|
040795
| 0 | 1) | Budget | Communication from Mayor Tom Barrett transmitting the 2005 Proposed Budget for the City of Milwaukee.
Minutes note: Also appeared: Mark Nicolini, Director (DOA-Budget), Wally Morics (Comptroller's Office), Marianne Walsh, Manager (Fiscal Review)
DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
Martin Collins, Jeff Crouse, Erick Pearson and Angelyn Ward appeared.
Mr. Collins gave a brief overview of the Department of Neighborhood Services' responsibilities, activities, and programs. He then gave a summary of their 2005 Proposed Budget. He thanked the Mayor for his support that he has given them in their efforts on the 2005 Proposed Budget process. He also thanked his entire staff for all that they do to help the department run smoothly and provide the services that they do.
Mr. Pearson gave a brief budget overview. Ms. Ward then gave a summary of her fiscal report.
Chairman Murphy referred to the study that had been completed on the effectiveness of the Chronic Nuisance Property Code. He asked if Mr. Collins could provide the results of that study and any suggestions on how to improve the program's effectiveness. Mr. Collins briefly explained the Chronic Nuisance Property Code and then explained the results of the study.
Chairman Murphy asked what steps have been taken to assist landlords in dealing with destructive tenants. Mr. Collins replied that the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) has taken several steps in assisting landlords with destructive tenants, such as: educational programs, a landlord problem hotline and they also have property data information available on their web site for screening of tenants, etc. He further noted that he has been meeting with the Apartment Association, District Attorney Jeff Altenburg and the Police Department on how to deal with damages caused by tenants.
Chairman Murphy noted that in 2003, the city budget merged the exterior code compliance program and the certificate code compliance program, thereby no longer requiring interior inspections in 6 areas of the city. He asked what has been the impact since these changes occurred. Mr. Collins replied that they don't have any survey data, but he noted that they have a backup program called the complaint system, where they will respond to interior complaints by occupants. Mr. Collins further noted that the complaint level has actually gone up and that is an indication that there is a demand for those services.
Ald. Davis questioned the $2.7 million of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and noted that the 2005 Proposed Budget seeks an increase of 5.8% from the 2005 Budget allocation of $2,551,605 and $248,000 is coming from reprogramming funds. He asked whether the Code Enforcement Interns are being duplicated with a program offered by the Department of City Development (DCD) and could they combine the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) youth intern program with DCD. Mr. Collins noted that there isn't an overlap of service between the Youth Interns in DNS and DCD. He also noted that the DNS youth program has been going on for over 10 years now. Ms. Brown from the Department of City Development appeared and explained the youth intern program.
Ald. Davis asked if DNS keeps a record of how many property owners or managers reside in the City of Milwaukee and who participates or takes advantage of the landlord programs offered by DNS. Mr. Collins noted that they keep records by who owns property in the City.
Ald. Davis questioned the $60,000 increase for the Vacant Lot Maintenance Program and asked if that includes garbage removal, cutting, etc. Mr. Collins replied that yes it included all that plus snow removal, abandoned cars, etc.
Ald. Davis then questioned the $90,000 increase for the Target Enforcement Program. Mr. Collins noted that the same employees staff several of the programs and that increase is to pay for the current staffs' wage increases. Mr. Crouse appeared and reiterated what Mr. Collins stated. Ald. Davis then questioned why the Neighborhood Improvement Program has been transfered to DNS from DCD. Mr. Collins noted that there was some conflict of interest through the HUD rules when it was in DCD, so they moved it into DNS.
Ald. D'Amato asked where does the Department of Neighborhood Services' (DNS) responsibility end and where does the responsibility of Department of Public Works and Department of City Development begin in regards to the Vacant Lot Maintenance Program. He also asked what DNS funds are used for those vacant lots that are privately owned and who is responsible for the "do not acquire" properties that are abandoned. Mr. Collins replied that the Vacant Lot Maintenance Program deals with parcels that are city owned through the tax foreclosure process and though street widening. Mr. Collins then explained the responsibilities of each of the above named Departments.
DEPT. OF CITY DEVELOPMENT
Rocky Marcoux, Martha Brown, Thomas Croasdaile, Clifton Crump-Secretary (Board of Zoning Appeals), David Schroeder and Emma Stamps appeared.
Mr. Schroeder gave a brief budget overview. Ms. Stamps then gave a summary of her fiscal report. Mr. Marcoux appeared and gave a Powerpoint presentation on the Department of City Development's Budget highlights and the challenges they will face in 2005. (Powerpoint presentation attached to File 040795)
Chairman Murphy referred to an article in the Journal/Sentinel regarding the Park East Corridor redevelopment and asked Mr. Marcoux if he could update the committee on what the progress is at the County level. Mr. Marcoux replied that he couldn't speak on what the County is doing, but explained that they have made overtures to the County on ways the City might be able to expedite the process. He further explained what options the City has to offer. Chairman Murphy then asked if there have been any proposals submitted for the Pabst City. Mr. Marcoux replied that there haven't been any proposals submitted by the investors of Pabst City. He further noted that they have encouraged them to expedite that process so that they too do not suffer from problems from the adjacent uses that may come prior to their announcing what their use is going to be. Chairman Murphy further discussed other areas up for development, including parking in the downtown area. Ms. Brown appeared and noted that the Performing Arts Center has a long-term lease on its parking structure. Ald. D'Amato referred to Chairman Murphy's comments on the three informal proposal, that are asking for Tax Incremental District (TID) funding to support parking in the downtown area, He further noted that the parking structures would be within a mile of each other. He then asked if the City has a plan for a downtown parking study. Mr. Marcoux replied that they do have a working group within the department speaking to that issue as well as additional first class office space that is envisioned by some of the proposed projects, as wells as the use of TID funding, etc. Chairman Murphy asked if they have a downtown parking master plan. Ms. Brown replied that they have data, as to where all the parking structures are in the downtown area, but no master plan. Chairman Murphy noted that an amendment may be in order for a master plan of the downtown area parking.
Chairman Murphy referred to the expanding of Canal St. and the TID funding that's involved in the Menomonee Valley and asked what is the current progress of the project and development in that area, in terms of bringing in new businesses in that community. Ms. Brown replied that the property will be mostly available for private business construction starting in 2006 and they have already started marketing the property.
Chairman Murphy further questioned other projects, such as the Main Street program. Mr. Marcoux replied and explained the progress and procedures of the Main Street program.
Ald. Witkowiak asked what kind of progress are they making in moving the Traser Yards. Mr. Marcoux explained the process and where they are at right now. He further noted that he anticipated that they would meet the dates set in the redevelopment agreement.
Ald. Davis asked what is the recruitment plan to bring new businesses into the City. Mr. Marcoux replied that they are working with the Mayor's Office, the Greater Milwaukee Bureau and a number of other organizations on ideals and they are exploring all avenues. He further noted that they are being very aggressive on how they can bring in more jobs. Ald. Davis asked if they are encompassing that same strategy in the Main Street project. Mr. Marcoux replied yes, they would be. Ald. Davis then asked how does the Business Improvement District (BID) interact with this innovated program as far as working with the MainStreet project in its preliminary stages. Mr. Marcoux replied that all of the BID's are completely vested in their community and they expect any area that currently has a Business Improvement District operation would want to go through a 501C3, which most of them have access to and they can use that as a device to apply. He further explained that process.
Ald. Davis referred to the HUD funding that Mr. Marcoux spoke of earlier and noted that there is a good possibility that it will dry up under the current administration and it may come available in the years to come, if the administration changes. What type of strategic plan does the City need to take, not only with the Housing Authority, but also in the hunt for funding that the City is eligible for, and what type of things should the City anticipate in the years to come. Mr. Marcoux replied that the Housing Authority does realize the significant economic benefits that those monies bring to the neighborhoods and has been engaged for the last two years in the planning of just that subject. He continued to explain that they have been active in their lobbying efforts to Congress to get them to understand what those cuts would mean to localities. Their long-term strategies are to try and get HUD to reinvest money back into public housing.
Ald. Davis referred to the $350,000 that may be allocated for the Youth Internship Program and asked what moves have been made so far so that the program is up and running, such as is the application process going to be set up prior to when the program is to become effective. Mr. Brown replied that in consultation with the Community Block Grant Administration and Department of Employee Relations they are not sure DCD is the right place for that program to land. They plan to meet again along with some other representatives to figure out where the best place would be for that program.
Chairman Murphy questioned the communication between the Department of City Development and the Common Council and noted that, earlier in 2004, a person was delicated as a part time liaison and that person has recently taken a new job. He asked if there is someone else who has taken on those responsibilities. Ms. Brown replied that she would be taking on some of those responsibilities and Judy Allen will be taking on some of the responsibilities. Mr. Marcoux noted that they plan to add another person, whose primary responsibility will be Council relations.
Chairman Murphy noted that the Hunzinger Development project was extended recently and asked if the Council members were notified. Ms. Brown replied that she didn't think it was communicated to the Council directly, but noted that the development agreement that was adopted included a clause that indicated that if they had an extraordinary situation that made it impossible to meet the October 1 ground breaking dead line, they had the right for an extension. Mr. Marcoux replied that it was an administrative decision that he made, and noted that he would make sure the Council is informed of such matters in the future.
Chairman Murphy commented on the housing trust fund that was recently brought out by 50 groups who are looking to raising $15 million from a number of sources, and the Mayor noted that section 8 housing is in jeopardy of being cut. He then asked if Mr. Marcoux had an opportunity to review the proposal in terms of the housing trust fund and in a matter in which the city can play a role in assisting in that effort. Mr. Marcoux noted that they have had input into that planning process and explained the section 8 vouchers and some of the strategies that the City has been talking about and engaging with members of WHEDA and other agencies in the state.
Chairman Murphy asked how the part time position that Mr. Greensteet filled as Planning Director is progressing. Mr. Marcoux replied that it is working out very well and noted that the addition of Mr. Greenstreet to the DCD team has raised the visibility of the planning section to where it should be.
Ald. D'Amato referred to page 37 of the 2005 Budget Summary, that shows a chart (Figure 3) on the Number of New Housing Units completed from 1995 to 2003, which shows a tremendous increase in 2003. He asked if they had figures for 2004 yet. Ms. Brown replied that they didn't. Ald. D'Amato noted that because of those increases, he had submitted an amendment last year to add some plan examiners positions and, unfortunately, it was not successful. He then questioned that, with the continuing increase in housing units and development in the city, are they fully staffed and prepared to meet the needs of the Development Center. He also asked how they measure their success. Ms. Brown replied that they can measure it in a couple of ways. They can measure by how many customers actually come through the door, how many plans come through the door, and they also can measure the length of time it takes to serve a walk-in customer. She noted that they do have a vacant plan examiner position that they have been trying to fill since early 2004. Ald. D'Amato referred to the double fees for faster service, that was instituted earlier in 2004, and asked how has that been working out and how much money has been received so far. Ms. Brown replied that they received about $12,000 - $15,000 additional revenue, and noted that they also instituted a new fee for preliminary plan review for development professionals that come in to ask for advice.
Ald. D'Amato referred to the property service line, noting that in 2004 it was budgeted for $200,000 and in 2003 they had expended $350,000, but in 2005 it has been zeroed out. He asked what is the property service line for and is the money being found elsewhere. Ms. Brown replied that that line item is money spent to maintain and market tax foreclosed properties, and that money was used for certain holding costs for properties that are occupied and that need fixing. She they noted that they do use Community Development Block Grant funds and the City supplemented it. The money was used for property problems, such as liens for water and energy costs that were put on the property before it was foreclosed. She noted that they would not be taking foreclosed properties any more and they wouldn't until some of those lien problems are taken care of. Ms Brown referred to the City Attorney's role in perusing impersona judgments on properties that are foreclosed. Mr. Croasdaile appeared and replied that currently they collect rent on some of the foreclosed properties and the rents get put into an account. He further discussed the foreclosed properties that they currently have, and explained how the City Attorney's impersona judgments has reduced the number of tax deed properties that they receive. He noted that last year it was 220 and this year it was 130 that they received so far. They have currently taken care of those 130 and they have exsulted their funds for that purpose. They will look to the Block Grant funds to carry them through 2004, and he further noted that their Block Grant funds have been cut $400,000 which assisted them in maintaining those tax deed properties. They use both city funds and Block Grant funds. Ald. Davis asked if they are using Block Grant funds, are those funds being use in the CDBG targeted areas. Mr. Croasdaile noted that they are mandated by HUD to used those funds in the targeted areas and they can only do that for up to three years per property, and then they would have to move it onto the city tax roll. Mr. Croasdaile further explained the cost process the city uses for tax deed properties.
Chairman Murphy commented on the Neighborhood Improvement Development Corporation (NIDC) moving over to Department of City Development, and asked if that has improved the efficiency as far as producing more housing units and rehabbing more homes. Ms. Brown replied that it has improved the correspondence between NIDC and Neighborhood Planning on where NIDC is working and on other targeted investment that is controlled by NIDC.
Ald. Davis referred to page 37 of the 2005 Proposed Budget Summary under Program 2 and noted that for 2003 the total funding is a little over $10 million, 2004 it is $7.6 million and then a big jump in 2005 at $77 million. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Schroeder explained that the costs for 2003 and 2004 are actually funds that run through the city and the last column is for 2005 and is a projection of what they feel the Housing Authority will obtain in the 2005 budget year. It is an estimated amount. What he doesn't have is the actual expenditure that the Housing Authority recorded on its books, which is completely separate from the city.
Ald. Davis then questioned the Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning Law, which states that a Citywide Comprehensive Plan needs to be completed by January 1, 2010. Ms. Brown explained the 9 policy areas. Ald. Davis asked if population influences the policy. Mr. Marcoux replied that it would reflect that, because it is a stakeholder driven plan.
Ald. Witkowiski appeared and addressed the Committee. Ald. Witkowski commended the Department of City Development. He then referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals and noted that there seems to be an increase in workload, and asked if the current setup is sufficient to deal with the increase. He noted the delays some of his constituents had dealt with recently. Mr. Crump appeared and replied that on average it takes 4-6 weeks to get an appeal heard. He further noted that citizens are confused on when the Board of Zoning Appeals gets involved. He then explained the procedures. He noted that on occassion there may be cases that take more than 2 months to be heard, because of certain circumstances, such as a case that is in the Municipal Court before it comes to the Board. He then explained that in 2004 there were circumstances that caused an increase in cases that came before the Board, such as the elections and an increase in day care businesses. Chairman Murphy noted that legislation that was recently passed, such as special uses, has caused an increase in the Boards caseload. Mr. Crump further noted that when the Department of Neighborhood Services cracks down on rooming houses that have expired variances and those are addtional new cases that need to come before the Board. Ald. Witkowski commented that his purpose of raising this issue was to find out if they have enough staff to handle the increase of cases. Mr. Marcoux replied that a study will be taken regarding adding additional staff for the Board.
Recess: 11:40 A.M.
Reconvened: 11:50 A.M.
SPECIAL PURPOSE ACCOUNTS
OVERVIEW & MISC. SPA'S.
Patrick Hartmann and Marianne Walsh appeared.
Chairman Murphy read each SPA into the record.
Alternative Transportation for City Employees
Annual Payment to DNR
Audit Fund
Boards and Commissions Reimbursement Expense
Board of Ethics
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) & Budget Bid Funding
Cable TV Franchise Regulation and Negotiation
Care of Prisoners Fund
City Attorney Collection Contract
City Employee Innovation Award
Clerk of Court Witness Fees
Contribution Fund - General
Damages and Claims
E-Government Payments System
Economic Development Committee Fund
Ald. Davis asked that the council increase this fund. Mr. Nicolini noted that there is a carryover from 2004 to 2005.
Employee Training Fund
Fire and Police Discipline and Citizen Complaint Account
Firemen's Relief Fund
Flexible Spending Account
Graffiti Abatement Fund
Group Life Insurance Premium
Insurance Fund
Long Term Disability Insurance
Low Interest Mortgage Program
Maintenance of Essential Services
City Memberships
Mentoring Program
Milwaukee Arts Board Projects
Milwaukee Fourth of July Commission
Municipal Court Intervention Program
Neighborhood Cleanup Initiative
Razing and Vacant Building Protection Fund
Receivership Fund
Reimbursable Services Advance Fund
Remission of Taxes Fund
Reserve for 27th Payroll
Retirees Benefit Adjustment Fund
Sewer Maintenance Fee
MMSD - Sewer User Charge - Pass through Less Recovery from Sewer User Charge
Tuition Reimbursement Fund
Unemployment Compensation Fund
Wages Supplement Fund
Board of Zoning Appeals
Worker's Compensation | HELD TO CALL OF THE CHAIR | Pass | 4:0 |
Action details
|
Not available
|