, I think that that's that's there's some comfort in that.

Um, but between the two apartment buildings going up now, the you know, complaints we're already hearing about parking and everything else.

I have no hard because of leaving Harrison and May to be discussed in three years.

Let's start there.

I would agree.

I think option B is passing activity built along the park.

I think we have the ability to add the two things that I will say again adds purple sense.

We cancel our contract with uh co-ho point that assumption, at least that I have that we were going to quickly look for into our activity, start that process again.

And we have not done that yet, and that at the very least doing what we can to engage partners to me.

Seems like at least that was my understanding of what we I wish at this point that you'd kept the offer frankly, but it seems like we're not able to do that, but I might be wrong.

The second thing is Council Professor Body's plan.

I'm deeply worried about our uh credit card bill that we're running up on our general buck starting, and I have no sense how we build that bolt.

It is a property tax increase.

I'm curious about when compression kicks in if we're near that, especially with all the other fundamentals that are in the ballot.

I'm curious about if the funds are able to cover this large account.

I'm curious if we add on other things like parts district, and that's able to that is beyond our scope.

Like there is just such a large bill that we do not have the capacity to pay, and I see I feel no confidence that we're going to be able to pay it, and that is uncertainty that is most career to me.

And we should talk about that when we talk about parts of that.

We should talk about it frankly more often.

So you want priority priorities B though you're scared of this.

I think to be to take Robert's uh Matthews, this is a hundred thousand dollars year over year that we are committed to in a worst-case scenario operations and maintenance.

I think that the concerns that I have about the credit card bill are far larger than just the hundred thousand dollars that we're going to be adding here, and that upsert half is frankly like all the other things that might be added to that bill, like a parts district, like all these other things.

I'm skipping.

You guys can come back to that.

If you can abstain, you can come back to I'm gonna change my vote from that.

I want to hear everybody's yeah, I I you know I share all of these concerns.

I hear I share your discernment, I really do.

Um but I think that we need to prioritize Milwaukee Bay Park.

We've invested uh a lot of effort in it for way too many years.

I think that there's um I think there's a way forward.

I don't I I think that's basically what we're and and and Emma and Joseph have laid out is it's doable, but it's also I think the worst case scenario, and I'm not so sure that that that will play out.

I think that there's still avenues for us to uh you know um some of the uh NCPRD SDCs regardless, and I'll also remind people that when they when the DAC voted, and supposedly you know, the the county board says we're here for the DAC.

Well, the DAC was tied with two abstentions, okay.

So it's not foregone with the conclusion that the DAC is not going to go back to the county board and say sign the IGAs.

That's not a fourth conclusion.

Okay, and so uh I think that you know we I think it would be really hard to explain to the rest of us this this decision.

I share share Rebecca's concerns about you know deteriorating infrastructure.

There's no great answer, but I think uh Milwaukee Bay Park is a better answer than the other answers, but that's all and I would add that you know, I mean, the most troubling thing to me about delaying the streetscape is the sort of ADA accessibility issue, but I do think we have to remember that Milwaukee Bay Park brings ADA improvements and equity.

I mean, there are equity elements to the Milwaukee Bay Park.

Do we have to sell my barrel?

You've got to sell me marijuana.

Well, say this generally saying it's a pre-cooling center for that's right.

But uh the cooling element of I mean, people say all the time that you know splash pads are equity tools and um or trees and you know, place where people can cool in the heat of summer, uh, all of that.

Um I know that's probably all 24 spouts.

I don't want us to lose sight of that.

Uh more of the valuation here, the noble spouse and splash beds, yeah.

Okay, um you want to wait, we're back in swashing.

Yeah, I'd like to hear from the business.

So sorry, Sam and George, everyone's everyone but eyes exciting.

I just came back to get my computer.

Oh, and library.

Okay.

So to pack you up, we've got debated, and then that's my choice.

Exactly.

No, you actually already have to consensus has already indicated support for option B, but we would like to hear from the whole.

Um I have I held up to someone to start.

Well, I can't represent, I mean, you're a business owner on mainstream.

I yeah, you do have that perspective.

So um okay, so the things that I always think they like you were talking about affordability, yeah.

Um is that we it's really hard, if not impossible, to maintain the current state of affordability in the city.

And you and I have had conversations about what has to happen to accommodate the growth that we don't have any control over, but how we like supplement some of that, how we put more incentives in place, we put more assistance in place, and how you know I think we have to we have to have the conversation about how Milwaukee grows.

Um and I don't I think that we can have that discussion and not be at odds with work building.

Uh so I was really I was hearing what you were saying earlier, and it really hit my heart, you know, because you have been really uh wrong advocate and unwavering advocate.

But we're in that spot.

We're like we're gonna have more growth.

It's going there are going to be unaffordable unit that pop up across our city.

There are market demands that are just gonna make that happen.

The so that like really uh sick finding of that is that you know, an increase in the disposable wealth income that would be in the city or the um like where the property tax that comes with those, that's gonna help us in our general fund to do a better job to protect residents that are struggling.

Um so I want you to hear that that is like I hear that, and there are a lot of conversations still about um so and I also hear a really big urgency from a lot of the folks that are on Main Street at Yacht around Milwaukee Bay Park, it's I mean it's like reaching a deafening level.

Um there are a lot of people who really want that to be built out.

Um it's an investment that is um visible, and the main street investments are not as visible.

Uh we're also really good at duct taping things, but that doesn't mean that we should always duct tape things.

So um I think that puts us all in this really uh impossible situation.

Um I think that I think that if I I don't think advancing both makes sense uh with our current capacity, and unless we have uh a release valve for some additional capacity, and if that means you know putting funding into additional staff or um consulting or you know something along those lines unless there's some magic way to do that.

And if that means you know putting funding into additional staff or consulting or something along those lines, unless there's some magic way to do that.

If I could just say one thing, I I think in terms of staff capacity, the way that we've planned the CIP, we have that capacity to do both of those processes or the full financial capacity.

We have to say that we have to go on and pay off.

And then we're saying we're not designing a lot of sewer, right?

That's right.

That's where that's why we don't have the fact that the same PA plan to have staff on both of these projects.

So we have FTE.

But what is the mental strain of taking on, you know, to align animal to each worried about I'm more worried about proximity of Milky Day Park and May Street.

If you make both of those at the same time, yeah.

I think the businesses would kill us.

And to be honest, like I don't, but that would be a strength.

Like, what are you doing?

You've got that tourum and this tour up.

Like where are people?

Where's the contractors speaking?

Where is that?

And if we think if if we hear that people have a problem with parking now, just wait until there are a bunch of contractor vehicles taking up parking spaces.

So sorry, which is right.

I was gonna say so.

We don't use a walkie-back party and um the damn be very empty thing.

Um okay, so and I also think that we've been caught in this like quagmire for way too long.

Um, where we've been struggling with these decisions and struggling with forces outside of our control, and it would be really nice and refreshing to just say, you know what?

Okay, we're gonna do this, yeah, and we're gonna move forward, and and we can all rally behind that, which I think we all just need to rally around something right now.

Um the things that I hear, and well, let me let me do this.

Um, other than on Main Street as a business owner, very long, it's like less than two years.

Um but I've talked to mainstream businesses for more than two years, and the margin on what makes a good month and what makes a month where you can think you're gonna have to close your doors, is so much thinner than anybody ever imagines.

Um, I mean, I think like I go back a lot and think about how frequently I went in to businesses that you know I had connected with, and I was like, oh yeah, I put this book, and then I need to go back for like two months or something.

That's not enough, and we can't we can't live on this amount of foot traffic, it's just not it's not feasible.

Um we have a lot of businesses that are coming online, and I think that they are starting now to realize some of the things that you don't even know when you're like starting business downtown, and you don't think about the hidden costs or the emergencies or things, you know, like you burn through your your reserve a lot faster than you could ever imagine.

Okay, so head to the chase, right?

I think that we should prioritize the lock of the park.

I think that that is it's uh it's a catalyst project.

I think it is something that unifies a lot of different groups, and I realize that uh it's gonna put additional strain on the timeline for the mainstream projects and make infrastructure there, but I also really hope that we're able to come through with some like very creative place making that can make it can make that look forward to the third code.

It'll also give some of the businesses that are on the south side or the north side of downtown an opportunity to get their stability because even with Milwaukee Fest, you know, the the road was closed at Jackson, and the north downtown businesses they didn't get anything.

They I mean it was not a Milwaukee fest for the North businesses unless you were drinking beer watching soccer at the food cards.

Um, but there are small businesses that need to we need to give them some time for their roots to take hold.

Okay, that was really long ago.

So it's not all like people are waiting for.

No, no, actually it's exactly what you know.

I'm I'm not against prioritizing the block anymore.

The only point I'm trying to make is that um it's more than just that decision, right?

Because as you said, things are gonna get more expensive, right?

Yeah.

And I think everybody understands that and I think that's part of the problem.

It's like what is the start helps that we don't have to add to, right?

So like well, they're charged with this.

We should I'm not saying that, but at the same time.

My thing is that the very little that we do control when it comes to what we make affordable is precious, right?

It's very, very precious, and it's limited.

So we should just bat an eye to it and say, well, it is as it goes, because this is our responsibility.

We have this responsibility to the residents whose money this is.

So that's the only thing that I want to that that I'm trying to highlight.

That it's not as easy as saying go in and prioritize the blockchain beat one.

Sure, everyone's gonna be happy.

I want it done too, but there's other conversations coming, and what I don't want to see is these wealthy people and these higher taxes then pushing out the people that can no longer.

That's what I worry about.

Because then who are we building for?

The people who have paid most of the lives into it, or the people who are just gonna come because they have the money to buy their way into our community and enjoy what everyone else is now pushed out to.

That's the thing.

And I want to deliver the walking paper, and I'm gonna I'm I'm gonna agree with all of you prioritize.

I just want us to keep these things at the forefront.

I'm gonna ask all of us to now push even harder on this affordability.

I don't really want to hear that.

Well, I don't know how much we can do or what can we help?

Because if we can build this thing for 13 million, we better save these people some damn money.

Thank you, counselor.

So let me recap.

I think we've got clear direction that we're moving with kind of option B.

So that's going to involve um delay the main street enhancement CIP project, reassigning the URA dollars that were dedicated to that.

I want to um get some head nods.

We will also reallocate the URA dollars that work for COA to Milwaukee party.

Knowing that we may there's a crystal ball, there's so many crystal balls out there, but there's a colour crystal ball, and if funds come forward for COA, we're gonna have to come back and talk um about the application within the day, right?

Did I go into that?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we will work on the mechanics behind the scenes of how we do a budget adjustment to to reallocate URA dollars to Milan Q Bay Park and continue to be full steam ahead on grants.

Um I also think if with your permission, even while we're in limbo land, I think we would like I'd like to start pushing a little bit on um asks to NCPR to be about the contract transfer and the jolly trail grant transfer.

Okay, um, second thing.

I heard big consensus, here's the domain we're not talking about for three years.

Well, I think we're not talking about it for now.

We're not talking about well, there's the other side of this one.

Metro Metro is still gonna have some opinions about what should be there.

Metro might not just sit on there for that's why I said what I did.

Okay, okay, but so we you are not asking staff to actively work on any visioning or planning work around Harrison and Maine.

We will see what our partners and ownership.

Well, and I'll I can also tell them that's we're not gonna move forward to any kind of submission for purchase of the one.

Yeah, um ho.

I appreciate I think I and Joseph telling your I don't think I have that clarity of direction that it was going to be an immediate turnaround on a new RMP, then we need to actually have a conversation around our goals and everything, but um two the very wise words council council said about ensuring affordability is important.

Um we have an action item in our affordability goal to really come back with you all and pin down our next steps on affordable housing within that goal.

I wonder if it as part of that we can also talk about the the Coho 2.0 plan.

I think it would be useful for us to know.

Yeah, I think we should have a conversation around COHO, how we move forward.

Um if it's could be just let's take those old goals and let's update them.

Uh we want to get affordable housing there.

Um, I would like to have a better understanding about the what the clover told them about how hard it was gonna be to build what they were trying to build, and is that pointing us towards something smaller?

Uh I would like to have a conversation, yeah, around sort of how an RFP would look different based on what we know from the LOR processing.

And the last could you share more meeting on that about smaller?

What how does that I think to summarize what you're saying, Mary?

Is that we learned a lot of things the last six years with Goho.

And I think the mayor's saying what we learned by size and RB because that RFP might be reducing the size of the ask like the whole units we can get there because maybe it's more realistic instead of two.

Is that because COVID was going further into the Go is very large?

Yeah, yeah.

And the weight, but basically it was going to station.

They had to prop it up.

Yeah, what it took to support the building.

And tiles you'll need more you build in the bigger you build, right?

Yeah, more uh deeper those have to be and things like that.

That's expensive.

So that's why those units had to, that's why they needed that sixth floor is to help pay for the offset of we can absolutely lessons learned and maybe changes to how we can, yeah.

Okay.

Um, and then the last piece, but it's it's arguably the most important because it's the surrounding context, it's that continued financial modeling about general fund sustainability.

We were very clear with our in our budget process that that's the work for this biennium is our strategy for making a general fund solvent that has only gotten more acute for a variety of reasons.

Um, not least of which is this parks um ONM conversation that we have scheduled for the 18th.

So you have my commitment that we're working on on that.

It is only July 14th, just early.

But we will be bringing we'll bring that forward um to you to budget committee and um provide as much modeling data and strategic thinking to help you make the best strategic decisions going forward.

But that I have to say this is so incredibly helpful that the clarity from tonight, your staff deeply thank you.

It will make so many things more uh just direct for us.

Absolutely final thoughts from my team CIP.

Yeah, just appreciate that the conversation and and the clarity.

So that's really helpful.

Final questions from council.

I thought it was a good conversation.

I also appreciate do we have um council reports on this agenda, or should I just hold them for next week?

You should hold them for something.

I don't have a council report.

There's something I really do want to say though, and I want to commit the public works department and Damien on their awards that they've received.

Um so Peter, why don't you just highlight give us the highlights again?

So uh I think I would put it out in our finding L bar uh been uh we've been participating in the strategic energy program with the energy trust uh since I've been here.

And we uh were awarded a silver award and a roads award, silver for the uh electrical, the electrical and the bronze for the natural gas.

And we were in the out of I think 95 uh participating organizations, we were in the top five in the electrical savings and performances being part of that, and uh I think in top five as well, the natural gas side.

So we we consistently see savings through uh through the things that we've been doing to include you know solar the solar work that we did over at JCB, but the controls work that we're doing here uh that we just finished up here at City Hall.

Uh we're able to better control the heating and cooling system and make sure that they're typing how they need to turn on and turn on need to turn off.

So uh it's it's a continuate, continuous ongoing process that uh that we participate in not just amien that's my uh we're sending that so we're intimately involved in the program.

So the job it's a whole long list of a lot of small things that uh yeah.

And does that report we get it emailed to us, but does it get put on the website?

No, we don't we don't put the bio linkable website, so it's more of just an internal document that we share, just talking about what we're doing in our at the component.

So well, something like that should probably be in the co-pilot or something.

do every job it's a whole long list of a lot of small things yeah and do is that report we get it emailed to us but does it get put on the website no we don't we don't put our bio like a board on our website so it's more of just an internal document that we share just talking about what we're doing there at the department so well something like that should probably be in the co-pilot or something reports some storytelling storytelling and support climate goals of the right so I'll push out thank you council sure anything else like that report I do have a couple council reports and I'll be quick um one is um and it uh kind of it relates to the parks questions is um you know uh NCPRD was asking has been asking for a government rate for utilities so there is a mayor's uh email listern for the Oregon mayors association people throw out questions so I threw out that question um who has uh does anybody does any city have government rate for other for their school district for fire district whatever and um I've got about a dozen or so answers and um a couple of a couple of cities have a reduced uh water rate for their schools or water in their fields because they have a agreement that those fields are open to the public when school's not using them otherwise universally no government utility so that was very interesting and informative to get that kind of reality check.

The regional transportation plan uh some folks from that's like the Metro region TSP they do it but they do it every five years thank god we don't have to do the TSP every five years um the they're starting off now from the 2028 update they came and met with Jennifer and I yesterday I have their little handouts if anybody's interested the council president also has them in the C4 packet for tomorrow because they're going to be the same uh same thing there.

The only real important thing about that process is 2027 um Jennifer's going to be already updating we've had a lot of projects in there the Harmony Road intersection the railroad bike path um she's gonna update what's already in there um 2027 is our window to put it in so we will have a conversation since 2027 cultural about whether there's anything that we want to add to the RTP which does have to relate to our updated TSP we can't just throw anything at our recipe player like that.

Well and and there was an interesting issue that came up about being on their financial constraint list it has to be on our financial I did not know I don't think that was the case last time so I made that change this time.

And that's going to be a bit of a conundrum when you talk about the Harmony Road intersection because it is not our constraint list.

So uh I'm gonna send you guys around two documents from uh the that the MMC well we sent you around one document the MMC said around because not for the other but uh SHS table has been kind of testy lately and uh there's a lot of dissatisfaction with uh the way Metro's running the process um not just from the the mayors but there was a lot of there was a sort of tense meeting last week um the mayors have asked or we're in the process of of setting the goals and the um KPIs the performance indicators the mayors have put in a request for a key performance indicator to address uh sheltered houselessness uh there's a some resistance to um I will share that letter you guys just so you know um it's gonna be an interesting few months ahead uh the mayor's also there was a letter uh in support of mayor wilson in trying to get his council to fund the uh the upgrades to the MOTA center I was the motor center was a thing that I was sort of not I was not uh sure where I felt what I felt about that with but I I in the end I actually felt the um so um anyway uh yeah so the mayor they weren't the motor center as a as an economic driver for the region the loss of those pretty solid consensus that the loss of the lasers would be a kid for the region but I said their resistance under the Portland City Council.

Oh, can you pass this down to Joseph?

Okay.

Um short story as they open this afternoon.

Um the morning of Milwaukee Day.

Um it there was there was the buzz of excitement on Main Street.

Kids were filling the street.

And as we were bustling around trying to happen.

We were I got a phone call.

Well, very sweet.

This is the four fun.

Oh I've always wanted us.

These little porn potties are for Emma and Joseph.

Thank you.

And Dan Harris, who I really hope is on vacation now.

It's such a huge list to put on an event like that, and it was so much fun for everyone.

And you it's really hard to do that and then immediately switch it to the tough conversations of Monday.

Um but everybody involved had to do that.

Um conversation that you didn't have to have on Monday was why the porta potties were on one side of the street and not the other side of the street.

And next year they will not be on the street.

They will not be because we pushed horde potties across Main Street with root strike.

Engrave determination.

It spells and the entire kids area biohazard.

We have ruined Milaki Best.

But if we don't, we have ruined the relationship with the very important business center.

And so we pushed, and as I was closing, I was physically standing between two of the portties, and then Rodby walked up.

We all made it.

And so they're add that to your decoration.

Oh they were still there this afternoon.

They were earlier around two o'clock today.

Oh, the restroom.

I don't know.

I'm gonna push them down to our place.

We can play the monopoly.

But what works monopoly.

That is such a hard thing to follow up with this.

Kind of a RT thing.

Um, here it's saying, but I heard a rumor about the city manager that the county's TSP includes zero projects on county roads in cities.

It's only not incorporated.

So I just so the um development agency has been doing all of the projects on city roads, but I hear that that funding is gonna dry up here soon.

Okay, just as a the city manager I was talking to, I think has a lot more concerned.

Well, I was gonna say we don't have as much, but like Oregon City has a ton of things.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think that's it.

But well, the other complaint I heard about your mayor of uh Sandy called out that the county TSP only has one percent of the name going to Boys or further east.

So um also not funding probably anything going on.

So in the same period, a lot of the stuff all the way.

No, I think I had uh sorry I read there are a lot of businesses that are closed along the 26th.

Oh, really?

I haven't been up there a while.

I just I'm just thinking that the snow affect that many businesses.

I mean, there are just a lot of empty places a lot of Welches rotor all that's really really bored out.

Yeah, it's horrible.

Horrible.

Mayor, are we adjourned?

Oh are we adjourned?

Oh, we are adjourned.