Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee - Regular Meeting

For Tuesday, 04/14/2026, I am Alderman Baumann, Chair of the Committee. We are joined under my far left by Alderman Spiker. To his right is Alderman DeAndre Jackson. We will be joined by Alderman Stamper and Alderman Cogg shortly. First item on the agenda item one, file 252,114 reappointment of Leshwanda Vernon to the Brownsville Advisory Committee by Alderman Cogs. This is reappointment. I see the candidate is here although she didn't have to be here because reappointments do not require personal appearance but please good morning.

Good morning.

I assume you want to stay on the committee?

Of course I want to stay

on the

committee. You

have anything to tell us or everything looks good.

Sure. Just happy to continue to serve, proud to be able to continue to support the development in Bronzeville and happy to answer any questions if there are any but.

Okay. Very good. Any questions or comments? Alderman Jackson moves confirmation hearing no objection so ordered. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on item two, file two five two one one five. Reappointment of Rehanio Boyne to the Bronzeville Advisory Committee by Alderman Cox. Again, appointment, no appearance is required since his reappointment. Alderman Spike moves the recommend confirmation. Hearing no objection to that. We're moving on to item three. File two five two one. Oh, we just we just confirmed you, sir.

Oh, okay.

Oh, You're good. Well, we'll recall it if you wanna come up here and say some kind words. Okay. Alderman Samford moves to reconsider Alderman Jackson moves to reconsider item two, Bell252115. Reappointment of Rehanio Boyne to the Brownsville Advisory Committee by Alderman Cogh. Good morning, mister Boyne.

Good morning. Good morning. How's everybody doing? Sorry for my tardiness.

Normally, appearance is not needed on a reappointment. Oh, okay. Okay. So this is just gravy for us today that you're here.

Well, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

So anything you'd like to add or any comments?

I'd just like to say thank you for the opportunity to serve and learn and grow more about the work that you all do. I think it is not appreciated when you all are on the other seat. So being able to be a part of this experience have been very altering for me and I appreciate it and I look forward to continue serving and look forward to learning from each and every one of you. There's been tremendous lessons learned over the past couple of years.

Okay. You sound very good. Thank you. Alderman Spiker moves hearing no objections to order. Thanks for coming down.

Alright. You have a go. Happy four zero four day. Yes, indeed.

Item three, file two five two one zero three, an ordinance relating to fees imposed for the posting of an order on a premise. Alright.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Mister chair, committee members. Thank you Mike Besmanian, deputy commissioner for neighborhood services. Thank all the women more for support of this legislation. The intent is to recover the cost associated with the fees or the time that staff spends issuing following up on emergency orders. So in response to life safety conditions at properties such as no heat, no electricity, sewer backups, plumbing defective, we issue an emergency order in response to to those conditions, give a landlord generally time to correct.

That order generally comes after tenants have exhausted options attempting to reach out to property managers or property owners to to get these conditions resolved and that's when we're we're brought in to issue these orders. Currently there's no method of cost recovery for the work that we do associated with these orders. So if we issue the order each one takes at least three inspections. So we go there, we do the initial investigation, we follow-up, we have to post the property, post the order at the property. We also have to send the order certified mail and then follow-up to verify that it's been abated.

So there's an extensive amount of work that's involved that comes with no penalty or action from the landlord. The order gets abated if they correct the conditions and there's an extensive amount of staff time that it takes to to do the work involved with these orders.

Any questions or comments on this item? Mister chair, I have a question. Alderman.

Are you maxed? Is there a max amount on the fee that you can oppose or it's you you took to you or the department to The determine the

fee should be a reflection of the cost it takes us to perform that action. So we aligned it with our placard posting fee. So that's been long established. Similar process for that just that's the next step if if those conditions aren't corrected. So, by aligning it with that, we think it's reasonable

and. Yeah.

Hoping to change behavior.

Yes, hopefully.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay, very good. Alden Smiker moves to recommend.

Oh, Mr. Sheridan. I just want to be added as a co sponsor.

Okay. Excellent. Alden Spiker moves to recommend passage and hearing no objection that's the order.

Thank you.

Don't go away because there is a one file on here. One of these sale backs. Some questions has been raised from neighbors. Item 16 to be precise. Questions have been raised by neighbors because this file contains a restoration agreement and the neighbors were wondering how that gets enforced after the property has been sold back to the original by the tax foreclosure.

Okay.

And And DNS has mentioned and I am just wondering how you enforce these and what is the consequence if there is non compliance I guess.

Okay. Either I or someone else from our team will be here to speak We on

will take it out of order. You don't have to wait till 10:30 to hear this. We'll take this one out of order as soon as we get past these TIF items, okay?

Okay. Thank you.

Item four, file 252,013, resolution approving amendment number five to the project for tax incremental district number 68 and authorizing additional expenditures and approving development agreement in the 4th And 12th Aldermanic District. Morning.

Good morning, mister chair, committee members. Members. Melissa Remington with the Department of City Development. As you just stated, this is the Fifth Amendment to TID 68. We are in the area generally bounded by the Milwaukee River, Seabooth Street, 1st Street and South Water Streets.

The The district was originally created back in 2006 for Riverwalk development and to improve pedestrian amenities in what was at the time a transitioning industrial area. The base value of the district was established at $33,000,000 and we have seen an incremental increase of $75,000,000 over the last twenty years. This TID has been amended four times previously to fund expansion of the RiverWalk system with several new systems in the area or segments in the area. And in addition, we have funded traffic signals and intersection safety improvements. Amendment five proposes to add $12,000,000 in new project costs, the majority of which would be used for public infrastructure projects located within one half mile of the district's boundaries.

More specifically, we are looking to add approximately $335,000 to fund the design and construction of two new Riverwalk segments. The first would be to fund up to $235,000 for a 29 linear foot Riverwalk section at 350 South Water Street. That's the photo at the bottom right. This project anticipates breaking ground later this year and it would build a five story office building on an incredibly complicated riverfront site. They have at this time, they have 41 linear feet of frontage, but it's encumbered by a railroad infrastructure, which you can kind of see at the bottom left of the photo and it will limit the length of the river walk to 29 feet.

It's our shortest stretch by far, but once it's constructed, will be a great amenity. This resolution also authorizes us to enter into our development agreement, which outlines our funding policy and will allow us to contribute our $235,000 to the construction of the Riverwalk. It also includes the easement agreement which will be recorded and in effect when a Riverwalk is constructed either to the north or to the south. This is going to be our first River Walk segment when constructed that will not have immediate public access but as you can see from this photo, the site is incredibly encumbered, right? We have the railroad property directly to the south and we have grain silos to the north with a very narrow walkway that's going be used for egress and not appropriate for public access.

So we are going to wait until we have access to the North just in the interest of public safety and what's best for the Riverwalk system as a whole. Then on the north side or the top picture, the north picture is the Bruce Street boat launch. Harbor District Inc. Is undergoing a planning process to create improvements to the boat launch including a river walk and make it more of a park like setting. So we are looking to add $100,000 to this amendment so that we can assist in completing that design process and then hopefully work towards a construction on what would be Bruce Street right of way and then also the county owned parcel that includes the boat launch itself.

So we have worked with the Department of Public Works and Alderman Perez, the local Alderman, to prioritize the number of needed infrastructure projects that could be supported by this amendment. Near the top of the list, we're looking to provide approximately $3,800,000 to complete four street reconstructions, including various stretches of South Barclay, East Menomonee, West Walker and West Bruce Street, which you can see here, a couple of them. You'll see a map of everything at the end too. In addition, high impact paving projects were prioritized as we need 11 roadways within the boundaries of the district and we'll fund that at $2,800,000 with this amendment. Various streets include West Pierce, East Everett, East Seabooth, South 3rd, West Virginia, East And West Oregon, West Florida, South 4th and East Pittsburgh.

Here we go. The city is committed to building a network of safe and enjoyable bikeways for people of all ages and abilities. I am sure you are all aware of our efforts to improve the bikeways throughout the city. This amendment will advance a plan with an additional $1,300,000 to add protected bike lanes, I'm sorry, not protected bike lanes, bike improvements to South 2nd Street, creating a safe and comfortable North South connection all the way from Michigan Street down to the KK River Trail connection. And then we also are looking to add an East West connection at Florida Street. I'm sorry. I just oh, I'm sorry. And Virginia Street. Apologies. There's a lot of streets here.

And provide the safe East West connection on Virginia Street, right. So and improve pedestrian crossings too at the intersections where necessary. So this overall map here indicates the exact location of the proposed improvements. The final infrastructure project that I'd like to point out specifically is the street lighting along South Florida And South Water Streets I'm sorry, East Florida And South Water Streets. It's a priority of President Perez to ensure that the TID funded public improvements reflect the character of the neighborhood and of the 12th District including the installation of the street lighting, which will make the neighborhood safer and more welcoming and visually vibrant.

So this corridor and in particular in front of the theater and then also the development like 350 South Water Street is where we're looking to add the new specialty lighting at a cost of $665,000 And then lastly, this amendment would make available approximately $1,000,000 to businesses located within the one half mile boundary of the district to utilize any of the commercial corridor team's existing programs as shown here. Such programs include the signage grant, facade grant, storefront activation and retail investment fund, are all in high demand. So breaking it down, we are looking at $12,000,000 really that's just over $9,000,000 for street improvements that includes the lighting and intersection improvements. We have $335,000 for Riverwalk segments, 1,000,000 for the commercial corridor program and then $1,000,000 for construction contingency, just given the volatility of our bidding world right now. And then we are looking to add $500,000 also for the administration of the TID.

When looking at the feasibility of it, the district's current value is $107,000,000 almost $108,000,000 with an incremental value of just over $75,000,000 We're generating slightly more than $2,000,000 in annual increment and the future anticipated expenditures of $12,000,000 we can still pay off this TID by 2030 or that's year '25 of the TID. So I am available for any questions. I also have Kevin Muse from the Department of Public Works for any questions on the number of infrastructure projects but appreciate your consideration.

Alderman Perez. You know,

thank you mister chair. I I did want to thank both Lori and Kevin and Alyssa for just getting out ahead of this with some anticipation and talking about what could what could be used with these funds to vision and to to put pencil to paper taking our time doing that. We really looked at the lighting in that area with Next Act Theater and how there's very little eyes over there and so we needed some lighting to help. They get a lot of traffic on weekends and they're just easy targets for a lot of the car break ins. Try to look at cameras and other infrastructure things but the lighting was the most accommodating and plus the foot traffic on Pittsburgh and Barclay and Pittsburgh and Southwater.

They've been in high demand from stakeholders and residents and businesses there. So I just wanted to thank them for their cooperation and their just to get ahead of it and walk through this. It's been a great team effort to do that. I did want to ask Mr. Muse, the city engineer, just to be clear about the provide some clarity on the bikeway improvements because I don't want anyone in the neighborhood to think because we're moving this money to do the improvements that we're set on what the design is. You guys have been very helpful with the neighborhood. We got a meeting coming up in April and we want to make sure that that this doesn't tie us to a specific design for 2nd Street.

Yes, had the same question. As this affects Plankington in my territory and I patronize 2nd Street a fair amount and I'm curious as well. So no design has been locked in?

No, no. Yes, Chair and Alderman Brez. Thank you. Thank you for asking me to the table. Kevin Muse, City Engineer, Department of Public Works. So to clarify both the bikeway projects, but I guess I'll focus on 2nd Street for this. We are in the midst of the public outreach and design process on South 2nd Street. We had one meeting last year where we got feedback from essentially everybody. As Alissa mentioned, that whole corridor runs from Michigan Street all the way down Maple. It's a very long stretch.

There is multiple funding sources that are being combined to kind of pull that off and there is going to be multiple stages to the project. We do as the Alderman just referenced, we do have our next public meeting on that. It's actually May 6 which is about to be announced along with the Walker's Point Association. But where we are in the process is we are going to share a preferred concept for feedback. That preferred concept is only actually going to address areas south of what is included in this TID.

So it's only going to address from Florida Street down to Maple. We have already received a fair amount of feedback from the neighborhood and we know we need to do more work North Of Florida. And so this amendment actually is going to help do what we would say a better job North Of Florida because it's adding more resources. Overall, would say what we've heard from the public is a desire for safety, a desire for making it easier to cross the street because it is such a vibrant business district in that area and then also a desire to preserve parking as much as possible. So we are the preferred concept.

I'm spilling the beans a little bit here with the preferred concept. South Of Florida will be a two way bikeway on one side of the street, which will allow us to save a substantial portion of the parking just due to the cross section of the current street because Parking it's within the existing

on one side of the street only?

Parking on both sides of the street.

Both sides. Okay.

Yeah. There are some changes that need to be made combined.

Because that street was was rebuilt. Yep. Not too long ago, right?

South Of Florida and North Of Oregon. Yes.

Right. So, was 1011.

Yeah. Yeah.

And it was narrowed if I recall.

Correct. North Of National. Yes.

It was two lanes. Right. It was it was two lane because there was a big fight about that. I remembered in council when the alderman of the 11th at the time thought 2nd Street was the evacuation route from downtown and we needed four lanes in each direction to get the traffic out in case of disaster, I guess.

Well, in all fairness, even some of the stakeholders on 2nd Street had some reservation but once

it was built and. Well, the cab guy was went ballistic over that.

Yeah, he's, I think, yeah, either way, after it was built, people appreciated it and. Yes. Very much so. All the heavy traffic went to 1st and people who wanted to slow down and bike went to second. Right.

There's one piece of significant infrastructure left out of the. What's the status of the Swing Bridge which could have been addressed given the geography of this TID? Where does that stand these days?

There's not enough tip for that.

I would Probably would

have been eventually.

Yeah, conversations are still ongoing.

We

are. Well, with multiple parties. We're we're actually still looking to confirm exactly who's responsible for it. I guess that's the most recent.

Well, the railroad is, I think. Well. They claim they're not?

There, no, no, no. There's some complications with that in terms of how long it's been abandoned and and that's the thing. The the railroad, the swing bridge is pretty complicated in terms of what's going on there. But we have we've reached out because we're interested in purchasing the land side property and creating like a trestle park point two, two point zero right across the river. But they're willing to divest that piece of property along with the bridge. So again, there are conversations are ongoing. I think that's what we have to say about what what could happen.

You're leading those conversations or DBW or who's who's doing that exactly?

Well, the port is actually having conversations with the coast guard to see who's responsible. They do some pretty minimal maintenance and cleanup every year if things are protruding or coming off. But Dave Miski and I have been the two representatives from DCD. We've had conversations with both the railroad and also Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers. And so we're still putting all the pieces together to see how this might be handled in the future.

Are we just going to wait until it collapses into the river or what?

No, that's why the conversations are happening now. So ideally we wouldn't do that. But this TID wouldn't have the ability to support what would be needed here. Anticipating if a removal were to happen we're looking at anywhere between like 7,000,000 and $10,000,000 to remove it. It's also heavily contaminated.

So that's part of the conversation.

Okay. Very good. All right. Any other questions or comments?

Hearing none, Alderman Sandberg. Yes, Alderman Sandberg. Yes, thank you. The $1,000,000 was that standard or was that set aside for infrastructure along the boundary of this development?

The $1,000,000.

For the business grants?

Oh, yes. That is that is specifically for the commercial corridor programs that for businesses located within that half mile boundary.

Okay. Okay. What's the stretch for that?

What's the?

What's the stretch? What's the boundary?

Oh, right here in this map. Okay. That is the boundary, the orange circle.

Half mile radius.

Yep. Yeah. But was that part of the like, did you set aside a million dollars for that?

Yes. Okay.

Yep. Do we usually do that?

We have been recently. Yes. Yep. This is, I think, the seventh or eighth time that we done that.

Okay. And how do you determine the amount?

We're looking at capacity of the TID and then also demand within that area. So we work with Matt Rejic and the commercial corridor team. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. The owner sample moves to recommend adoption and hearing no objections. So moving on to item five, file two five two zero one four resolution approving amendment number two to the project plan and authorizing expenditure for tax incremental number 60, Milwaukee intermodal passenger station project and the 4th Aldermanic District. Don't go too far, Kevin.

Good

morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Lori Lutzka with the Department of City Development. I'm here to present to you the Second Amendment for TID 60, Milwaukee Intermodal Passenger Station Project. This TID was created in 2005.

The city provided 6,000,000 in funding to fund a three story Galleria at the intermodal station along St. Paul Avenue. It also included $250,000 in administrative costs. In 2019, the TID was amended for the first time to fund $170,000 for infrastructure and $25,000 for administrative costs and a contribution to the Century City TID seventy four. At that point, it was estimated to be about $1,300,000 whereas we actually donated a little bit more than $1,000,000 Today's amendment includes street improvements.

It's much smaller than the previous file you heard. We will be amending this TID for a little bit more than $2,000,000 And as Alderman or President Perez indicated, we worked with the local Alderman, Alderman Baumann in this case and the Department of Public Works. We had a list of projects and these are the projects collectively we decided to advance. So there will be improvements along West St. Paul Avenue.

It will include a high impact paving project from 13th To 16th Street as well as traffic calming measures between 5th And 16th Street. Along West Michigan Street, there will be traffic calming and bikeway improvements from 8th To 16th Street. And then along West Canal, there will be traffic calming between 6th And Ember Lane. So looking at the feasibility, cost to date are $6,569,007 Today's amendment includes $2,100,000 in public improvements. To date, administrative costs are a little bit more than 268 This thousand amendment will also include $50,000 for administrative costs and total donations to TID seventy four Century City.

That was 1,056,821 So in total, this TID supported a little bit more than $10,000,000 of project cost. With this amendment.

Elder Smith. Mean. Hello. What's the furthest

east? You, I mean, yeah, east, west, you can go for this tent.

Sixteenth Street.

16? That's the furthest. Okay. Thank you.

So, once we advance these projects, the TID will pay up by year 2031, year '26 of the TID. It does allow for an extension to the TID to support housing throughout the city. So with that, this is very straightforward amendment. I open it up for questions from committee members.

Yeah. To the city engineer, what are we doing with Michigan Clyburn? We had that I I hope we are not going to do a carbon copy of what we already did to Michigan. Michigan's territory. Yes. You see

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Kevin Muse, City Engineer. Thank you for the question. At this point, unlike with conversation, we don't even have design started on this stretch. So we would work closely with you to figure out what that's going to look like.

I would say that especially West Of 11th, the cross section of the road is quite a bit different than it is East Of 10th because it was built with the Marquette Interchange project, well, close to twenty years ago now actually, but not that long ago in some ways. And so yes, we would look at what would be possible in that stretch and coordinate with you on that. I wouldn't expect that we would need to remove substantial amounts of parking as part of this project. There's a lot of room out there.

And what are we doing at Canal Street? Because Canal is not that old a street. And the alderman Stamper points. That's that's 16th.

The 16th. The West Canal. What's the farthest north?

Furthest North, it goes to state. State. Okay. Alderman Stamper pointed out and it's a decent says because he has to, you got speeding down on those streets and some, well, actually on Canal Street, there has been some history of street takeover.

Yep. And that's. The weekend. That's the thing where.

Yeah. Yeah. Go down. You'll see the tire marks.

Yeah. I I I never heard of that.

Takeovers, some drag racing.

Precisely because it's deserted. Precisely because it's deserted. It's a target for street takeovers, especially on weekend nights.

And so and that was the intent. Oh, sorry. Apologies. Didn't mean to interrupt. That was the intent of of what of putting this in there. Again, we still need to have conversations with folks to determine what exactly But the improvements we have received multiple complaints of takeovers and drag racing, especially at night on that stretch. And I am not saying is what we are doing but one concept would be a handful of speed tables just to discourage that type of activity.

In St. Paul where I remember we had a conversation about St. Paul where they did some water main work.

Yep. Water main relay. Yep.

And the road was in terrible condition before and it was in terrible condition after. And you told me that the contract specs was that they had to return the road to precisely the same condition it was in before they started. So they had to make it a washboard.

Not exactly close, I would say. It is difficult for them to match in and provide the level when the surrounding pavement is in such rough conditions. So yes, they are one of the ways they level the asphalt is to match what is around it and that did result in that effect. So I will note Alderman, you know, to that stretch. So similar to what you just said with Canal, East Of 13th Street, St.

Paul is in relatively good condition. So that would just be again a traffic calming discussion with some of the stakeholders in the area. West Of 13th is in much rougher shape and was unfortunately made worse by the project you just talked about. And so the paving funded by the TID would only stretch up to the boundary from 13th to 16th. We would coordinate with you, but in the implementation year of this, we could discuss using DPW funds to do a mill and overlay West Of 16th as well. That will be a discussion in the future.

Okay. Hold on. So you had two different amounts. The one amount you say you gave 13 $113,103,000 to the Century City. And then the section side

Yeah.

Is less.

Can I still

get that 200?

That's for in Century City.

Well, you had different amounts up there.

Well, because when we amended the TID, that was our projected amount. Mhmm. Then as we donated to it, we actually use the actual increment that's realized. The other thing is with Century City we amended quite a few other TIDs to donate to pay off the $25,000,000 in debt. Now with Century City as it turns out with the increase of assessments, we are looking to schedule a meeting with you to amend TID 74 for like about four million dollars so we can work with you and you can help identify projects you would like to see within that half mile.

So we have three TIDs in that area, DRS, Bishops Creek and Century City that are next on the list and it's coordinating with all the Aldermen or all the councilmembers that represent those areas. So, it's not just you. As you know, it's Alderman Pratt as well as Alderman Stamper as well as Alderman Cogs because you all you all touch it.

Yeah.

So, we do like to be inclusive and meet with everyone so everybody's on the same page before we we come to committee.

Mister chair. Yeah, Alden Stabber. Lori, so

since it is paid off?

Century City is paid off.

What? When do we pay that off?

Just this year, it just the last donation but then, the 900 residential increased in value that it now is producing a positive increment. It never had an increment before, quite frankly.

Right. That's that's no celebration, no announcement. You didn't say nothing?

I'm pronouncing it I'm pronouncing it right now.

Over there.

It's been in debt since

I've been

in debt since I've been here.

This TID TID 60 was underwater and beer line TID 22 donated to this TID and then this TID 60 produced started producing increments. So then it donated to 74 but also received.

When this was created, I remember it very well. It was not expected to generate a lot of increment.

No. No.

Was primarily public purpose.

Yes.

To fund our portion of the intermodal station improvements which had been left up to the state would have been a very diminutive half baked effort like all their efforts that doesn't involve a highway. As we're now seeing with the security issues and maintenance issues down there as you're well aware of because we were on a little field trip not too long ago to look at some of the maintenance concerns and then this sexual assault came up and the state again is washing their hands of the whole thing. It's not us. We had nothing to do with it even though we own it and so on and so forth. But so, yes, it's been very interesting that this is actually generating an increment. It is. Contrary to our expectations.

Correct.

Without so. Mister chair. Yeah. So, part of the the the original plan was to build houses around Citrus City. Are you talking about new houses or the projection of new construction houses?

No. This passage of time, Bobby. Yeah.

This is the passage time. These were the homes and I heard homes that were there when the TID was created because that boundary is very big. It's a large TID boundary and we have done this throughout the city. This is kind of before my time but I do remember we created Mitchell Street was another one that has over I think plus 400 homes and when we had the around 2007, 2008 values plummeted. Bishops Creek was one of them. All those values took the TID base value, reduced it significantly and the TID really never recovered till recently. All three of those TIDs are now producing increment.

Excellent.

And that was not there for so many years.

The neighborhood kids.

Neighborhood kids.

Bishops

Creek. If I my recollection is correct, that was the last kid that had debt, right? Now we're all in the positive.

Well, we have a couple that are they have small amounts and then one other one that has a loan but it's not producing increment quite yet because the development didn't move forward in your district. But yes, our portfolio overall is very very healthy. We have very, most of our TIDs, we have over 100 TIDs are above water, I would say, that are.

Gotcha.

Yeah. Our positive.

Yeah. Producing. Thank you, mister chair.

Alright, very good. Any other questions or comments?

We did that fresh blood. Bring some more. Money to the area. Excellent.

We're trying.

Okay. Any other question or comments? Hearing none, Alderman Jackson moves to recommend adoption. Hearing no objections to order. Thank you. Moving on to item six. Who? What? You want to take the item out. Well, if Medmania is still here?

No, but Jermaine.

Oh, okay. Very good. Yeah. Why don't we hold off a minute? The real estate folks, we want to take item 16 out of order. 16. File file 252059 with authorizing the sale back to Michael Lowry and Charlene Hinchliffe, former owners of the property located at 1847 North 2nd Street in the 6th Aldermanic District. We've had some inquiries from neighbors. This is the Brewers Hill neighborhood. There's a picture of this property in the file and under the old regime, I doubt we'd be giving this property back to the original owners given its condition and that's absentee owned, correct?

Potentially. So, Carrie Smith, DCD Real Estate Division. So, there is a raise order that was issued against this property, but it is, I believe, historically designated. So raising it was a little bit of a complex issue. And the former owner did express interest in purchasing the property back. We acquired it through tax foreclosure in November 2024. So it was after the state statute went into place. Although it's not single family owner occupied, so we still have the discretion as to whether or not we sell that So to the sort of scenario that we had before us was either to we attempted to put it on the

market

and we began clean out of the property. There's quite a bit of private possessions in the property. And the former owner approached and asked us to cease removing his property from the premises. So, we began discussions at that With

our property.

Correct. But when the former owner expresses interest, yes, I mean, there's a human being involved. So we When they expressed but he came up and he asked us to cease and we begin discussions at that time. We don't make a decision on the spot as to whether or not to sell back to a former owner. So we began discussing with him whether or not he was able to pay it and getting a better understanding of the situation.

He did demonstrate an ability to pay the back taxes but there was still the concern that this had before the acquisition by the city there was long history of DNS violations against the property. So the former owners required to pay those violations back as a condition of reacquiring the property. So we were kind of faced with the decision of whether or not to attempt to raise a historic building, sell it to someone else or sell it back to the former owner and give them the opportunity to restore it. But once we sell it back to the former owner, it's private property again and DCD real estate does not necessarily have a lot of control over the property at that time. We can't just necessarily take it back easily without laying the legal groundwork for that in advance.

So DNS came in and they have a pretty firm agreement that's required, the condition of the sale back to the former owner, wherein there's a scope of work that we have for the property, which is extensive. So because D and S already has a raise order against the property, they have not removed that raise order, but they have agreed to cease proceeding with the raise until 11/01/2026 on the condition that at least 50% of the scope of work is completed by 08/01/2026. So if the former owner does not complete his side of the bargain, then the property will proceed with raise which DNS can do to a private property. So they have a little bit more enforcement ability ability on a privately owned property.

Subject to a COA from historic preservation. Correct.

Yes.

Mister chair. No, owner Stamper.

This part of looks like it's in bad shape. What's the scope?

Our scope of work was what? 130,000. 113,000, but the owner himself, I believe, has assessed it to be about 190,000 or something higher than that. So it's extensive.

Yeah. But is this looking at the exterior, is this stable? Look like there is holes and windows coming out. Is this stable just?

So it was there is a raise order against it. So it does qualify for a raise.

Thank you.

Sure. But raise order is somewhat of question of mathematics to some extent. Whether the cost of renovation exceeds the value of the property, correct? Correct?

Correct. Jumaane Cheatham, Department of Neighborhood Services. Good morning. Mister chair and committee members.

Yes,

The mathematics as you speak of is typically 50% of the cost of repair associated with the assessed value of the property. Right.

Okay. Does he have a money?

I I guess the question is this property unsafe in D and S's opinion?

So it is. There is a raise order based on the but based on that, it is stable to

to your

point but it definitely needs a 100 plus thousand dollars of of repair to bring it back into a co compliant condition.

Mister chair. Okay. I'll check. Yes, sir. Does he have the funds?

So one of the things that we do is when we we have not executed this agreement as of yet, it is pending the sale back. So, the two kind of will work simultaneously but one of the things that he has to show us is proof of funds and then put down a $7,500 escrow payment and we will use that if in fact we wind up raising it the property that will go towards that upfront and then the remainder remaining cost of that raise will be billed to that owner.

Gotcha. Okay. This is an older woman cogs at district. She's on the big board. Are you satisfied with this arrangement?

Yeah. As long as the agreement is attached and that we do have a clawback if they do not do the repairs that they're supposed to do, I'm okay with it. I recognize that the neighborhood has suffered through this property being in disrepair for quite some time, and I don't wanna prolong that. But I also recognize that the previous owners say that they are able and willing at this point to do the work. I think the agreement allows them an opportunity, a reasonable amount of time to attempt to do it. And if they fail in so doing, it it does allow for us to to be able to deal with the property Yeah. Appropriately at that time. So at this point, I do I do support you. Okay.

Fair enough. But mister chair.

Yeah. Yeah. That that sounds good. But if they if they if he if he expenses money that he loses it, he doesn't finish. Right?

Correct. No. They go ahead with the raise. We we don't

No. But I'm saying he spent 50% and he doesn't finish the deal, then what happens?

The property

would Does he lose his money?

Yes. The property would be raised. He would also be charged for the cost of the raising of

the building. And

he would own the vacant lot at that stage.

He would own a vacant lot. Okay.

Okay. Which might be more valuable. House in Brewers Hill. Yeah.

Yeah. And

if he chooses to sell that then for somebody else to build new construction. If we get the COA to do the demolition then.

Are you the owner or neighbor? Neighbor.

There's some neighbors in the house.

Where is this house again?

Morning. Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to Yeah. Neighbors in house. Yeah. Byam Katzman. I live at 1843 North 2nd Street right next door to the neighboring property.

I make these comments on behalf of myself, also on behalf of them with consent of my neighbors on the other side, Kyle and Lisa Santa Frac, and also there's a neighbor of Budding on the backside, Jamison and Suzanne Klinger, and I also make these statements on on their behalf and with their consent. So, first and foremost, you know, we appreciate what the city has done as of late. This property has been on the DNS violation and enforcement list for over a decade at point. And frankly, we were we were very pleased to see that the property was taken over by the city. Some trends in the right direction as in the property being cleared out which has been a significant safety concern for us because you know, not a derogatory inflammatory comment but, you know, the property was packed to the brim with stuff, like hoarders.

Which creates a huge fire risk. And I got a kid. Right? And I got another kid coming. And there's kids on every every every house that surrounds that house has kids in it. And there's significant rodent issues. Right? Big families of raccoons, big families of squirrels, rats, all that. Just not the conditions you want for your kids in Milwaukee,

Frank. Mhmm.

And so, look, second chances, I'm about that but at the same time, right? There there needs to be if if the direction that this council is going to go is going to permit a buyback which it has the discretion to do but is not a mandate. Then, there really needs to be some teeth in this agreement. There was discussion about a raise order. The issue that I think we are going to encounter is that the preservation commission has consistently said that they will not approve a raise of this house because Bruce Hill is in the historic district and traditionally they don't approve that and have not for I think over a decade.

So while the DNS is valuation and and saying that this is subject to raise order which one I agree with, I think we're still gonna encounter the same situation where the where we may where for example, the property owners do not repair as they're supposed to. There's supposed to be a raise order but it's not approved and then we're stuck in a position with what, right? And who owns the property and what's going to happen and from our perspective, right? All we're looking for is just some clear guidance on that, you know, and and some some kind of assurance that should should those improvements not happen that the property will be sold, that it'll be raised, or someone else will improve it. Because frankly, you know, we pay a lot in taxes and we like, we look out for the neighborhood and and seeing it like, seeing this property right next door, right?

Just feet next door, putting my family in in in jeopardy is not is not okay.

I would hate that.

Mister chair? Alderman Cox, yes.

Is is somebody from the city attorney's office around?

No. Unfortunately not.

We can hold this to

a later part of the meeting and some of them if you want.

Can I just add to that some of these things are issues independent of whether or not we sell back to the former owner? So one, if the building does need to be raised, we would still have to get the approval of the historic And Neighbor also while there is a there are some people who are interested in taking on historic properties that need significant repair that is incredibly difficult to do. I say that when we have properties the city owns that are historically designated that require a lot of work, they often sit empty and vacant for a very long period of time as we try to find somebody who has the appetite to take on a restoration project of that scope. So while

I

know we're focusing on the decision of passing the resolution to give the authority to DCD to sell the property back to the former owner, some of these issues that are brought up are still going to be persisting when we select the former or

you a for the housing infrastructure preservation fund which was created precisely to deal with these kinds of properties?

Potentially, yes. So, we could use funds for the exterior renovations of the property and the foundation same things like that but we still have to find a person who has the appetite to do it. The city could do some of that work.

But this is

valuable neighborhood. I mean, you put in a $100. This house is worth 300 right away. Right? I mean, this is not this is not a problem where you're gonna have stagnant valuation. This house will become, I mean, the the the count comparable is is with the wine stock, the wine stock house at 34th and Saint Paul that.

Uh-huh.

We put in a 170 is now assessed at 400.

Mhmm. Yeah. But I think his point is he wants to see something happening.

So Mister chair.

Mister chair. Alderman Cox.

And I'll say this to you too, Carrie.

I

so my thinking and and my apologies. I that's what the reason I asked if the city attorney was there is because us being my support of this is to to get something done with it. And the agreement to me is our is our push, is our ability to claw back. But if there is an ability to not just in in the event because in listening to the resident, in the event that they don't do what they're supposed to do and we do take it back and we apply for COA and don't get it, then then then then we're we're stuck. If that's all the agreement says, I am wondering if the agreement can say that we get to get it back and apply for demolition or put it on the market for somebody to somebody else to to to redo it.

I don't want us to be stuck and not get a COA and be sitting there with this property and not also have the ability to remarket it.

Yeah. That would leave us the option of reacquiring it and then using hip funds if the former owner fails to do the restoration. Yeah. We'll have

agreement does allow for that the way it is currently written?

No. We would have to have the COA city attorney's office put that language in. Yes.

And the agreement today's vote, does it solidify what that agreement says, or does that agreement get solidified just before closing?

Me see. Sorry. One second.

So, mister chair, I guess my point would be to ensure that there is a pathway for either, you know, the the the previous owners do what they're supposed to do or we take it back and either do the demolition and if we don't get the COA, have an ability to, you know, put the hip on it. I agree.

We we can do this one or two ways. We can either hold this for the next cycle.

Uh-huh.

Or hold it until council when there could be the opportunity to amend the agreement.

Agree. Yep.

And then all of the guys can offer to file at council. Take it from committee.

Yeah. That seems like it gives keeps all options open as opposed to closing.

Let's hold it to I wanna respect, you know, what the what the neighbor has brought forward and I think it is reasonable for us to have pathways forward. So, yeah, I would I would wanna hold it till till council to ensure that that agreement has those options.

Very good. That's that's that's a plan. Alderman Cox moves to hold this matter to the call of the chair and hearing no objections or Thanks for coming down. Thank you. We appreciate your concern. I you listening. Thank you. I live in Concordia which is a historic district as well and I know how one problem property can be a curse. Yes. Mister Turner. Yeah. Alright. We'll go back to our regular order here. Okay, that brings us to item. Six.

Six. File 250966. Substitute resolution directly in Department of City Development to prepare a new request for proposals for the redevelopment of the city owned Marcus Center parking structure site. This is the title probably a misnomer. We're not directing it or do anything at this point. We're just here to get an update on where we stand with the process of redirecting this project.

Sure. Thank you mister chair, committee members. Good morning. Alderman Lafayette Crump, Commissioner of City Development. See Alderman President Perez left probably because I was eyeing his sneakers. Wanted to oh, you're back. Watch out. I might come for those sneakers.

What do you what do we have on? Different friends.

He's got

the four fourteen day sneakers. Yeah, looking looking sharp as as always. Mister Chair, yes, thank you for noting that your request here is not really to direct us to reissue the RFP, but really to continue communicating. Thought it's appropriate to come and talk a little bit about what our efforts are like and would ask if we come back in the future that it be communication file rather than the direction. So maybe this matter could be placed on file.

At any rate, we've been having conversations with folks in the development community. We've had conversations with the previous proposals other than the one that we were going to bring forward to exclusively negotiate with. We've moved on from that and are just kind of evaluating the market right now. I think everyone knows the market is in a challenging space. About a month ago, there was an article about 20 stalled projects in the area in the Journal Sentinel Business Journal just had an article recently about the challenges of financing office right now.

So our conversations are largely about figuring out what's feasible, what it could look like at the site, what kind of dollars might be necessary, and what can really move forward.

Okay. So, that's where we're at right now?

That is where we are.

Okay, I assume you don't want it. Well, you you've mentioned some of the parties so that's fine. Yeah. Alright. Any questions or comments from committee?

What are next steps? Yeah. Mister chair.

Yeah. So, what are what are next steps?

Yeah. My my goal would be that the next time we're here, it it's following probably additional conversations with potential parties, some conversations with with the alder, with other council members about what we might like to see happen at that site. And then when we're back here, we have a framework for what's going to happen there and seek approval for negotiations.

Any lessons learned that we're going to do differently moving forward?

I think we're always evaluating how detailed our request should be. Frankly, we look back on all of the proposals that were submitted. In some ways, each of them had challenges with respect to what we asked for at the site, what we were looking to have happen. I think to the extent that we can include other voices in the evaluation process and in designing the RFP. It's kind of a balancing test because we included some high powered folks in kind of creating the RFP and it may have had some of them step away from responding.

They were perhaps concerned about the conflict of having shaped the RFP and then being the party to come and win it. But I think there are ways that we can go about seeking these parties, kind of getting some clarity on what's truly feasible before we move forward.

Is there a timeline in place? And I asked because I know we have the CEO of the Marcus Center sitting in the back and he's got a parking structure that's has has a clock running on it to some extent in terms of maintenance cost and capital improvements and if this is an open ended process of waiting till the market recovers, that could be years.

Well, think I would not want to state a timeline that would handcuff us but I will note that we are moving with great urgency not solely because of the market center but that's a part of it but it's also because when the market is in a challenging place, investors are at a premium, investors want certainty and we don't want to lose out on potential parties who can invest, partners who will be involved because they found somewhere else to put their faith.

So it sounds like it is open ended to some extent.

Would say it's open ended.

Next month could be six months, could be two years before Let's see. I didn't say movement. Alderman Stampers.

Commissioner, so you're saying there's interest or there's no interest?

There is interest. There is.

Alright. With probably conditions. Right. And interest to do what? Put up a warehouse. I mean, I'm sure there's interest in something.

Yeah. I'm not going to bring you a warehouse. Right.

Alright.

Okay. I guess that's the best we can do without.

I mean, should we hold it.

I mean, we can go back to the original file and direct them to put an RFP. I mean, that would get this off the dime to some extent, would it not?

Well, one thing you have to consider there is given where the market is right now, do parties want to spend 30,040 thousand dollars $50,000 putting together an RFP with potential to not get selected? Think So

your concern is nobody respond to an IRP?

My concern, I mean, we talk to developers regularly. You see this with developers, you see this with contractors who not going to go after there are contractors who won't go after low bids and there are developers who are not very interested in responding to RFPs that they prefer to have some certainty before moving forward with each step in the process.

Well then why we use an RFP in the first place, I guess, if that's true. I mean if the RFP process is flawed in that way, why didn't we use an RFP process in the first place?

Well, I think it makes sense in certain respects. It can make sense depending on what you're looking to see at a site, depending on where the market is at any given time. I would say not saying an RFP is never appropriate and I think there was value in having you know, the opportunity to have multiple parties come to the table, respond to very specific questions. It it's probably inappropriate first step when looking at a particular site. So that it's so where we are now, now that we've had an RFP for this site, despite the fact that we're reaching out to specific parties and having conversations, if there are others who want to come to the table, they are certainly free to do so and have conversations with us.

So we are are open for business but not too much business is coming in the door. Is that the one way to describe it?

We are open for business.

Any other questions? Yeah. Alderman Jackson.

Did you already mention how was the conversation going with the number two and the number three that were in a succession line?

We're we're having good conversations. Yeah.

So we could skip the RP process and you just stick with the top three people that you already had in the beginning?

Potentially, that could be the case. Yes.

Oh, thank you. Alright. Well, nothing more we can do today, I guess, short of adopting resolution. Why this is real quick. Let me. Right.

So commercial.

Mhmm.

So are you optimistic?

I mean, I can't I can't read you.

Yeah. I I what I what I am the the read is that I do not want to I don't want to say anything that I have to backtrack certainly and I don't want to impact any of the conversations that we're having at the moment. What I would say is that it is entirely appropriate to ask us to come back on a quarterly basis and let you know where we are. And I would say, you know, for for you all to decide when how many times is too many times, right? So, if if you've brought me back here two quarters from now and I'm saying the exact same thing, I would imagine this conversation is gonna be quite different.

Well, who's all this is all this is this all. Yeah. Just because we get Well, we have been doing

that. Yeah.

Update him. Yes. We'll see you when you've got some something substantial.

Absolutely. Alright.

Well then, Alderman Stamper

move to the public

or something.

Right.

Basically.

Yeah. Alright. Alderman Stamper move

to hold this. I am going to

call the chair. Hearing no objections. So, alright. That brings us to item seven which is about 250,969. Communication for the Department of City Development relating to the status of the Edison SPCLLC project at 1005 Edison Street. This is our famous stop project, the neutral company. So, where we stand with that if anywhere?

Yeah. I I think and for this one, just think it's appropriate to level set for the public that this is not a city project. No. It's a private private project that just we're keeping abreast of. An important site in the city and we'd certainly love to to see something move forward. You know, been a lot of news coverage about what's happening with that. You know, the developer has had some challenges in Madison as well. They recently sold off a development there that I would surmise. I have not had direct conversations about it, but puts them in a better position to sort of resolve their financial challenges at the Edison site doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be moving forward with anything there.

Was that a fire sale sale or was that a arm's length market rate sale?

I do not know the answer to that, but it's noted that it was sold for about half cost of the loan that was in place to purchase it. So I think it was a decision to probably a financially responsible decision to take care of outstanding challenges that are going to make life worse.

So they sold it for $0.50 and a net dollar for their construction loan?

I don't want to go say things that are not what are reported in But the yes.

Interesting. You know, and just for people watching, you know, the people who may wonder why is the construction fence still up on the public right of way on Edison Street. And is there a good reason for that? Because they violated their permit. They they they removed the sidewalk. So, we have nothing to pull the fence back to because the sidewalk's gone and that was not supposed to happen under their public way occupancy permit. Just for.

That would be a D and S conversation.

Yeah. Well, no, have public works actually.

Okay.

That's their that's their department pretty much. So, that's why that fence is still up and the Jersey barriers are still up because there's nothing behind the Jersey barriers. Which he can see from his office, I'm sure. Kevin Gigling goes in the bag as I'm referring to. Okay. So, that's where we stand. There's been no suggestions of the general contractor coming in and buying the project or anyone coming in to restart or coming in to build half as big a building or no discussions of any kind?

I have had or myself and our team have had a few conversations both with the existing developer, the owner of the site as well as few other parties about if they were to alter the site, if it were to be workforce housing, things of that nature. So we've had preliminary conversations but I would not consider those to be any

Do you know if the taxes are current?

I'm not

sure. Because would we want to foreclose? Because a tax foreclosure takes precedence over all the other lien holders. And you would essentially flush the other lien holders out. Through a tax foreclosure. Which normally we give three year but the law doesn't say we have to wait three years. That's a collection process which we've adopted internally.

It's an interesting thought.

But if it was nuisance, you

can do it. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm sorry. Mister chair. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm a friend.

Did you say, did you mention who the current owner is?

Well, the the neutral. Neutral.

So, still own?

Yes.

It's just on the market for half. Thank you.

Well, that was referring to a project in Madison that they they had sold off. Yeah.

Yeah. I think we should look at the tax foreclosure issue and see if they are current. I would be surprised if they are current but who knows?

Well, there is a

lot of people who have investment

in that.

We probably pay the taxes for them. Yes. I think that that that would be the normal scenario but at least we get our taxes. And that's basically. Yeah.

Okay. Anything else? Same question. Any conversation with the two and three that was an original RFP? Are you able to do that?

Well, on that side again, privately owned site, we have had conversations because we understand they are having conversations with other partners that they would bring in. I think they have contemplated a number of different things. I would kind of leave it in their hands to talk about it because there's certainly I don't want to suggest anything that would put them in any legal jeopardy, but I think it's pretty clear in the development community that they are exploring everything possible. I mean they are they have done value engineering to try to determine if they could alter the project and they've had conversations with potential other partners to come in and address the project. Their one of their challenges was with their, you know, their GC, who was also on the Madison project.

Hopefully that relationship improves with paying off what was owed on the Madison project. So we'll see where that goes.

Okay. Very good. Oliver Jackson moves the whole list to call it a chair here in no objection, so ordered. All right. Here we come to our buyback here. Alright. Very good. Let's go to item eight, file two five. Yeah. Right. Yeah. That's defensive. No. Yeah.

It looks like that.

Since September. Okay. Item eight, file two five two zero one seven. Resolution authorizing the sale back to the estate of Robert J Arts, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 1330 West Euclid Avenue in the 14th Alderman District.

Deborah McCollum, Gathering, DCD Real Estate.

Hi.

Hi.

State of mister Arts, and they're interested in repurchasing the property. The property was foreclosed on by the city, and the the state has the money to rehab it and pay the debt that's owed for to the state.

Alright. Well, bro.

Well, I'm saying, I think this is the gauntlet. They did all the prework already.

Sorry. You did all you did so. Yes.

You did all the prework and all the background work on these already? Yes. So we can run through

them? Yes.

Do any of these have these restoration agreements attached to them? Like No. Okay. So these are just clean sales of existing Correct. Cases even occupied properties. Right? We spoke

I do.

Alright. Very good. Well, then we'll slide. So, Alderman Jackson moves the recommended option hearing objection. So, order item nine, file two five two zero one eight. Resolution authorizing the sale back to Millionaire Enterprise Group LLC, former owner of the city owned tax deed property located at 2839 North 21st Street in the 15th automatic. You know these guys? They have millionaire enterprise?

I don't. Real quick. Yeah. No. The real quick. These are in town investors, not out of town.

Yes, this particular owner is She resides here in Milwaukee. The property she was rehabbing for her son. So, once she regained ownership, her son son is going to move into the property.

Unapproved. Alderman Savner moves and recommend adoption here and no objections to order. Item 10, file 252019 resolution authorizing the sale back to Global Estates LLC, former owner of the city owned taxi property located at 2845 Dash 47 North 27th Street in the 15th Automatic District.

Mister chair, same thing that.

Yes. Same thing.

Move

approval. Approval been moved here in objections to order. Item 11, file two five two zero two one. Resolution authorizing the sale back to E and K Capital Holdings LLC, former owners of the city owned tax deed property located at 4177 North 19th Place in the 1st Aldermanic District.

Who approved?

Yep. Alderman Jackson moved recommend adoption here in no objections to order. Item 12, file two five two zero two two. Resolution authorizing the sale back to E and K Capital Holdings LLC, former owner of the city owned taxi property located at Thousand 516 West Keefe Avenue in the 1st Automatic District. Well, since they're the same owners, they can't be owner occupants of both.

This particular owner, his father passed away.

Okay.

And he inherited the properties from his father. One is a four unit and the other is a duplex. And no, he is not an owner occupant, but he is a responsible

Okay. Owner. Sounds good. Alderman Jackson moves the recommended option. Hearing no objections to order. Item 13, file two five two zero two four. Resolution authorizing the sale back to Michael and Viviana Resnick, former owners of the city owned taxi property located at 5262 North 50th Street in the 1st Aldermanic District. Over over

I'm slide.

The so ordered. It I'm Item 15, file two five two zero five eight. Resolution authorizing the sale back to Shante s Haynes, former owner of the city owned taxi property located at 3882 North Tytonia Avenue in the 6th Aldermanic District. Alderman Cox? Approval

No problem.

Approval has been moved. Hearing no objection so ordered. Item 16 has already been heard. Item seventeen and eighteen filed 02/1553 and filed 02/1723 can be placed on file. All of the objections so moved. Hearing no objection so ordered. That concludes our agenda. We Could are I be recorded as yeses for consent? Yes. By all means. Yes. Thanks. All right. We are good.