Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

We're going to, first off, make sure your phones are off so we don't get interrupted. Put them on mute. If we could please call the roll for the third installment of the Capital Improvement Committee.

Committee members, Rowland?

Here.

Capriolo? Here. Sumner?

Excused.

Senram?

Here.

Lamers?

Here.

Buchawicz?

Here.

McBride?

Here.

Mr. Chairman?

Here.

There are seven members present, two appearing virtually. We have a quorum.

All right. So today we're going to obviously make a recommendation to the administration on our capital priorities. I see supervisor, or supervisor, Comptroller Sumner is here. So she's no longer excused. She's here. Not on time, but you know. I'll get it. Okay. Okay. So we're going to obviously go through this agenda. We're going to obviously take care of the minutes. Then we're going to talk about the IJCC project and then hit up bonding and cash. So I want to first off, before we start, thank all the staff that has spent time Good job Sean. Thanks. Thanks staff for all the work they've done to put in this. This was a very, as you're going to see, this was a very complex year due to the fact that our cash levels went from 14.6 million to 7.7 million after the second meeting. So the amount of meetings behind the scenes that were taking place, there was a lot of them to try to figure this out. So please call number one. One.

Item one, approval of the minutes from the August 12, 2026 Capital Improvements Committee CIC meeting.

I'll call approval of men or make a motion. Make a motion.

All right. I read their coffee this morning. We're ready for this. Okay. Please call the roll.

On the motion by committee member Capriola, that item number one be approved. Committee members Rowland.

Aye.

Capriola. Aye. Sumner. Aye. Senram.

Aye.

Lammers.

Aye.

Okay.

Aye.

McBride. Aye. McBride? Mr. Chairman?

Aye.

Seven ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails.

Okay. We're going to call items two and three together.

Item two, an action report from the Department of Administrative Services requesting authorization for capital funding for the Investing in Justice Courthouse Complex Project, Project WC-0276, Scope up to 857,948,000. This file has also been referred to this committee, Capital Improvements Committee, the Committee on Community, Environment, and Economic Development for informational purposes only per section 59.60 sub 8, Wisconsin State Statutes, and is referred to the Committee on Finance. Item three. review and discussion of Capital Project WC-0276-IJCC and related 2027 funding requests in consideration of the anticipated September board action item. As submitted by the Department of Administrative Services and the Office of Strategy, Budget, and Performance, the Capital Improvements Committee may take action pursuant to Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee County Code of General Ordinances.

All right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ashley Adsit, Director of Project and Performance Management within the Office of Strategy, Budget, and Performance. We have our Investing in Justice Courthouse Complex Project here. Happy to share a presentation, but also just field questions from the committee as well.

Sure. You want to present? Sure. Okay.

All right.

I'm going to show- I think it's a brief presentation, if I'm correct, right? Say that again? It's a brief presentation, if I-

We can focus, and this is the file that we submitted for September's board cycle. So happy to share, focus in on the recommendation that will be in front of Seed Committee as well as Finance Committee this next month.

Is this similar to what was presented the last meeting too?

The first portion laying kind of the foundational background to it would be similar to content you've seen before. All right, thank you. All right. We'll focus on the recommended impacts of the program. I'll let you introduce yourself.

Certainly, Assistant Director Adson here, Jeremy Lucas, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the County Executive, David Crowley.

Okay. Do you have a motion?

We'll go through recommendations here. Okay, sounds good. So in front of the board this next month will be a recommendation to fund the full scope of the Investing in Justice Courthouse Complex Project. It includes multiple elements here from the new criminal courthouse building itself, as well as demolition, enabling phase investments, and some of the other supporting line items. of the project is estimated at $896 million. Because the county has already invested $38 million, what's being requested for capital funding is $857 million to cover all of the activities to move us forward from 2027 through 2033 where the project would be concluded. There are alternates as part of the recommendation that are not part of that base scope, not part of that $857 million. Those are listed here on this slide. That is something that could be under consideration by the board as priorities move forward. Additionally, there are five-year capital projects that are already in the five-year plan that could be in some way associated with the work that's already being done on the courthouse complex. We have some examples listed here. There are opportunities to... move some of these items or an investment of about $50 million into the IJCC scope to support some of the efficiencies that could be achieved by aligning those projects with the overall IJCC project. The examples listed here on this slide. Let's take some impacts, what we're looking at.

What you'll see here is that this report differs from the ones that you received earlier and that we have been able to make some forecasting on when those bondings would occur, kind of when those impacts would get hit. So what you see here is that the estimated, at this point, GMPs, that's the guaranteed maximum price packages that we would work with, are... Our builder on and so you'll see kind of the 1st one would it would be done April of 2027. that includes the pre construction, enabling work, et cetera. That is really mainly getting this building the historic courthouse ready. To move everyone in. following up the following year uh under like 225 million demolition site prep foundations really just starting to tear down the old safety building uh do some foundation work and prepare it for the full construction which would occur the year after which would be kind of the bulk of the project uh cost in around 508 million um And so that's how kind of the early forecasting of the funding lays out, of course, subject to movement in one direction or another as we get final construction plans. Here's just broken down the issuance of the bonds, like the authorization to issue bonds here, kind of breaking it down, principal and interest, over time. And ideally, as we're able to fund it through possible, like more support from state aids, grants, as we get construction documents done for different areas, these will decrease over time. But right now we're asking for authority to execute the project as is. And then here is a visual for everyone to see kind of like when those property tax impacts are likely to hit. So borrowing in 27, 28, then as we move through the consecutive GMPs, that obviously continues to grow to that average cost. of about 137 on a 250 000 valued home and then of course kind of as as the debt falls off and again i would just caveat that the comptroller's offices are bonding authority per se they decide how to arrange that what it looks like how long it goes so some of these will change but this is really just for information for the board to know exactly kind of what to expect from a scope and scale Again, so we were looking to really, the recommendation is that we continue to use cash financing over the life of the project, specifically during the construction to help ensure that the county capital program continues. Should there be points where we do not have appropriate cash and the items in the project are not bond eligible, that would certainly impact the county's capital program. Chair Taylor mentioned there was a dip in cash funding available this year. Certainly, if we do not continue to provide some cash for this project over time, you would expect to see that again in years down the road, really pinching those projects that need to get done with cash funding. So the recommendation is continue to fund it with the freed up funding that we currently have. And then after the bonds are hit, ideally, we can continue to offset the taxpayer impact by using that to pay off debt service and not hit property taxpayers. And then again, like this is just for clarity, you know, the scope includes status quo IGCC approach from file 26564. Again, it provides that consistent funding framework for the capital projects to continue year over year. This project would occur outside of the annual budgeting process other than the cash appropriations year over year during the construction timeframe and moving forward. So just as in a generational investment, looking to build a building for 100 more years and a building that is flexible and executes the justice system effectively and efficiently.

Any questions from committee members? Quick question. When you go back to slide 23, the $137, is that including us using the cash? If we didn't, it's not. No, correct.

So this amount would be reduced if the board decided to continue to use that cash.

The way it was intended for, from the state.

This is without the state. Correct.

That's what I'm asking the question here. So that doesn't include it. Correct. So that number would come down if we're supplementing it with cash. Correct. That's rebounded at all. All right, do we have a motion from anyone on the committee?

Chair Taylor, thank you. When it's appropriate or if it's appropriate now, I'd like to make a motion that the CIC committee recommends the project and then it would go forward to be considered by the joint finance and seed committee as well as the full board.

and that is your motion?

Yes, please.

All right. Do we have any discussion on that motion?

Yeah, I guess my question is, are we approving this then outside of the bond funding that we're looking at for this committee?

This is separate from that, correct?

So do we not, we don't need to remove it from the project list? We can just vote for, we can just say that we approve it?

We've already pretty much taken it out. I mean, in our previous meetings, we've talked about that being separate, and we would stick with the normal process of capital projects. So I don't think we have to necessarily do anything about taking it out, but Vince, if you want to.

Sure, thank you. Chair and Vince Masterson, Capital Budget Coordinator. Two things. So with the... The motion could be motion to recommend support of the IJCC project. And then when we get into item four, when you look at the amendments that we have in there, you'll go through and approve the various projects. So the IJCC cash and bond amount is in there. You just exclude that or not include that as part of the overall project request list or recommended project list in item four. Does that make sense? Okay.

If there hasn't been a second, I will second the motion. This is Mayor McBride.

Well, we don't need a second, but thank you for doing it anyway. Okay. So any other questions, any other discussion? So basically this committee would be saying to the administration and saying to everyone out there that we support this project. We're separating it from the actual capital improvement process. It can't fit, we can't do it at all. And we've had that presentation before to both finance and seed of the cost of not moving forward with normal capital projects. More emergencies come up, things get more expensive. And so I think what this committee has decided, which is what the board pretty much, I think decided as well, is just continue to fund capital projects within the allotted amount that we're giving. And then this is a separate vote altogether. All right, please call the roll.

And this will be for item three, obviously.

Item three, not for two, it's for item three.

On a motion by Committee Member Sinram that item three be approved. Committee Members Rollins?

Aye.

Capriolo? Aye. Sumner? Aye. Sinram?

Aye.

Lammers? Aye. Buchawicz? Aye. McBride? Aye. McBride?

Aye.

And Mr. Chairman? Aye. Eight ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails.

Thank you. All right, I'm number four.

Item 4, Capital Improvements Committee review of departmental requests for the 2027 through 2031 Capital Improvements Plan. The Capital Improvements Committee may take action pursuant to Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee County Code of General Ordinances.

Whenever you're ready. Chairman, supervisors, again, Vince Masterson. Capital Budget Coordinator, Office of Strategy and Budget Performance. There was a memo that we did include related to the change, Chairman, that you spoke about earlier from the cash goal to an adjusted amount. Do you have a brief PowerPoint we can kind of go through as an explanation? Yes.

Okay.

Just give me one moment. Great, so this will be a fairly brief run through of the memo. But the original purpose of the memo as provided was to explain any potential variances or differences between the CIC's original Cash basis, which is the 14.6 million and what may be the cash funded projects in the county executives budget that we're currently working on. So we have that natural overlap as we work through the execs budget over the summer and then the CIC review that occurs occurring now. So we have the 14.6 million again that CIC uses as its basis, the 20% cash goal. The CEX anticipated amount that we have right now is roughly about 7.7 million. And that would leave about a $6.9 million gap for non-IJCC projects. And then we'll just go over the basis and some of the background for this. So again, the 20% cash goal, again, the $14.6 million, that represents the 20% of the county-funded share of capital projects that's tried to reach. Now, it's important to know that. That it is a county policy, but that it is a goal and a target, not a specific cash requirement. And it's not also a guaranteed amount. Again, it's a goal. And it's really a planning tool that we use as essentially a best practice framework that we apply during the capital planning process. Now, some of the reasons why the CIC has historically used this cash goal is that it gives really a predictable, stable benchmark year over year. And we also have used this over the last several years as a CIC cash basis. And again, for this year, 2027, that amount, 14.6 applied to non-IJCC projects. Now, on the county executive's cash basis, it's done a little bit differently. Although the 20% cash goal is something that is tried to be attained during the exec's budget basis, the difference here is that the executive's budget is has limited tax levy flexibility because we have operating and capital budgets that are both competing for the same cash dollars. So you'll see for the 2026 adopted amount, we had about $23.5 million, 15.8 of that was for the IJCC project, and 7.7 was for all other projects. So assuming that the 15.8 stays with the IJCC, That 2026 space adopted amount becomes the 2027 amount, 7.7 for the county execs budget. Now, some of the challenges with increasing that levy amount is that, again, we have that direct competition between operating and cash capital. And that's mainly due to state levy limits that we have restricted to basically net new growth or net new construction growth. So that really limits what we can move from the operating over to the cash side because the cost to continue year over year essentially eats up any of those limited increases that we do have. So the end result again is that we do have that, we had the original goal of 14.6 for the 20% cash goal. The CIC, the county exec's budget is 7.7 and leaving with the $6.9 million gap. um we did revise the cic cash amount as part of this third report to reflect the 7.7 million dollars so community members you'll see that in the report that was provided and what we will go over today so hopefully that gives a background to folks so they can better understand the cash goal and then the reduction or rather the Revision down to the $7.7 million.

So just to recap a little bit, the last meeting, so two weeks ago, we sat here, we talked about what projects we were gonna remove, and then we knew we'd have a dollar amount available, and just like the previous year, Supervisor Rollin would then kind of take a look and do some, you know, a lot of work, frankly, appreciate that, and come up with some recommendations based on Rankings and talking to staff and really you'll see it pretty much. It's the entire county in these different projects. We also heard from. Transit that we received some. Money as well, so that so we could actually take out some additional dollars that were going to be covered by by federal grants. and that would free up some money in cash, which Mr. Caparolo would be able to use to add some more projects that we heard from. We heard from the clerk of courts, sorry, the county clerk, the election commission, we've heard from the sheriff's department, CRC, so we were gonna tackle some of these other projects because we had some additional freed up space. And then we left and then in between that, we found out that we went from 14.6. 27.7Million and that changed. A lot of things what we were wanting to present and hopefully what this committee could do. And and staff had to work overtime. I think we had I had a Friday morning meeting. Then you worked over the weekend. There was late emails Friday night. There was a Monday morning meeting. We're trying to figure out this agenda yesterday, even at 830 in the morning. So, like I said at the beginning, this staff worked very hard to get us to this point where I think we have some really good recommendations. I mean, there's still so much that needs to be done. But this is at least, I think a positive start. So, would your recommendation be that we 1st, if we have questions. Okay.

Prior to receiving the allotment for highway patrol from the state government, what did we normally have for a cash amount for cash finance projects?

Chairman, supervisors, it would still be the 14.6 where you would just layer on the 15.8 plus the 14.6. So I think at this point, we're looking at reserving that 15.8 in cash kind of held separately for the IJCC. And that 14.6 then represents the calculated goal to reach the 20%. So if you added the 15.8 on top of that, you'd be at roughly 20-some percent then, or you're doubling that.

OK, I guess I'm just slightly confused about exactly how this number was arrived at. Because the state highway patrol money was going to be an additional amount of money that we received. So shouldn't that be on top of that? How is that affecting the cash amount that we have to spend on capital projects?

Chairman and Supervisors, it's not. We're basically looking at non-IGCC projects here. That's why we kind of split off the 15.8 from the 14.6. So here's kind of a... Maybe I'm just not understanding how you get to the 7.7 then.

Right, because pretend the 15.8, the express money, that doesn't even exist. That was never intended to be used in any other way but for the IJCC, period.

Right, I understand that.

So then I think your question is, how do we lose 6.9 million? Correct. All right, that's the question that she's asking that needs to be clearly laid out so people understand.

Sure. Chairman supervisors. So the adopted amount was, uh, for cash capital last year was 23.5 15.8 of that was for the IJCC 7.7 is for non IJCC. That's $7.7 million is essentially what the county executive has to work for as his base available cash in the 2027 budget. So when you take 14.6, which was the calculated amount of the cash, the 20% cash goal for 2027, less the 7.7, you get the $6.9 million gap. One other way to look at it is.

And so what's the 7.7?

I think the speaker is muted. No.

No.

No. So I'm going to do kind of a quick calculation here just to illustrate it. All right. So our cash cap. You can't hear?

Hold on one second.

Testing, testing, can anyone hear me?

WE'RE CHECKING THAT. SOUNDS LIKE SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I SEE JUSTIN BLINSKY'S HAND IS RAISED, BUT WE'LL GET TO YOU ONCE WE GET THIS QUESTION ANSWERED. I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN HEAR US.

THE PROBLEM WAS WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

DAN WAS? OKAY. SO YOU CAN HEAR US NOW, RIGHT? Yes. So you guys missed? What did you guys miss?

They said everything after the controllers question was muted.

OK, well, we're going to. Yeah, alright, so we're going to guess the answer too.

OK, so I think I blow this up here. So the total available county funding for 2027 is, and it was presented at the first meeting, is the $73.1 million. That's cash and bond. So there's our bond amount, the point about 80%. Our 20% cash goal is right here, the 14.6 to get us there. So that's how that is calculated. Our total amount is a 73. It's essentially, you take 80% of that, of the bond amount, and then the remainder percent is the 4.6. It gets to the 73.14. It's how we develop the 20% cash. Is that correct?

No, I think ultimately what the answer is is that we don't have a full $14 million to put towards the cash financing. And the money that we're getting from the state is what it is, but all that we're left with is this amount of money. And so there's no, I think what my question is is probably just irrelevant. This is what it is.

Chairman, committee members.

to get to it. So then what would next year be? Would next year be 7.7 or next year be 14.6?

You're looking at two things. So let me back up. The 20% goal is the cash policy. We try to get to the 20% cash goal each year, right? So it's a goal. It's not set, determined dollars that the board has earmarked or the county exec has earmarked that we are going to do this, right? we are operating within statutory, or within state statutory constraints for our tax levy limit. So we are limited in terms of how much we can raise our levy. That levy is competing with operating services and cash capital. So we can only increase it so much. So although we want to reach that 20% cash goal, we're limited to essentially Our starting point is at $7.7 million. Let me back up here. That's $7.7 million that was adopted in 2026. Now, the county executive and the county board can choose to say, We really want to attain that 14.6. But we're going to reduce some services over on the operating side for that 6.9 million gap and move that on over into cash capital to try and meet that goal. So the exec can do that, and the board can do that in October and November.

We could recommend that too.

Correct. Right. And that's essentially the CIC has been doing that the last several years and kind of in a positive way because it lists out kind of the priority of projects. You know, if you have additional money, let's say in this case, If the exec says, you know what, I think we can get maybe $9 or $10 million instead of the $7.7, we can refer to that list during the exec phase, as can the board, and say, oh, okay, these are the next ones above that $7.7 million that were highly recommended. Let's look at that. These might be good fits, and we can fund those because we found an extra $2 million or $3 million in cash.

And you'll see that in the recommendation that Sky will present, as far as the capital will present, it's like 700,000. There's a project that puts it 700,000 over that we're saying it's a priority. The executive can find $700,000 or cut elsewhere, or he just takes it out and then we can deliberate at the board level whether we add it or not. But essentially, it would come out operating. Anything that we go above and beyond the 7.7, there'd be additional cuts on the operating side.

Essentially, yeah, that's your main lever.

Will next year be any different than this? Is 7.7 going to be the new number moving forward?

I think, Chairman, Supervisor, it depends year to year. I think when we did the July report related to the IJCC and we were projecting out available cash funding for non-IJCC projects, Our current estimate was probably anywhere between $7.5 to $9.5 million over the next few years or the next several years. It's hard to determine what will change in the future, but I will say that based on current state statute and where we're ending up with operating and cost to continue, we're probably going to be around that range.

Any other questions? I see Supervisor Belinsky.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess one option that we haven't considered here is, I mean, we could theoretically take that state money and,

Well, anything's possible, but I think the reality still is, whether you like it or not, that that's not the intent of it. And you and I have argued this over and over many times. It's just we're never going to agree. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. But yes, you could. Okay.

That's all I have.

Mr. Chair, I just also wanted to point out that the value of that $14 million goal is that that's a prudent goal because it prevents additional borrowing. And so we are also achieving that goal by dedicating the $15.8 million to the IJCC project. So I just wanted to make sure we don't lose sight of that positive that the committee has done in terms of meeting that cash goal in another way.

All right, are there any questions from all committee members? Anybody in the audience have a question? All right, seeing none, we should then hit probably airport, is that would be the plan? That'd be great. All right, so let's take up the airport bond first.

Everybody can see that OK, hopefully.

So there's three projects. Three projects.

I'm sorry that yep, these are the bond. Yep, three three bond projects here for 21.7.

I'm just thinking about this now. The airport never showed up for this. The airport never, no one from the airport was here. Did we spend more than, this is the most time we're going to be spending on the airport is right now. And no one spoke on it.

Interesting.

Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, the recommended projects were on the list and there was nothing outside of the list that wasn't recommended. I believe there was someone available online in the last meeting.

Oh, was there? Yeah.

There was no, typically what departments, departments can present on whatever they want, but the main purpose of presenting would be if you're from a department who has a project that's below the line, you want to come make the case for that project, and the airport didn't have any.

It's all paid for. We have a motion on the airport bond.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll roll.

On a motion by committee member Lammers that the airport bonds be approved. Rollin? Aye. Capriolo? Aye. Sumner? Aye. Senram? Aye. Lammers? Aye. Buchiewicz? Aye. McBride? Aye. Mr. Chairman?

Aye.

Eight ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails.

All right, we'll take airport cash. Any questions? Do we have a motion?

I'll move adoption. Okay, thank you.

Please call the roll.

On the motion by committee member Sumner, that airport cash be approved. Committee members, Ryland. Aye. Capriolo. Aye. Sumner.

Aye.

Sinram. Aye. Lammers. Aye. Buchawitz. Aye. McBride.

Aye.

Mr. Chairman. Aye. Eight ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails.

Okay, we're gonna take up now, now that the fun begins, we're gonna take up the bonding on non-airport, and that will be Supervisor Rollins.

All right, well, if you don't have this amendment in front of you, I believe it is posted in Legistar as a link for anybody to take a look at. Number one, thank you to the chairman for collaborating so well. I think how we got to this amendment, we kind of set aside a sense of what are our values, what are the guardrails, right? Number one, any kind of amendment needs to be fiscally responsible. It has to address what we've heard in these CIC meetings. It has to solve advisor challenges that have been brought to us inside and outside of these meetings. We have to follow the rankings that have been established that the board has approved and the county executive has adopted to stick with that scoring system as much as we can. Make life better across the county. you know, put the thumb on the scale for any one particular area. Just be fair and thoughtful and strategic and don't add too many projects that have continuing costs, like huge continuing costs in additional year, in like later years. So, you know, future county boards would feel like they can't possibly get to every significant cost later on. So those were the guardrails, and we got to working with the administration, working with departments that were part of, that had submitted bond-related projects, worked with members of the comptroller's office to identify both strategies and risks that are associated with different ideas that were posed. And we ultimately, or I ultimately arrived, on an amendment that would do a number of things. One, we heard from MCTS that their number one need was barriers for better bus safety. This amendment funds it. We have more than 20 playgrounds across the county that are due to be replaced. They're aging, they need to be replaced with something else. And in past years, we've maybe replaced two or three annually. This amendment would rebuild 12 across our county and resurfaces even more. It fixes tennis and pickleball at Brown Deer, builds a new splash pad at Willoway for kids with disabilities to enjoy. It creates a lot of good. It fixes roads. It brings improvements to our senior centers and our zoo that we heard from in committee. It finally fixes some of our pothole parking lots at Cooper Park and at Scout Lake. In a big picture, I think what people often say to me is they wonder where their tax money goes because we're often fixing a lot of things that are like back of the house. problems like laptops and hvac systems and you know electrical equipment and all the stuff that they can't see this amendment would invest money where people live their lives in our parks in our buses uh in our senior centers that our families use every day and it also keeps us nine thousand dollars under the traditional bonding cap so i'll move approval or adoption of this amendment and happy to take any questions do we have questions for

Supervisor? Supervisor. Yeah, so we're on the bonding items. Okay, so there's quite a few on the bottom there that I'll say new, so they weren't considered in our current list of capital projects. I guess I just want to understand how those projects were chosen. I think it's also important to note that part of the charter of this committee is that we include a racial equity criteria component when we are evaluating projects, and I'm wondering, If that component was taken into consideration, in addition, any of the other scoring criteria that are used to rate projects, and if they were, then that's great, but if not, I guess I'd like an explanation as to how we're supposed to take these into consideration then. I will also note that of the projects here, I've calculated out about $32 million in out-year costs. So just an explanation on that. And then I would also like to hear from the departments and then also any supervisors that would be affected by some of the change in the remove, reduce areas as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Comptroller. So let me take those one by one. A number, I would say almost all of the new projects that are marked new are park playgrounds that were part of the two to five year like out list on the capital improvements list and reaching out to Deputy Director Tarantino and Executive Director Guy Smith reached out to them to say, what are the playgrounds that are next up on the list based on the scoring criteria that we have? What are the next 10 or 15 that would be on the list that didn't make the 2027 list but could have? Just didn't for whatever reason. So Deputy Director Tarantino put together that list and sent it around to me and a couple of other of us to say, this is the playgrounds that we would recommend and the order that we would recommend them. And with the money that was available, with some of the reductions that were available, we were able to fund all the ones on the list. I don't know if you'd like to speak to that in greater detail?

If I can just ask one other question too. It's unclear to me if all the full criteria was taken into consideration. So if Mr. Masterson could speak on that as well. The full criteria?

Chairman, committee members, so out-year projects don't typically go through the full scoring criteria that we have, the roughly 10 criteria that's reserved for year one projects. So any of the new projects, which again are out-years that were submitted as part of the 2027-2031 request from Parks, those did not go through that scoring process. The scoring that is available for out-year projects are the department priorities that are assigned to each project. That is the only scoring methodology that is applied to the out-year projects and again, those are assigned by departments as part of their submittals.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. Jim Tarantino, Deputy Director for Milwaukee County Parks. Just want to confirm and reiterate what Supervisor Rollin was saying, that high level of communication on how these projects were selected. These were from our next top ten of playgrounds that need replacement based on age and condition of those sites. They were pulled from our five-year capital improvement plan, anything with a TBD in the project number. But those costs, those expenses reflect accurately what the costs of a Class 2, Class 3, and a playground, sprayground, as the case may be. We had one of each of those in our 27 requests already, so the costs are accurate, whether it's Green, Noyes, Maitland, Cudahy, Grant Park Beach, or Hales Corners. or Little Menominee River Parkway. All of those are good stand-ins from existing playgrounds that were on the list, Jacobus, Sablaki, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that was in your question about how are these scoped or how are the budgets established. Playgrounds, they're not all exactly the same, but they are relatively similar.

Can you also speak? to the removal and the reduce on the Washington Park building and service yard and the Whitnall Golf Course irrigation?

Yeah, so again, high level of coordination and communication with us. We knew that that was coming. That was discussed at the last meeting too, that the Washington Park service yard, while our staff do need a better working environment in Washington Park, we understand that at $13 million roughly, that that is just a high dollar amount for a project of that kind. And this is now multiple years of asking for that and finding it a hard fit for where we're at with other competing priorities. So we knew that that was coming, and the communication was this was a parks project, so other parks projects would get funded by its replacement. We will have to take a hard look at that project. We've spent several years designing service yards, and there's a sunk cost in that. So we know what service yard reconstruction should look like. But finding out that the end result, the construction phase is 13 million, and that has through conversation been deemed just too much. to pay for a project like that. I think we're gonna have to take a look at what we do to re-approach that project in the future. For Whitnall Golf Course Irrigation, the original request was for roughly 3.9 million for the first phase of a project that included replacing the irrigation system installing cart paths tees bunkers and greens and some other hardscape improvements at whitnall golf course the total cost of that project over three years is 9.1 million similar conversation that that's just too much to fit within the county's capital budget so we were asked to prioritize what's the most urgent need within that project And it is the irrigation system that, from our staff's perspective, they are digging hand holes and repairing piping. Our golf staff are on a daily basis. So that is the most urgent need. We understood that we need to re-scope that entire project with some redesign of the irrigation system. But that reduction of 900,000 would leave the balance of 3 million, and that, in our estimation, would be able to fund the replacement of that irrigation system, which, again, was the highest priority as part of that whole project. So the 900,000 is for design? That $900,000 is a reduction of the $3.9 million that the $3 million would remain. We need to redesign a portion of that project, but we do know that that would be enough, should be enough. You never know until you actually go out to bed and implement a project. It is changing the scope of that project to remove those other elements, the cart paths, the tees, bunkers, and greens, and other hardscape improvements, leave the irrigation, and combine two phases into one phase. So the $3 million would just be for irrigation.

Okay. So this further $5 million out your expenses... You're reevaluating that plus the $3 million?

We are, yeah. We had a design project that had these multiple phases with the out-year costs, that total $9.1 million. We are now reevaluating the whole project based on the feedback from this committee and others that irrigation needs to be prioritized. We can't afford to do all of this, cart paths in particular, which are several million. So I think the intent here is to fund the irrigation and eliminate those other future phases of the project.

Okay.

And then I guess I just, it sounds as though the new projects have not been evaluated for the racial equity scoring criteria. So I guess what I'd like to know is... I guess that we overlook that particular mandate for this committee.

I'm open to ideas. It's just with the amount of funding, again, trying to prioritize projects that don't have that out year cost. A lot of those kinds of projects are playgrounds, right? But there were only a handful of playground projects that were on the 2027 list for us to be able to evaluate. So that's why we went into the 28 list and 29 to look for possible playgrounds that we could get done. Again, they're all up for redoing. I think there certainly could be like a process to, you know, if there's a top 13 list or 15 list and it runs through that criteria, I'd certainly be, you know, up for doing that. I know we're not going to be able to do that today, right? Again, a lot of this works is we had like a week and a half to be able to pull this off. If there's a separate process between now and when the county executive reveals this budget that does include that criteria, that maybe move some of these in, move some of these out, I'm not tied to any of these. I don't care. To me, it was just more important that we get as many of these playgrounds done because of how many that we have languishing on the list. And because of how much good it can create in the lives of families and quality of life, so my preference would just be to get playgrounds done. But I don't have a particular interest in getting any particular one done if there's a different way to reorder rack and stack.

I mean, I guess, you know, part of it is that this is $5.5 million worth of projects. And, you know, if there's a $3 million gap with this project at Whitnall, I guess, you know, is that something that, you know, is that a swap that can be had? I mean, you know, I'm just, I don't know.

I had a question. Basically, we took the next playgrounds that were in line, and those are based on the age of playgrounds, correct? So it's not like we picked and chose which community gets them. We just went down the line based on your schedule.

That's correct, and our priority ranking includes a racial equity lens. We have our park equity index, which includes racial equity as a consideration, as well as age and condition of the site. And these were the next ones up on the list.

I just want to make sure you heard that. I did not. Their listing of the next parks that were included include a racial equity scoring. The parks does that.

We use our Park Equity Index age and condition to prioritize what's up next. And these were the ones that were up next. So it's a different racial equity consideration than how CIC scores projects, as I understand it. It was Park Equity Index versus zip code based equity data. But I just want you to know that we do use that as part of our own prioritization.

I think part of the flaw maybe in the process is when you have a project that's $13 million and it's been rejected more than once, it would have been nice to have more included in the 2027 that we could have drawn from. Instead of having to go to 2028. And I think what's where the Rollin did and working with parks was, I mean, playgrounds. I think we always wanted to do like 5. And I think last year we did. To 2, and then we moved, we did get we're able to. Do 1 in this year with money that we had from other projects. So, okay, so we're this year should we do 7 to get to a 2 year average of 5. I mean, and we know what the costs we had to in a short period of time. And the greatest thing is this is a recommendation to the administration so they can look at this and they can follow it or they can make changes. And then it's in the board's hand to undo what they've done or stick with what they've done. We're limited on time, but I think when you take a look at the projects that were moved forward, they followed a list in order that Parks Administration put together that hit certain criteria.

I understand. There is a process to the whole committee, though, right? And then projects do end up above the line or below the line. So I'm just trying to understand exactly how we arrived at this here situation in this proposed amendment.

Which is good evidence that we don't coordinate with everybody outside of these meetings, right? We only do this in the public meeting where we can really share all of this method to the madness in a public meeting. Yeah.

I do have another question. Yes. For Deputy Director Tarantino, there are a lot of parks and park projects on this to be approved for 2027. We don't have the manpower to get this all done though, correct?

We will find a way. Playground construction projects are managed by our landscape architect team at Parks. Everything else we do in collaboration with A&E, project managers. Capacity is definitely an issue and something that we need to think about. However, the needs are real and need to be addressed. So we'll find a way to prioritize it, but I appreciate the consideration about staff's capacity.

Are you talking, supervisor, are you talking about the new projects overall?

Just overall, all the ones that we're adding, it's a lot of work.

Well, they asked for them, I guess, number one. And number two, the ones that were added that were pulled ahead are basically playgrounds. I mean, and Cooper... parking lot has already been designed.

I just want to know if residents are coming to me and saying, hey, we see we're on this list, does that mean it's going to get done in 27? I want to be able to give them a realistic answer that it's going to be funded, but the actual work might not start until the end of 27 or the beginning of 28. I just wasn't sure how that worked.

No, that's fair. I think we can be in conversation about how to message that to residents, the timing and how long these projects tend to take.

You have to get another roll ribbon. Any other questions from the committee members?

Thank you. I guess I just want to say sort of for the record, I had the same questions that Comptroller Sumner had about the new projects. I feel pretty satisfied with the response. Washington Service Yard is basically deprioritized here. It did seem like a lot of parks, playgrounds on the list, but the one-time cost is an important factor, I think, there, and I think when the Exec and the board prepare their budgets. You know, if there's needs to be funding from somewhere, those projects could potentially be looked at. But right now I feel comfortable with that recommendation here. Um, and then just from a perspective, sharing a couple items, the replacements are now funded by the build grant. So we don't. require those funds through bonding anymore. And I appreciate the inclusion of the fleet central boiler replacement.

Just for the record, that wasn't... Somebody has their...

The boiler replacement wasn't spoken to at the last meeting, which was something we caught and raised to the administration that we're having boiler failures at the garage there. And if we continue to have issues, we might have to go without heat. So appreciate the inclusion of that project, as well as the concrete yard and the driver barriers, which were discussed at the last meeting. Thank you.

Anybody else from committee? Anybody audience? I do have one signed up, Mary Beth, on item four. I pointed at you, and then after Supervisor Loxton, then I got a Mary Beth. Is it check-in? Dory Court?

Thank you chair, thank you committee for letting me speak. I just would like to make a couple comments. I understand why they had to take the deduction in the amendment for the Whitnall Golf Course irrigation. The Whitnall Golf Course needs to be maintained I thank you for putting it in as number 26 in the capital improvements selections this year. It is a great revenue maker. It's a great decision to put money into something that we're gonna make money. So I thank you for that. I also want to thank Supervisor Allen for this amendment because a lot of our communities, municipalities around Milwaukee County all would like to see something, be it small, done for improvement in their community. And with the summers that we've had recently and the hot weather, I feel it's very important, especially I'm going to specify we're not opening the Hell's Corners pool, but we have on the docket to close the wading pool. So having this splash pad on here, the spray ground they call them now, I'm thanking you for that because these are things we have to look at. We have to weigh things out, and I appreciate you balancing everything out. I'm not sure if we are allowed to be, requests to be co-sponsors for amendments, but if we could, I would do that, because I do appreciate you including a lot of the different municipalities. Thank you for your work.

Do you know for co-sponsors, is that something that's only a committee? It's only a committee.

Thank you. Mary Beth.

Hi, my name is Mary Beth.

There you go.

Hi, everyone. My name is Mary Beth Check. I am from Franklin, Wisconsin. I've never been to a meeting like this, so thanks for this opportunity. I'm here to talk about the Milwaukee County Pools. I've been swimming in Sheridan, Pulaski, and Wilson Park Pools since 1981. On the positive note, the pools are maintained beautiful. They're lovely facilities. Don't close them. However, I'm here to make A complaint, a concern since I've been swimming so long, Pulaski Pool, which is your indoor pool, Wilson Park, which is a beautiful Olympic-sized pool in Sheraton, there have been no improvements since 1981. You've studied it, but you haven't done anything. I've compared that to the city of Waukesha booked their pool. They have a capital improvement for their city, which is smaller than Milwaukee County. They studied the pool in 2020. They enacted what they put while your board is talking, a brand new pool. They tore down their existing 1968 pool, which I think the county pools are older than that. and built a brand new state-of-the-art pool with a splash pad, with lounge chairs and umbrellas, with Olympic-sized lap swimming. I don't understand in 35 years how you can't put on your committee and get something done to at least upgrade the entryways painting, lockers, bathrooms for people who would love to swim for exercise. Your county executive on his political platform has to improve employee health and residents health. This is certainly one way to reach his goal and the community goal for jobs and for health.

Thank you very much. We've heard this before, and I guess I'll make my comments. We have a half a billion dollars in deferred maintenance easily in parks, the system alone, and you can't get to everything. We have a lifeguard issue problem, so that's why some pools are not open. If you sat here at this entire meeting, you've seen what we've gone through. I don't even know where that is on the five-year capital improvement list, but there are so many priorities more than pools that need to be taken care of. And when we heard about Whitnall Golf Course, the reality is when next year when irrigation's done and maybe even to the second year, depending on timing, you're going to be down to nine holes. So when Parks is already asked to come up with $800,000 in revenue, we're actually on top of that now going to close a portion, close half the golf course and lose a good amount of revenue. And that's one of our busiest golf course. So, you know, we have to take a look at all those things. The golf courses pay for a lot of what goes on. The beer gardens and the golf courses, those make money. Pools are million-dollar losers. When the season starts, a million bucks out the door or down the drain. So when we're literally looking at cutting year after year after year, as the rounds talk about, the pie keeps shrinking because the mandates stay the same and the expenses go up and the dollar amounts we're receiving decrease. It doesn't get any bigger. So that means less money for seniors, less money for parks, less money for roads. That's why we're in this situation. So pools, it's on a list, I'm sure, down the road. We've done a pool study. We've done a plan. And what is that? Demolishing, closing, putting up cheaper things like spray pads. At some point, pools will be no longer funded, period. Just like the parks. But we just put a lot of money into the parks.

Can I have a two minutes to say something?

Sure, you can fill out your card. You can fill it out afterwards. Yeah, give me two minutes. That's not a problem. Thank you.

Just fill out a card.

What? Then after that, then we'll go to Supervisor Vincent. But two minutes and then fill out a blue card.

Two minutes. My name is Anne Hessel from Franklin, Wisconsin. Plans in the county must be created to stay within a budget. You guys are trying to do that, I get it. We all have budgets at home, you have budgets in government. Unfortunately, some things have to be cut. Is it necessary to have all of the Milwaukee parks, all of the golf courses? We have a lot. I'm a golfer. I golf at Whitnall. I can golf all over Milwaukee County. Do we have to have all these playgrounds? We have at least three playgrounds in Franklin alone that I can count just like that. It doesn't include the school playgrounds. Unfortunately, some things have to be cut. Is it necessary to have all of our people, sorry, I did that. Can't cities and the county combine the resources to use the playgrounds, to use the pools, to cut the cost to bring our dollar deficits? The county is gonna be millions and millions of dollars in debt. We can't keep doing everything everywhere. We have to start to cut. Franklin doesn't have a pool, but Hale's Quarters does, but it's closed. Do we combine cities? resources, so instead of having 20 pools, we have 10. There are playgrounds that go unused. Has there been a study of what is actually used? By combining resources could cut cost by 50% and require people to travel a little further.

Microphone's not on, by the way, but that's okay. But turn it on now, though. We're not starting over.

Okay. Have you heard me, though? I heard it, no. Okay. In Franklin, we have at least three playgrounds. Why? There are schools with playgrounds. Why add more if there's such a deficit? I understand. I sympathize and empathize with your decisions that you have to make. However, we all have to be on a budget. My household, we're on a budget. You guys have to be on a budget. I don't want to be paying more taxes. We don't have to need to have a surplus of playgrounds and a surplus of pools. Let's consolidate. It means I've got to drive an extra few miles, and I drive a few extra miles. That's my point.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all this conversation today and listening in. I wanted to just comment, I do appreciate Supervisor Rollins' amendment. I do think that all of us, all 18 supervisors have residents that are asking for ways in which their tax dollars are being spent. And these parks in particular in local neighborhoods do fit the equity lens, in my opinion, because they are right at the heart of where people in our community live. So I just want to support that. I'm hoping we'll be able to move forward with these suggestions in the amendment. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ARE TASKED AS COUNTY SUPERVISORS TO HAVE INPUT ON THIS BUDGET BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE RESIDENTS RIGHT WITHIN OUR DISTRICTS. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE ROBUST CONVERSATION TODAY. THANKS.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. ALL RIGHT. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE HANDS RAISED. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, LET'S CALL THE ROLL ON THE BOND NON-AIRPORT. ON THE AMENDMENT. ON THE AMENDMENT.

On the motion by committee member Rollin to recommend CIC Amendment 1, bonding non-airport for approval. Committee members Rollin? Aye. Capriolo? Aye. Sumner?

No.

Sinram? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Lammers?

Aye.

Bukiewicz? Bukiewicz? Aye. McBride?

Aye.

Mr. Chairman?

Aye.

Six ayes, one no. The motion prevails, and now we have to do a second.

Oh yeah, and now we have a motion. Sure, I'll move to adopt it as amended.

On the motion by committee member Rollin, that bonding non-airport be approved as amended. Committee members Rollin? Aye. Capriolo? Aye. Sumner?

No.

Sinram?

Aye.

Lammers?

Aye.

McBride?

Aye.

Mr. Chairman? Aye. I think that you are okay with it. It's okay to try okay. 7 eyes one know the motion prevails.

Thank you.

We will go then to the cash. Non airport supervisor cap role.

All right, thank you, Mister chair and as a first year. member of this committee, I really appreciate my colleagues for including me in these discussions. And this has been a learning curve for me. Uh, and I hope that I will be able to take this and share it with, with other, uh, supervisors and any residents, but looking at the cash, we, the beginning of this meeting, we went through how we started the CIC started with 14.6 million cash projects. That's what we thought we had. Then after our last meeting, we were told, no, we need to go to 7.7, which left $6.9 million gap that we had to get rid of in our cash funding. So that's obviously a really tall order and a gut punch, to say the least, especially for projects that ended up getting removed. We were able to look at removing a couple of projects with McDOT. I believe that the lighting improvements and the MCTS fleet maintenance lighting upgrades, those were two things that were removed, hopefully to be taken over by the BUILD grant, I believe. Okay. We wanted to add in the following, the Whitnall Clubhouse HVAC replacement and kitchen bathroom improvements. We realized that Whitnall Golf Course is one of the gems of our park system and that making improvements to it is critical to create a wonderful environment for people to choose Whitnall to golf at rather than going somewhere else, and we know that it's a popular place. Last meeting, And this is, that was, you know, considering all that we're talking about today at 480,000, that's almost nominal adding that in. At our last CIC meeting, we heard from IMSD that they needed money for technology lifecycle replacements. So we wanted to put that in at 1.75 million. And then we heard from our county clerk about election equipment replacements. And we did not fund the full value. We were hoping that the department would go out to municipalities, and since then they have, and they've gotten commitments from municipalities to cover 30% of it. We put in a partial approval in the amendment of 1.445 million. That's just shy. I think it's about 260,000 shy of what our 70% commitment would be. But we feel like this is a really good commitment to say we're, you know, we want this to happen and we'll send it to the county executive like this and see if he can figure out that extra 260,000. thousand or we you know in october when we're talking budgets we look at it back then again some of the cash that projects that remained that i thought were really important was replacing the cameras in the jail that is something that they came to us with last year saying that the cameras were in the end of their life cycle i think they lost five of them last year so i thought that was really important to continue to have in there so that fits within our 7.7 million dollar cash allowance One thing that we do think is very important is the retrofitting of the suicide watch rooms, which was recommended in our October 2024 audit of the jail. And so we're keeping that in. It puts us $728,402 over that $7.7 million budget. But we want to send a message to the county executives team and to our colleagues that we do think that's an important thing. We're spending $896 million on a brand new building and much of that money does not even touch the jail. And I've been through the jail many times and I work with, through my work on jail eggs and just personal interest. I've been in the jail and I work with people that run the jail. And I think we need to show that we're equally committed to the people that are in our custody, to the people who work for us, that they are getting some improvements as well. So I would make a motion to adopt the amendment and open to questions. And if my colleagues would like to add to anything that I missed.

No, I think you did a great job summarizing it. Yes, very good.

Thank you. I know we talked about the election equipment. I know we got the memo from the clerk's office about their attempt to get matches from the different municipalities. Can you talk a little bit about the match that this amendment would allow for, percentage-wise? Or do you know?

I don't know. I know we were looking at originally doing 70%, but I think this gets us closer to 60%. But I don't, maybe Vince, you would have the numbers in front of you.

I don't have the updated calculation, but real quickly here.

I believe we're shy 261.

Mr Chairman, the memo from the clerk shows 30% contribution would bring in 740,000 with a county contribution needed. It's 1.7 million, so this comes to short by about the amount that Supervisor Caprio just mentioned.

I think you're asking the percentage. What's percentage? You know. I think even what we're even paying here is is too much. I mean, you know, You know, we're arm of the state and we have to handle these elections, but yet what percentage of them are actually municipal? You know, we do that with the stuff that's required by state and federal. And then once well, Clancy got crazy a referendum or 2, but we're not the ones that, you know, why should we put the whole bill? So it being, I had that conversation with George yesterday, but I appreciate the county clerk, you know, appearing here and in a few weeks ago, getting this commitment and at least helping. I mean, I don't think it's enough, but at least he got us some money, but I really do commend his effort and his team's effort to get us something.

I did look it up. It's two 81, seven 42 that we would still be shy.

Right.

So I guess just maybe as a follow-up for the clerk, just if we were able to approve this amount, what would be the next step? Would you go back to the municipalities? And then I guess the second question, I guess, is for the, well, why don't we go there and then we can come back.

Clerk? Yep. Go ahead.

Just wanted to make sure I was able to speak. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you. George Christensen, Milwaukee County Clerk. Yeah, I had some remarks prepared. I think Supervisor Capriola stole my thunder. But we were able to secure a commitment of 30 percent from every single municipality, including the City of Milwaukee, so we're very proud of that. We had been working on it for a number of months, and it really came through fruition after the last CIC meeting. I was able to utilize the Chairman's remarks and the committee's, you know, goal you know and it really sort of a mandate to say get out there and try to get that uh to really light the fire under some of these municipalities and get a more than just a verbal commitment you know and so i appreciate the committee's um efforts and working with me i i also appreciate the committee's um commitment you know to this to this point you know um You know, if we're a 281,000 short at this point, I'm not too concerned about that. We'll figure something out. The county here, we always do. And so I think from there, I'm happy to sort of follow up on Sean, on Supervisor Rod's question, if you could just repeat it to me if I haven't answered it.

Yeah, I guess just if you're comfortable with, I mean, I'm not going to say that you're comfortable. What am I even asking? How much heartburn would it give you if we were funding at this maybe 50% to 60% amount versus the 70% of amount? I guess the big picture I worry about, right, we've got 2028 coming up. And the eyes are gonna be upon us as they always are. And I just don't want to be the reason that like the nation has to go through some whole horrific thing because some election equipment didn't work. So especially if it's just like a little bit of money that we need to figure out. So as you're thinking about this, how challenging would it be for you to fill that gap? Or do you feel comfortable that there's a way and you would figure it out?

Well, I think, you know, Chairman and members, thank you for the question. My goal is to eventually come up with that 281 somehow, some way. And let's put it on the administration. Let's see what the administration can do. I think the committee here with its recommendations has carried a lot away. and carried a lot of water, and I appreciate that. We'll figure it out. I am comfortable with what the committee is recommending at this juncture, and, you know, we'll continue on with this effort and go from there. I think anything less would be not possible. You know, we had had the municipalities commit 30% back in 2015, 2016, whenever we purchased these original round of contracts OF TABULATORS, IF YOU WILL, AND VOTING MACHINES. BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW I'M VERY HAPPY WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE, AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

AFTER WE TAKE THIS NEXT VOTE ON THE GASH ITEMS, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MIGHT WANT TO Oops, thank you. Just to make sure we're covering our bases on the IGCC project, although we don't have it included in here as being funded on the bond and cash side, we may want to have someone make a recommendation again just to the fact that It's not included in the CIC funding process this year, but the CIC supports the project overall. Just to make sure that it's not, there's no issues in terms of was it funded in item 4 or was it not funded in item 4? Does that make sense?

So what we did in 2 and 3, that doesn't suffice? The amendment that we made basically, or the motion that was made to say we support the project.

I just want to make sure that it's covered on both items.

All right. All right, let's make a motion. We got a motion on the amendment. Let's take care of that.

On a motion by Committee Member Capriolo that the CASH non-airport CIC Amendment 1 be approved. Committee Members Rowland?

Aye.

Capriolo? Aye. Sumner?

Aye.

Sinram?

Aye.

Lammers?

Aye.

Lukiewicz? Aye. Aye. McBride?

Aye.

Mr. Chairman? Aye. Eight ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adopt as amended.

Okay. Do we do another motion after this? Or do you want something with language as well in this motion?

Perhaps. I would say let's probably...

Excluding the IJCC? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Do you need an amendment on that? Excluding it or including it? Excluding. Okay, excluding it. I can read it in too. All right.

Chair, if it's appropriate, I was just going to hopefully address the administration's concern and just highlight that, or make a motion to amend that while the IJCC project is not funded in this item, the CIC committee does recommend that the project move forward through the other identified processes.

Okay, so we'll take that as an amendment, and then you'll approve it as amended. Okay. So we take this amendment, no.

Take his now.

Take his amendment now. Okay. We'll call a rule on that and then we'll show them so the approval is amended with both amendments.

On a motion by Committee Member Sinram that the Capital Improvement Committee does recommend approval of the IJCC project and it is not included in this cash non-airport funding, Committee Members Rowland,

Aye.

Capriolo? Aye. Sumner?

Aye.

Sinram? Aye. Lammers?

Aye.

Buchiewicz?

Aye.

McBride?

Aye.

Mr. Chairman? Aye. Eight ayes, zero noes. The motion prevails.

Okay. So now I would like to make a motion to adopt as amended twice.

All right. That sounds good. All right. Please call the roll.

On the motion by committee member capriolo that the CIC cash 9 airport. Excluding the I J C C project be approved as amended. Committee members round I capriolo I summer I same round I lamers I okay with. I make right.

Right.

Mister chairman I 8 eyes 0 knows the motion prevails.

All right, now you need time to do anything?

Yeah, Chairman, Supervisors, give us just a few moments just to make sure we got everything right. Okay. Should be good.

Can we do e-comments in the meantime, or should we wait to make sure we're good to go? Yeah, let's take out the e-comments. As of right now, there aren't any, if any, come in. They'll be attached.

And I'll just read it into the record.

Yeah, go ahead.

E-commons submitted to the Capital Improvements Committee via the County Legislative Information Center. Click.

All right. Do we have a motion?

I'll move. Move. I'll move adoption. Do we need to do that?

Yeah, we don't need it. No action. Oh, okay. No action. All right, that's done. So we just have to wait a few minutes. Yep. Hey, it did. Well, you guys are in it. I took your copy and pasted your stuff.

Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this process. I just want to note that my amendment passed unanimously.

Are they back on? All right, we don't need it. We didn't take a recess. We just kind of timed out. Yeah, right. Director?

All right, committee members, thank you. We're good to go. We tied out with the amendments here. And let's see.

Do we need to read anything? Read in number four.

Item four, Capital Improvements Committee review of departmental request for the 2027 through 2031 Capital Improvements Plan. The Capital Improvements Committee may take action pursuant to Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee County Code of General Ordinances.

People tuned in. People tuned out and look at me, all these changes. We cut a bunch of stuff. All right, you're up.

Alright, chairman committee members. So we are tied out with the bond amendments. Here you have. The 9002 dollars just under the bond cap. And we have all of the. Added projects here. As we go down the list, this will. Pop this open here real quick. So the ones here were showing Amended items. The line obviously goes away here. And then this will be the final report that is sent out as amended. The bottom here are the out-year projects that were added. And on the cash side, same setup. We tie out to the just over $728,000 available cash amount. And the report will reflect the amended items that you see here. And then you can see the 1.75 for technology, 1.445 for the election equipment, and all the other items that were included as well.

All right, well, we're going to wrap up here. I want to thank the mayors for taking time these three meetings out of your busy schedules. You're running the municipality and some are also running for office, so I really appreciate the time you've given to assist. I want to thank the committee for YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN AUGUST RECESS, YOU KNOW, BUT YET WE'RE WORKING. AND REALLY THE EFFORTS THAT WERE PUT IN, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. ELLISON, THAT'S MY NUMBER ONE RIGHT THERE. SHE'S ON THIS, FINANCE. I MEAN, SHE'S ON SEEDS, SO SHE KNOWS HOW I OPERATE IN MY CRAZY WAYS. And I really want to thank Vince, Pam, Justin, for all the work you've done behind the scenes to make this happen. I know it's a lot, and I know we're throwing a curveball, but I think we should all be proud of what we've accomplished, what we're going to recommend to the county exec, and we will wait and see the results of our labor on October 1st. We are adjourned.