Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee - Regular Meeting

May 27, 2026 at 9.02 a.m. I'm Alderman Baumann, chair of the committee. We're also joined to my far left, Alderman Spiker. To his right, Alderman DeAndre Jackson. Chris Lee is our staff assistant. We'll be joined by Alderman Stamper and Alderman Cogg shortly. First item is file 260053, resolution authorizing the acceptance of unsolicited offer to purchase from the Maxson Industries Company. For the portion of the city-owned tax deed property of 6600 North Titonia Avenue in the 1st Aldermanic District, sponsored by Alderman McGrath. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Matt Haisley, Department of City Development. This resolution supports the sale of a portion of the property at 6600 North Titonia Avenue to Maxon Industries. The City of Milwaukee acquired the property through property tax foreclosure. Maxon Industries reached out to DCD and expressed interest to acquire 1.6 of the 6-acre parcel. Maxit Industries was incorporated in 1972 and purchased its one-acre parcel at 3204 West Mill Road. It's highlighted in red in your land disposition report. In 1989, the company acquired an additional 1.5 acres for expansion purposes. Maxon Industries continues to grow both locally and internationally. The company desires to purchase the 1.6 acres from the city to once again expand its industrial footprint in the city of Milwaukee. Maxon Industries has been conducting its due diligence, pursuing a certified survey map, and working with DPWM plans to install a new ingress and egress off of Titonia Avenue. The new curb cut will entail modifying the Titonia Avenue median to accommodate a turning radius for large equipment. Bill Maxson, to my left, is the president and CEO of Maxson Industries. I'd be happy to explain his vision for the property. You guys manufacture lift gates for trucks?

Same name, different company. They're out of California.

Oh, okay. I was going to say, it's good advertising. I see those in a lot of trucks. Isn't it? Yeah.

Alderman Pratt. I'm just here to say that I'm excited for this sale. They've been there since 72. I'm happy they call the first district home and that they're expanding in the first district, adding jobs that are family-sustaining wage with benefits. It's just a great development and great growth in the first district. So I'm excited and happy to still have you.

Thank you. We appreciate it.

Why don't you tell us what you do manufacture and what your employment is.

So I'm third generation Maxon. It was my grandfather before me, then my father. We actually have fourth generation on staff now. We're a small family-owned company. We employ about 30 people right now. We have envisioned growth to around 45 to 50 people. We specialize in manufacturing heavy construction equipment. So as an example, when I-43 was being built from downtown Milwaukee going northbound, most of the contractors on that job were using our equipment to transport and place concrete. We've been in the core business of supplying construction equipment to some of the world's largest contractors. About 60% of our business is overseas. We chase after large civil projects. A typical project for us would be something like Panama Canal. where we supplied about 140 pieces of equipment over a five-year period of time and had not the original construction of the panel yeah i can't claim the original one but the expansion that they put in place and that would be a typical project that we would chase after We've found ourselves manufacturing some relatively large equipment. We bring in, as an example, large caterpillar excavators, and we modify them by putting special equipment on it. And those loads tend to come in at 80,000 pounds, tend to have long trailer setups, and it's difficult to navigate that turn on Mill Road where we're located right now. So the idea was to be able to give us access to Titonia Avenue to be able to come in and out with heavy loads. And our idea right now is to add another bay to our existing facility. I think we're at roughly 30,000 square feet right now, adding another 12,000 to 15,000 square feet here in the very near future.

So you primarily do steel fabricating, machining, those types of trades? Correct.

Heavy fabrication.

Okay. Very good. Any questions or comments? All right, this sounds great. Thanks for staying in Milwaukee.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for having us.

All right, Alderman Coggs moves approval. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Next item is file 260-054, resolution authorizing the sale back of two former owners of the city-owned tax deed property located at 1318 West Ring Street in the 6th Aldermanic District. Sponsored by Alderman Coggs. Morning.

Good morning, Cindy Rice-Smith, Residential Disposition Manager.

Okay. Any issues here we should know about?

No.

No issues. Anything? No. All in cognizant approval, hearing no objections to order. Item 3, file 260-056, resolution authorizing the sale back of two former owners of the city-owned tax deed property located at 3769 North 2nd Street in the 6th Aldermanic District. Same thing? Correct. Alderman Coggs, any questions? No. Alderman Coggs removes approval. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Item 4, file 260-052, resolution authorizing the sale of the city-owned tax deed property at 420 East North Avenue in the 6th Aldermatic District. I noticed the word sale back has been omitted from this one.

No, there's no sale back.

All right.

Reserve Walls Department of City Development. We are here today regarding a vacant lot in the Automatic 6th District. It's the vacant lot. It's a small vacant lot on the corner. DCD acquired this property. In July of 1999, through tax foreclosure, we accepted an unsolicited offer from Ryan Champagne, who owns the building next door, who would like to purchase that lot. For grass-based, for his business, the sale is $1,500, which is the assessed value for the lot. I would like to turn it over to Mr. Champagne so he can give you a little bit more information about his business.

Morning, thank you. It was one of your typical vacancy name address leaves for the record. Oh, yes the time we have a Ryan Champagne and so property owner for that walk there Jason property owner Yeah, it's typical vacant city lot We all kept it clean it cleaned up make it look a nicer clean up the business next door. You speed old quickie Mart I had a lot of issues. What business are you in? Doggy Daycare. Carry on at that location?

That's what my wife is. That's not for me.

She's very passionate about it and a lot of strong community support for that business there from what it was. Neighbors really like the improvement that we've done to that area. We've talked with all the business committee members there and Yeah, it's we're seeking for that to have a patio outside North Avenue at Buffum. Yeah, it's the alley between Holton and off.

Okay. Got it. Very good All right. Very good. Any questions or comments during an old man Cog moves a recommended option. You're in objections to order. Thank you Thank you Moving on to item 5, file 252-196, resolution declaring the Department of Public Works parking lot at 1335 North 12th Street as surplus to municipal needs and authorizing acceptance of an unsolicited offer to purchase from the Leak Street Lofts LLC in the 4th Aldermanic District.

Yes, Rosita Ross with DCD. So it's a vacant lot owned by the city since the 50s it's been underutilized the Commission We did have a hearing on this on May 18 City Planning Commission did approve the sale We did accept We would like to accept an unsolicited offer. What's the purchase price? The purchase price is $21,000. This will be used as ancillary parking for the new lofts on 12th and Belit that are being rehabbed by the Gorman Company.

Right.

They're going to put in like over $50,000 for the parking with new street lighting, pavement. The building, which will be across the street, it's going to be about a $30 million investment to redo that building on 12th.

Well, it's actually not directly across the street.

Yes, it's in behind.

There's a row of storefronts on the south side of the lead, and it's behind those storefronts. So it's behind the storefront lots in the alley, and then there's the parking structure.

Yes, yes. You wouldn't even know that there's parking back there.

Well, you'd see the tents.

Yes, yes.

Because it has become an encampment for homeless.

Yes, and we're excited, the Department of DCD, that someone is taking that parking lot and using it in a positive way for that community.

No, I agree. That's a good use. Okay, hearing no other questions or comments, Alderman Jackson moves to recommend adoption. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item six. File 252-247, substitute resolution relating to a minor modification to the detailed plan development known as River West Apartments to allow additional signage on a mixed-use building located at 1132 East North Avenue on the north side of East North Avenue, west of North Commerce Street in the 3rd Aldermanic District.

Good morning. Tanya Fonseca, Department of City Development.

All right. Is this the student housing?

This is the River West Apartments multifamily across from the student housing. The site was rezoned to a detailed plan development known as River West Apartments in 2023 to allow construction of a four-story mixed-use building with first floor commercial space for the River West Food Accelerator and 91 residential units. The detailed plan development zoning is site-specific and prescribes, among other things, allowable signage for the site and building. This file will allow an additional Type A building wall sign above the Commerce Street commercial tenant entrance at the corner of North and Commerce. And we'll clarify that window signs that are allowed for the general provisions of the zoning code may also be utilized to support the commercial spaces if needed. I will note that the prior minor mod includes a flag sign at the residential lobby, a wall mounted sign at the corner of north and commerce and temporary signs for construction and leasing previously. Let's see here. The window signs, if needed, typically allow 25% coverage, so we limit that. It would also allow additional type A wall signs that are compliant with the LB3 zoning district signage standards, just as there's other tenants potentially in the building. The additional sign request is to support Food Right, Inc., which occupies the River West Food Accelerator space. Representatives from Food Right are here today to speak more about their mission, but as noted in the file exhibit, From this location, Food Right, Inc. will operate programs like the Good School Food Movement that partners with Milwaukee Public Schools. They also lead many other programs and events to empower youth and families to eat foods that sustain lifelong health through gardening and culinary schools.

So this sign is all that's being requested, basically? Correct. And for that, we've got to amend the... We do, yeah. Okay, very good.

Yep. This site is within the Third Aldermatic District, and Alderman Brower has expressed his support.

Yes, correct. Okay. Yeah, you want to tell us a little bit about what you do. That would be fine. There's thousands of people watching on TV.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. My name is Mary Kate Mullen. I'm here on behalf of Food Right. So Food Right is a Milwaukee nonprofit. We empower youth and families to choose foods that sustain life. Lifelong health through our hands-on fun culinary education nutrition education programs and gardening programs So this space has been amazing for us already hosting our good school food advocacy training Which is a training for Milwaukee public school parents and community members to become educated and empowered as strong advocates for healthier school meals and environments. We also offer our brand new family cook shop program, so bringing our staple program, the You Chef Academy, into the community. So we've been around for over a decade, but we've been really insulated within MPS. This is like our first public-facing space, so we're really excited about this sign. And this is our first time that we've had our own space and been able to offer classes to the public. So we've taught over 10,000 Milwaukee public school children how to cook, and that number is just growing, and so are we. So we're very, very excited for this opportunity.

So you're a separate nonprofit organization. That has a contract with MPS?

Yes, correct.

Okay, and then you work inside their buildings up to this point, their school buildings?

Yeah, so we have like storage spaces, and then we go into anywhere from like eight to 15 Milwaukee public schools over the school year, and we're there for six to eight weeks. So we bring all of our cooking equipment and our pantry items, and once a week we cook with students for an hour and a half. So they get a little bit of nutrition education, and then they get to stand up and get a little messy and cook a plant-based meal together.

And what age students are we talking about?

Kindergarten through high school. Oh, really?

Okay, very good. Any questions or comments? Alden Jackson moves approval. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to... Item seven, file 252192, resolution approving a project plan and development agreement authorizing expenditures and creating tax incremental district number 133, which is at 2711 West Wall Street in the 4th Aldermanic District. We actually heard this last cycle, but for technical reasons, It had to be sent back to committee, re-heard, and then referred back to the council for action. So we told the developer we don't need a full presentation on this. They received a full presentation at the last meeting. So based on that, Alderman Spiker moves to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered. Moving on to items eight. and nine which are companion files item eight is file two six zero zero four nine resolution approving amendment number two to the project plan for tax incremental district number sixty seven which is the past brewery the brewery project authorizing expenditures and authorizing approval of the land acquisition report in the fourth automatic district And item 9, file 260050, substitute resolution authorizing the conveyance of 13 redevelopment authority of the City of Milwaukee owned vacant lots to the City of Milwaukee in the King Park neighborhood within the 4th Aldermanic District.

All right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Dan Casanova with the Department of City Development. As the chair said, there's kind of two companion files here, and the first file actually has two components to it as well. There's the tax incremental financing district, but then also a land acquisition report to acquire some private property with the TID funds. Before we get into the amendment, I think it's worthwhile to just do a quick look back at the start of this district. It's been a very successful district and a big commitment financially from the city. The Pabst Brewery was founded in 1844. You can see the photo here. And by the 1870s, it was the largest brewery in the country following the Great Chicago Fire. They were servicing the Milwaukee and Chicago markets. But by 1996, the entire brewery was closed, leaving us with 27 buildings over seven city blocks without any standard city infrastructure through the site. In 2001, it was purchased by local developer Jim Hurdle, and then in 2006, he partnered with the Zilber Company, who became the master developer. Also in 2006, that's when the city created tax incremental district number 67 to provide $29 million in mostly infrastructure to create development sites within the district, but also to help with historic preservation and some selective demolition. And I just looked back, Alderman Bauman was the only member of the Common Council who voted for it at that time. I was at DCD, but I was not. Well, Alderman Bauman voted for it too, but I'm the only one left. You're the only one left. Yes, yes. But it's been a resounding success, creating over $240 million in incremental value. And just a couple samples of the projects. These are historic rehabilitation projects. We have a combination of apartments and offices and hotels and breweries, as well as new construction going in some of the vacant land there. And it's become a true mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces like Zilber Park and Preservation Park and green infrastructure throughout. It was one of the first LEED-certified neighborhoods in the country. So just overall a huge success financially, architecturally, from a historic standpoint, from a tax-based standpoint. a few years ago in 2024 we did amendment number one to the district to fund about five million dollars in public infrastructure improvements most of these projects are still in the design phase with the exception being some of the murals on the riverwalk which were completed last year So now we are before you for amendment number two to the district, which would fund over $22 million in largely public infrastructure improvements, but also funds for property acquisition, housing, and commercial corridor programs. And I'll go through all of these in a little more detail, but we're really focusing on taking the success of the brewery and investing to the west of it on the other side of I-43. in the king park neighborhood which was decimated by urban renewal and cut off from downtown by i-43 and so if we go again back this is 1963 the red box is where king park is located today and you can see a completely intact neighborhood adjacent to downtown and over the next 17 years you'll see Moving forward to 1967, the clearing for I-43 has begun. Go forward a few more years to 1970, the interstate system is in place and clearing has begun for King Park itself. By 1975, King Park is now in place with a number of vacant properties nearby, and then you go forward again just 17 years later in 1980. Highland has now been widened, which required a number of housing units to be torn down. And so what we're left with today is this area just a few blocks west from this very successful brewery neighborhood. But... almost entire blocks of vacant land adjacent to King Park. And so that's the focus of this amendment. There has been some recent investment on the other side of I-43. The county has built the new Marsha P. Coggs Health and Human Services Center. There's the new Mental Health Emergency Center. The county has done some upgrades to the Community Center at King Park. And Gorman is getting close to starting the renovation of the former Coggs Center into 65 housing units. Zooming in just a little bit, there's a lot on this map, but the main portion of this amendment is $13 million in street repaving and street reconstruction projects. We know throughout the city, the quality of streets are in rough condition, but this neighborhood in particular, some of the streets are almost undriveable. So that would be the biggest portion of this. There would also be funds for traffic calming around King Park and around the Cog Center. And as you know, using TID funds to support DPW's paving program allows them to use their limited resources in areas of the city where TID funding is not available. The TID would also fund $2 million of improvements to King Park itself. The county is looking at upgrades to the athletic fields there, a partial removal of the berm along 17th that kind of disconnects the park from the neighborhood to the west. reimagining the former skate rink there, and doing general path and lighting upgrades to the park. I think the most important part of this amendment is focusing on those vacant lots to the south of King Park. So when you zoom in to the street level, this is what it looks like at the street level. We have very few places in the city that look like this. One mile from Water in Wisconsin. One mile from Water in Wisconsin and three blocks from the Brewery District where you've got almost an entire city block with one or two houses on it. So the second part of this file is a land acquisition report. And that is proposing to acquire the properties that you see here in blue, which are privately owned all by one owner. The purple is city or Rackham-owned property, and you can see that the private parcels and the public parcels are interspersed. There's irregular lot sizes, and so it makes sense for all those to be combined under one ownership where we can redraw those lines, bring in the necessary utilities to make those developable housing sites. So the TID is funding $1.5 million in acquisition and site work. And then another $1.5 million to support building affordable homeownership opportunities on these properties. And then the last component of the amendment would be $500,000 for our commercial corridor programs to help supplement the existing funding there to provide signage and facade grants for commercial redevelopment within the half mile of the district. So that includes the brewery district itself, but also includes Fleet Street and portions of King Drive. So in conclusion, you can see the total TID budget with this amendment would be about $55 million. Again, it's a very healthy TID, so we are projecting it to pay off before its legal life in 2033, and then at that point we could amend it for affordable housing throughout the city. So happy to take any questions. I know you also read in the next file. Yeah, what's the time?

So the acquisition of these privately owned lots, the purple lots, that's going to be happening like right away, basically?

Yes, Dave Miske, real estate director for DCD. We have an offer purchased, an agreed upon purchase with a price with this single owner. It's Fountain CRE LLC.

Is that the $1.3 million?

No, it's under, it's under, yeah, that's part of the $1.5 million, but all 19 lots will be acquired for under $200,000. Oh, wow. So we'll acquire that. The offer purchase has, I think it's 50 days. So once the TID is approved, we have the funds to expend. We'll be able to acquire those properties in short order.

Okay. And then the second file is simply conveying Rackham-owned vacant lots to the city of Milwaukee. So they're all under one property. Correct.

Exactly. So the slide you're looking at right now, the purple is a combination of city and Rackham. So this would all be under city ownership. It would be basically 38 vacant lots that we could then reassemble.

38 vacant lots, no kidding.

Yeah, between the two parties, yeah.

And then the next stage of this will be deciding what type of development will take place and what's the timeline for that and what's the process for review and input and so forth. Because that's where I would get rather interested in.

Yeah, and so I'm not sure that Dan or I are both equipped to answer that today except for that Revive Milwaukee, Revive MPAE is in the works. So Larry Kilmer and his team are working with those developers One of the four selected developers is very interested in doing a development here with some townhouses, as you're aware. And so once we get that process moving, do the pilot or do the initial step, we'll have a better sense as to how the rest of this development could be.

I see that the Highland Homes development is technically in the circle, within the half-mile radius. Are we contemplating anything? Because that's a neighborhood that got half-built. That's Housing Authority ownership. Highland Gardens. Well, Highland Gardens is the apartment building. Highland Homes is the name for the single-family developments. And that was a great project. The homes really seemed to be holding up very well. Their assessed values seemed to be very strong. But it only got half built. There's a lot of vacant lots, which I think are completely buildable. I mean, utilities are in place. I mean, all you got to do is the connections. The street infrastructure has all been, I mean, that looks nice, except for all the empty lots that still exist there. I mean, any possibility of roping that into this? exercise and working with the Housing Authority to finish that project?

Certainly. I think, you know, was it $1.5 million?

Correct.

Yeah. For infrastructure improvements, for residential development is certainly on the table. And so we're looking at all possibilities within that half mile.

And I say, what's going to be the decision? Is that going to come back to us, the final plan for the master plan, if you will, for this King Park neighborhood type of housing stock, mix of housing stock, single detached housing, attached housing, for sale, market rate? When is the decision on how that's going to be master plan going to be made?

So I think we're going to make it. Yeah, we're beginning that process at the department, but certainly we would like your input as the local alder. So the first step was to acquire the land, try to reconfigure how that layout could be with some certified survey mapping. And so we're just beginning that process in the department, but we welcome yours or your colleagues' input for sure. Because that's key, because that's a huge...

38 lots, as you say, all contiguous to one another now, soon, after we acquire them. Yes.

So it will likely, as Dave said, require certified survey maps or subdivision plats. It will also likely require zoning changes because it's mostly zoned plan development right now, and then obviously will also require approval of the sale.

Well, the plan development was some obsolete fail effort from the 90s. Right.

So there's several points here along the way that will need further council action.

Mr.

Chair? Yes, Alderman Cox.

Was not the Revive program intended to be utilized to reuse the vacant lots that were created through demolition?

Yes, I think that's true. I don't know a lot about the Revive program, but a lot of vacant lots are being repurposed for that program exactly. Many of these lots were demolished that our city of Rackham owned over the years. Yeah, but in the 60s. Yeah, right. She's talking about the vacant lots that we created last year.

But I don't want to have that. I don't want you all to have... rely on that program alone to do other housing stuff that also needs to be done because I also lead one of the districts that probably has had some of the most demolition since the program was created and what I don't want is when we look back at the revive program that you look at the districts that had the most demolition during that time period and they're not the districts that most of the revive homes were built in so It doesn't mean we can't build other homes, other places through other programs. But I don't want us to conflate the two.

I actually agree with her on this. You're 100% correct. This should be a standalone real estate development given its history, given its unique circumstances, given its location, which is why I don't see this as a revived exercise. I don't see this as strictly affordable either.

And I also, and I don't know if, you know, Autumn Obama's district, but the proximity to Marquette and some other things, I think probably allow for some greater thought to be given on the type of housing than you would necessarily do at Revive. So I would just put that out there. Also, I think when you bid out for the revived developers, I think it was understood that it was for a part of a program because of the demolition or whatever. And I happen to know that they may not want the lots, but so what? They knew that was the program when it happened. I don't want us to be trying to appease that. by giving out other lots that were demolished 50 years ago. Do you understand what I'm saying? Not that that can't happen at all, but that can't be what the program, what that program is. Again, we can create others and do other things, but I don't want to have recent, a whole bunch of demolitions during this revival program and then have hardly no, you know what I'm saying, houses built over there using that program.

Absolutely hearing what you're sharing with us and just as a reminder the idea here adding the TID funds for any potential future revived development doesn't subtract anything from the Revive program. It only adds to it. So by implementing, by having access to these potential TID funds, it'll help us grow the number of development teams we can work with and add sites. So I think that's a major piece here that we're adding to the pool of funds for Revive through this effort.

Why does Revive keep coming up in connection with this at all?

Sure.

You just made that linkage. Now I'm starting to get worried. Maybe we hold this file to just get this clarified. How is Revive even part of this?

Sure.

You can only spend the money within the half-mile radius.

So when we launch the Revive RFQs in November, we hope to be bringing the final four and the top four scoring development teams. I'm hoping to announce those teams soon. They're part of this exercise.

So one of the development teams separate direction and as a standalone clean slate operation not be part of this revive at all. When was that connection made?

So one of the development teams in their submission identified lots in this four three block area just south of the park as their preferred location to develop.

So that's exactly what she's talking about. We don't want that.

Sure. But I think the additional part is that this grows the pot of funds for Revive. It's not taking anything away from Revive.

What pot?

So we have $1.2 million of federal pro-housing grant that we received a number of years back. Also in the 2026 budget, the mayor and you all budgeted for $1.6 million. So we have a pool of $2.8 million we had set aside to work with The Revive development teams that are being, again, still being identified.

And those teams that have the first, basically the first right, or have a crack at this site? Where is that written? No, absolutely not. I don't want this being any part of the Revive program. Period. This is a stand-alone operation. where we should do a separate solicitation of bids, and maybe we piecemeal it out on multiple people after we do certified survey maps, which will somewhat control what we build there, because out of the side lot sizes, and maybe we do a complete reconfiguration of the road system. I don't possibly. New alleys or no alleys or narrowing these, shortening the width, the depth of these lots because they're very deep lots and narrow. But how does Revive even ever get involved? I agree with what she said, Hunter. The so-called Revive program, which... is a mirage in my opinion, but that's fine. It's a program which a majority of us agreed to fund at the tune of three point, whatever, $3.2 million was to provide new housing on demolition sites largely in the 6th and 15th District. Period. How did this morph into it? Because you want access to this TID money is what we're talking about. Complete.

So, through the RFQ process, we did ask developers if they were interested in specific existing city-owned lots, which there are 19 here that are already city-owned that aren't part of what's being brought in front of you today.

Here's what we're going to do. We're going to hold this file, both files, now. And if you can clear this up, we can take them up on the council floor. Otherwise, we'll hold them a cycle. Because this is disturbing information. This is not what I anticipated at all.

Mr. Chair.

Yeah, Olin Stamper.

Yeah, thank you. For clarity, for the revived program, how many areas or lots have been selected and where are they? And what's the budget for that?

So we are working with four development teams. Each team is looking at a different district. I have reached out, you know, Alderman Samper. We've had an early conversation. I know Alderwoman Coggs.

I know. Yeah, I know my area. I was just interested in you said I know my area, but how many lots is that and how many total? But I don't know the budget.

So overall, we plan to subsidize each unit, about $100,000 to $110,000, depending on the end sales price. That will get us, aside from the TID dollars that you're considering today, that will get us about 25 units at three to four locations. If we're able to access some portion of the TID funds you're considering today, that will add to those 25 units, likely um probably four to eight more units and again that's that's really the focus here is um early on i know we had mentioned over 30 lots in the king park area the development team that has expressed interest in the existing city lots we're really looking at four to eight units uh for kind of this initial phase of revive so

But see, that's piecemeal operation, okay? So they're given 48 units, and now you've set down a marker, if you will, of what's going to be developed there. This needs to be master planned as a comprehensive, large-scale development, like a subdivision. Instead of, okay, you get four laps over there. Mr.

Chair, I'm still looking for the budget amount for the 25 units and the areas of selection.

So we have not fully identified the areas of selection yet, but the budget for the 25 units is the $1.2 million from the federal government and the $1.6 million from this year's budget, so $2.8 million. Mr.

Chair?

All the women guys.

You stated early on, Larry, that it was... four different automatic districts that the four teams were looking in, and you mentioned six, you mentioned 15. What are the other two?

So the fourth and the other one is the eighth district.

Of the lots that are being looked at by those four teams in those four districts, how are they all lots that we demolished the homing?

Right. I can't answer that off the top of my head. They are all city-owned lots.

If you can find that out and when those demolitions occurred.

This was all in the 60s. This has been vacant for 50 years.

I would say in agreement with Alderman Baumann that I think it's a real opportunity just because of the sheer number and the proximity of those lots. to do something a little different than Revive. I think it's a huge opportunity there. That's number one. Number two, I was at the press conference, I remember, at a home, I believe it was either my district or Alderman Rainey at the Times District, of the announcement of the whole Revive program. And I think that... not only because of how it was initially portrayed publicly, and at least that was what I think most of us thought it was gonna be, but also for the very neighborhoods that we demolished these homes in. I think it's important that we stay true to what we publicly put the intention behind that program to be. I think there's tremendous opportunity to do additional housing programs based upon the need and the opportunity that's out there. I say that to say it looks like we might hold this today. I think you should do something about it. You should, you know, whatever, whatever. I just think it might be an issue of how you brand it, how you do it, and the exact approach for that as opposed to Revive. And then I don't want the communities that have dealt with these demolitions over recent years since the Revive program has been built and where neighbors have been sold the idea of at least we're going to try where we can to build to get a short end of the stick either. So I just think it's a great opportunity to do both, do the REVIVE where we did recent demolitions and do other more tailored programs for some of the other spaces and places.

Could I appreciate all those comments? And could I add that we're not selling any of these lots to any of the revived developers right now? All of those files would have to come back to this council, whether it's this district or any of the other three districts, right? So rather than hold it, we would ask that you move forward with these two files, knowing that any revived developments are going to happen fast. through this council.

Well, that's what I asked before, and the sense I got is we're launching the ship, and off it goes, and enters the oceans of the world, and that's the last we see of it, the last we hear of it, the last we have any control over the process.

I mean, as Dan pointed out, there are a number of other things that have to come through this council, right, zoning included, but the land sale. That's what I asked. The land sale in particular, yes.

Okay, that puts a different cast on things. Okay, that's fine, because I don't want to hold up this acquisition of these... privately owned lots. That's a key piece of the whole equation. But I don't want to hear the word revive ever used again in connection with this. So with that all said, Alderman Jackson moves to recommend adoption of Item 8 and adoption of Item 9. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to Item... 10 and 11. Item 10, file 251773, a substitute ordinance relating to Department of Neighborhood Services enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential buildings. And item 11, file 252240, an ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential nuisance properties. These two files were heard at our last meeting. There is a request that these be referred to steering and rules that that steering and rules will take these up in the future And so Alderman Jackson moves to refer both items to steering and rules and hearing no objection to that So order bring us to item 12, which is our last file of the day file two six zero zero eight six communication from the Department of Compliance and engagement relating to the 2025 annual report of the residents preference program Hello.

Hello. Good morning, ZND committee. Thank you so much for hearing this report. This is the 2025 annual RPP report to give you guys a pulse on the program, see how projects that closed last year performed, and answer any questions you guys may have about the program.

I'll wait for it to... Okay. Any questions? Alderman Stanford, any questions?

NOT AT THIS TIME. MS. MARIE, ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT TODAY OR JUST WHAT'S IN FILE?

YES, WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE 2025 RPP ANNUAL REPORT. PROCEED THEN. YES.

I WILL LOOK FOR THE PRESENTATION FIRST. THANK YOU.

OKAY. NO WORRIES.

The full report's in the file. There's no presentation.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much. All right. So during 2025, six private development construction projects closed out. Of those six projects that closed, total project costs were $138,973,000, with $7.2 million of those being city-funded tax incremental dollars going to those projects. I'll list those projects out. Bronzeville Estates, Corcoran Street and Harbor Drive, 1887 Riverwalk, which was Best Efforts, Five Points, MLK Library and Apartments, and Riverwalk Development 103 West Clybourne, which was also Best Efforts. For the Best Efforts projects, we don't typically report out on those quarterly, but I thought it appropriate to report out on those annually.

All right. Corcoran Street, excuse me, was just a street? Yes. Not the actual apartment building? Correct. Yes. Just a physical street? The infrastructure, yes. Okay. Thank you. Very good.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Yes.

Mr. Chair. Yeah, Alderman Stanford. Yeah, hey, Ms. Reed, could you explain best efforts versus RPP compliance?

Yes, so when a developer approaches the Department of City Development about potentially receiving city funding, if that funding exceeds $1 million, they enter into a required human resources agreement where the 40% RPP, 25% apprentice, and some other requirements Are just that requirements and they must meet those throughout the life of the project in order to qualify for that city funding Best efforts is for those developers coming in at receiving under a million dollars in city funding We still hold them to the same standard, but if they do not meet the requirements, there is no adverse action if you will Do they receive city funding under how much money they receive I It could be, the amounts can range, but if it's less than $1 million, then they will enter into a best efforts human resources agreement.

Yeah, and how do we judge the best efforts?

Yeah, that's a good question. So every project is different, and we look at a number of factors from week to week, month to month, quarter to quarter. We see how the project is performing. Did they make efforts to do the bidding process to contract with small businesses? We look at that. Did they make efforts to reach out to first source staffing agencies to hire RPP workers? We take that into account. Also, throughout the life of the project, if those numbers are dwindling, are they continuing to follow up with first source staffing agencies in an effort to hire RPP workers? So there's a lot we take into consideration in determining best efforts. There is no one size fits all. We certainly look at all of the circumstances surrounding the project.

Okay. Do you have that list or that criteria somewhere that you can send us, please.

Yes, please allow me to get to that and get to you guys later this week, if not next week.

Yeah, sure, whenever you get it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving on to page two, RPP participation. As you guys will see here in that table, table number two, the projects underperformed. And those that came in, they all came in under 40%. I'd like you to focus on the three that are not best efforts. for Bronzeville, Corcoran, Five Points, and MLK. They were issued letters of noncompliance during the scope of the project. We worked with those development teams. They did make efforts to achieve the 40% RPP, and where they fell short, They provided justifications. They showed us what efforts they made to come into compliance. They just were unable to. Some of the developers even went so far as to contract more out on the SBE side, understanding that they fell short on the RPP side.

Any questions? Will we be requiring future projects of theirs for them to make up anything?

These developers did not enter into an RPP adjustment plan. That's what it sounds like you're saying, where they come in short, they enter into a plan, and then for other projects not required under human resources, they make up the shortfall. These developers did not choose to enter into an RPP adjustment plan. We work very closely with DCD, and so we just ask that if they do come short, for a subsequent project that we look more closely at what they're putting forth for their plans. Is there a reason that it's a choice instead of a requirement? That's an excellent question. So we don't, to date we have not required a developer to enter into an adjustment plan if they fall short. According to Ordinance 355, if they fall short, there should be some enforcement activity where a portion of their TIF dollars are withheld or they're unable to enter into a development agreement with the city for a period of time after that. But that's a good point, and I'll look at the ordinance to see if requiring an adjustment plan can be considered a part of enforcement action.

So the ordinance does provide for enforcement remedies, but we choose not to use them?

I wouldn't say we choose not to. Our department, we monitor for reporting and compliance. We report out on the final participation levels at the end of the project. So I can't, I can't answer it.

It's up to the other departments to do something about it. Is that what you're telling us? That is correct. Okay.

And your observation of the, of the ones that fell short, um, and the justifications and all of that, um, Is there common themes? And do you have suggestions on how they may be addressed? And it may not be your office's job to address all of it, but it may be some stuff in the industry. It may be DTD. It may be whatever. But based on your experience in dealing with them and hearing the reasons why or whatever, are there adjustments that we may need to be looking at for the program that might make it more realistic for more of them to actually meet the... Thank you for that.

We do have a very collaborative RPP work group. It involves our department, it involves ECO, DPW, Water Works, the mayor's office. So we come together at least monthly and then we have some breakout groups that meet more often. And we are putting our brains together. We're reaching out to industry professionals. We're reaching out to developers who understand the program, contractors who understand the program, to see what the issues may be and how we can make those better. We're looking through the ordinance to see improvements that we can make. We hear different... things from different developers some developers may cite their margins or the the cost of doing this business that there is an embedded cost in hiring rpp workers because those individuals tend to be less or not skilled at all and so they have to spend time training those individuals we're hearing that supplies and materials have an increased cost and so that cuts into their hiring activities and their ability to do subcontracting. What we heard from one of the industry professionals, and I also share this sentiment, is that when a developer first approaches the city, and we're working on this as well, that they exhibit some understanding and commitment. to the program. So when they come either before Rackham or ZND and they are looking for TIF and city funding, that hey, do you know what this program involves? And if so, are you committed to seeing it through? We find that those developers who do have that understanding, who are committed on the front end, they do better. than the developers who may not. It's all about that commitment from the very start because we'll talk about it later about where the workers are coming from. The developer needs to have the mindset that they're going to be committed to doing business in Milwaukee, not just building the structure here, but hiring here and reaching out to the small businesses that are already here. To me, that's about half the battle. A lot of the developers, they have contractors that they're familiar with, and they tend to not be city of Milwaukee businesses. And so that also hurts the program.

Lastly, before I let you go on to the rest, does your office have a relationship with the ACRE program?

We don't, but I've reached out to them. It's hard to get in contact with the ACRE program. We would like to. We do not.

Because as I look at the projects, many of them are by ACRE graduates. And I think maybe a way to get that commitment early on is to be a part of that program. I myself am an anchor graduate and I'm more than willing outside of this meeting today to make sure that that connection does in fact happen. I think that could go a long way in helping to improve these numbers in the future.

I do too and I look forward to that. All right, I'll keep going. All right, so we talked about none of the projects had RPP adjustments. If you go to page three, you will see worker residency. And again, that green bar, you will see that for the most part, the majority of the workers are not. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

We didn't have a chair for a second, so that's why I wanted to... Is there a reason that DCD doesn't come along for this presentation? Because when we ask, not for the three that almost made it, but I guess for the three that missed it widely, it'd be good to know what the plan is moving forward. So you have your relationship, but DCD is in charge of the future deals, so it makes sense for them... to be here and give some sort of flavor to what they do in these specific instances, but more generally what their approach is. Otherwise, the program is an ideal.

Thank you for that. And I'll take the onus for not inviting them to this presentation. I could have done that. I would like to assure you that we collaborate extensively behind the scenes. And so I'll be more mindful to make sure that they're included so that they have the opportunity to join me during these presentations.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, let's move on to page number four, RPP worker residency. Here you will see a map and a listing of zip codes of the RPP workers for the projects that closed out in 2025. And from that listing, you'll see right away that there are two zip codes that the majority of RPP workers reside, and that is 53204 and 53204. and 53215 and so our department is working on efforts to do more outreach we're hosting evening rpp certification events and we'll work on collaborating with the alders of these districts to make sure that we're supporting these rpp workers and also for those zip codes that have lower numbers right this is an indicator that maybe we could do better with outreach in those zip codes reaching out to see If those individuals are interested in this program, RPP, it's a great program, right? It provides someone who with limited or no experience to get firsthand work experience on a construction site that could lead to a very successful career in the industry. And so we'll make better efforts to do more outreach. in those areas, and to do targeted outreach. So we definitely touch most, if not all of the districts throughout the year, but just being mindful of doing that targeted outreach so that when we are in those districts, that we're focusing heavily on the RPP program. All right, any questions thus far before we move on to page number five? All right. Page number five talks about RPP worker Democrats. Mr. Chair?

Thank you. Hey, Mr. Ray. Can you give me an example of targeted outreach? Because those zip codes indicated aren't the most needed zip codes of where RPP workers should be coming from.

All right, thank you for that question. So we're usually out in the community for our other programs, that being SBE engagement, DCMKE connecting job seekers and skill seekers to resources and other employers throughout the city of Milwaukee. Also, we collaborate very heavily with the Equal Rights Commission. And we're doing that outreach. So I envision that when we are out doing that outreach, that we have lots of informational materials to share with individuals in the community and that we're prepared to. uh... potentially r p p certified someone on the spot now i realize they can start the process they may not have all the the documents needed to complete the process but we can start that so that we can start getting more r p p certified individuals in those areas add them to our active listing and share that listing with developers so that they have uh... a pool to work with when they're looking to hire

Yeah, I support that. I just want to make sure you have the targeted outreach in the zip codes. Like you'll have an event or you'll have one of those things you mentioned in 5-206 and 5-208 and 5-210 and 16. Okay. So the location should match out where the target outreach should be. If you need assistance with that, I'll be more than happy to help.

Thank you. I would welcome collaborating with you on that.

Awesome. I'll reach out.

Have you found the zip codes with the highest RPP? Is there any correlation with maybe out-of-work tradesmen?

One of the pages we have here does talk about what the trades are for the majority of the workers. We can definitely dig into the data and find out what trades these specific zip codes are in. This report doesn't drill down to that level of detail, but what we can do is go back, look at the data, and pull a separate report, just put together something custom and share it with you.

Okay. Yeah, that's page six.

Mm-hmm. We're going to get there. And then, yeah, so what I'll do is I'll take that table and we'll plug in the zip codes. All right, page number five, RPP worker demographics. Further, just looking at this listing here, table number five, the majority of RPP workers that closed out for projects that closed in 2025 were either black or African American and or Hispanic and or Latino, with a good group of these individuals also being white. And there's a ton that are not specified. I can't speak to what those demographics are, but I think it's safe to say that this is a fairly accurate reflection of the city of Milwaukee and a good smattering of what the RPP workers look like. All right. And then a couple years ago, we reported out, if you guys look at table number six, RPP worker participation by gender, you know, it, The industry, I can't really speak to the why, but historically, very low participation by women. But I would like to say that this is an improvement. A couple years ago when we reported out, it was single digits for women on RPP, on construction projects. And so to see just reaching double digits, that's encouraging, to say the least. It's encouraging.

Of course, there's room for improvement.

All right, moving on to page number six. All right, so table number seven, the majority of RPP workers are laborers, right? The majority just don't have that skill set, but built into the RPP program is on-the-job training and a pre-apprentice and apprentice aspect. So we are working with developers and contractors to make sure that when they hire RPP workers that they put them on that track right away for on-the-job training, and then hopefully they can move on to pre-apprenticeship. We realize how important that is in order for RPP workers to succeed and grow in the construction field. But the majority laborers with, and this, I'll speak in terms of worker hours and not necessarily worker counts. So 26,000 plus hours by laborers followed up with over 5,000 hours by sheet metal workers and coming in third and fourth are electricians and plumbers.

Does that include apprentices and trainees? It does. Okay, so those are not all journeymen electricians or licensed electricians.

No, but it can, yeah. It's RPP worker across the board. All right. Let's go on to page number seven, wage rates. So the majority of RPP workers make between $20 and $29 per hour, with a runner-up at $30 to $39 per hour. One could argue that in this economy, that's barely scratching the surface, especially when we're talking about what cost of living is. But we see here that... The majority of workers are over $20 an hour. I don't know exactly. I can't say exactly right now what the solution or answer is to increase that. Actually, I can. But it's going to be that training, right? It's going to be moving them into on-the-job training, into pre-apprenticeship. That's the path to increase wage rates. All right. And then speaking of apprenticeship, if you go down to the bottom half of page number seven, 44.6% of RPP apprentices on projects that close in 2025 are black or African American, followed up by 22.8% being white and 19.8% being Hispanic or Asian. So this is good, to me, of the approximately four to 600, somewhere around there, RPP workers that we see annually, to see 100 of those being apprentices, that's also encouraging to me.

Is there any record count of RPP workers who Go from job to job.

You know what I mean? Like to leave.

Yeah. They worked on this project here and now they move on to this other project. You get what I'm saying? Yeah. I think that's the goal, right?

Is to keep them employed. Yeah. Yeah, we have not been tracking that, but that has come up in discussion, right, because we definitely don't want these workers to be benched or unemployed. We want developers to make the commitment that this project ends, put them on your next project, call your colleagues who, you know, may be working on another project to keep individuals employed. So while we're not tracking that now, it is definitely something on our radar.

As you think about it on the radar and you think about the challenges people say they face with meeting the requirement, maybe some credit could be given for continued employment of folks like Bonnie.

Totally agree with that. I totally agree with that. Thank you. All right, and lastly, one last page, page number eight. Let's look at apprentices by race and ethnicity, and then we'll go on to new hires, and that will wrap the presentation. Actually, table number nine, figure nine is a continuation of the table we discussed about race and ethnicity, so we won't go there. But for new hires, we're seeing 95% of new hires during the year 2025 were male, 12% were female, 53% of new hires, RPP workers, were black or African-American, followed up by 33% being Hispanic or Latino. I have taken note of all of the recommendations made today, and I will be certain to follow up.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, ma'am. I appreciate it. All right, so Alderman Jackson moves to receive and place on file. I'm hearing no objection to that, so ordered. There are a couple of files that are no longer necessary. I'll read them into the record. Item 16, file 251097. Item 14, file 251193. Item 15, file 251685. Item 16, file 252016. Alderman Spiker moves to place these items on file as being no longer necessary. Hearing no objection to that, so ordered. And we're adjourned.