CITY OF MILWAUKEE

2002-2007

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

CITY OF MILWAUKEE

State of Wisconsin

John O. NorquistMayor

Department of AdministrationBudget and Management Division

Michael Soika Laura J. EnganAdministration Director Budget and Management Director

John LedvinaCapital Planning and Finance Specialist

Budget and Management Staff:

Thomas Bell Eric PearsonJennifer C. Gonda Sandra J. RotarPatrick Hartmann Dore Marie RozwadowskiCrystal Ivy David SchroederKatherine O’Sullivan Dennis Yaccarino

MILWAUKEE CITY OFFICIALS

MAYORJOHN O. NORQUIST

CITY ATTORNEYGRANT F. LANGLEY

COMPTROLLERW. MARTIN MORICS

CITY TREASURERWAYNE F. WHITTOW

COMMON COUNCIL

PRESIDENT - MARVIN E. PRATT

MARVIN E. PRATT ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 1TERRANCE HERRON ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 2MICHAEL S. D’AMATO ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 3PAUL A. HENNINGSEN ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 4JAMES A. BOHL JR ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 5MARLENE E. JOHNSON-ODOM ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 6FREDRICK G. GORDON ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 7ROBERT G. DONOVAN ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 8DONALD F. RICHARDS ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 9ROSA CAMERON ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 10JOE DUDZIK ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 11ANGEL SANCHEZ ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 12JEFFREY A. PAWLINSKI ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 13SUZANNE M. BREIER ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 14THOMAS G. NARDELLI ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 15MICHAEL J. MURPHY ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 16WILLIE L. HINES JR. ALDERMANIC DISTRICT 17

PUBLIC DEBT COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER MARGARET J. HENNINGSEN, CHAIRPERSONCOMMISSIONER TIMOTHY J. ELVERMAN

COMMISSIONER MICHELLE J. NATE

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS:

W. MARTIN MORICS, SECRETARYWAYNE F. WHITTOW, TREASURER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 1

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING: MILWAUKEE’S APPROACH ...................................................... 5

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: MAKING CRITICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS.......... 7

2002-2007 CAPITAL PLAN: FINANCING THE PLAN ................................................................................10

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................19Streets...........................................................................................................................................................21Alleys ...........................................................................................................................................................24Bridges .........................................................................................................................................................26Street Accessories-Street Lighting .............................................................................................................29Street Accessories-Traffic Controls............................................................................................................31Sidewalks .....................................................................................................................................................33Parking .........................................................................................................................................................35

ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................................................................................37Sewers ..........................................................................................................................................................38Water............................................................................................................................................................43Forestry ........................................................................................................................................................48Sanitation .....................................................................................................................................................51Environmental Remediation Program.......................................................................................................53

HEALTH AND SAFETY...................................................................................................................................55Fire................................................................................................................................................................57Police ............................................................................................................................................................60Health...........................................................................................................................................................63

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................67Tax Incremental Districts ...........................................................................................................................69Business Improvement Districts ................................................................................................................74Development District Funds ......................................................................................................................77Port of Milwaukee.......................................................................................................................................80

CULTURE AND RECREATION ......................................................................................................................84Libraries .......................................................................................................................................................85Recreational Facilities .................................................................................................................................89Pabst Theater ...............................................................................................................................................91Municipal Art Fund ....................................................................................................................................93

GENERAL GOVERNMENT.............................................................................................................................94Maintenance and Remodeling....................................................................................................................95Communication and Control .....................................................................................................................99Underground Conduit and Manhole System .........................................................................................102

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................................105

MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ................................................................................................................111

INVENTORY OF CAPITAL ASSETS.............................................................................................................114

MAPS, TABLES, AND FIGURES

MAPS PAGE

1 Department of Public Works Sanitation Division Major Facilities (1995) .......................................512 Public Health and Safety Facility Sites ...............................................................................................553 Tax Incremental Districts.....................................................................................................................724 Milwaukee Riverwalk System.............................................................................................................785 Port of Milwaukee National and International Waterborne Commerce Routes.............................806 Public Library Sites ..............................................................................................................................85

TABLES

1 PDAF Unsegregated Balance (In Thousands)....................................................................................122 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Function ..........................................................................163 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Department.....................................................................174 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Funding Source ..............................................................185 Miles of City Streets and Highways by Type as of December 31, 2001 ...........................................226 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Street Improvements.....................................................237 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Alley Improvements .....................................................258 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Bridge Improvements ...................................................279 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Street Lighting ...............................................................3010 Traffic Control Device Inventory as of December 31, 2000 ..............................................................3111 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Traffic Control Improvements .....................................3212 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Sidewalk Improvements ...............................................3413 Summary of City-Owned and Operated Parking Structures ...........................................................3514 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Parking Improvements .................................................3615 City Sewer Infrastructure Inventory as of December 31, 2001 .........................................................3916 Factors Used for Calculating Sewer Index Rating.............................................................................3917 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Sewer Program........................................................4118 Water Works Infrastructure System as of December 31, 2000..........................................................4319 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Milwaukee Water Works........................................4720 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Forestry Division.....................................................4921 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Sanitation Division..................................................5222 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Environmental Remediation Projects ..........................5423 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Fire Department ......................................................5824 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Police Department...................................................6125 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Health Department .................................................6526 Summary of Active Tax Incremental Districts...................................................................................7027 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Tax Incremental Districts..............................................7128 Capital Investments in Active Business Improvement Districts ......................................................7529 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Business Improvement Districts ..................................7630 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Development Districts and Other

Economic Development Projects .....................................................................................................7931 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Port of Milwaukee...................................................8332 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Milwaukee Public Library System.........................8733 2002 Recreational Facilities Capital Improvements Budget..............................................................9034 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Recreational Facilities....................................................90

TABLES (Continued) PAGE

35 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Pabst Theater ...........................................................9236 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Municipal Art Fund ................................................9337 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Maintenance and Remodeling......................................9738 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Communication and Control System ..................10039 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Underground Conduit and Manhole Program ..10440 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan Summary............................................................................10541 Cyclical Major Maintenance Program Component Rating System (as of June, 2001) ..................11242 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Milwaukee Public Schools ..........................................113

FIGURES

1 Capital Improvement Budgets, City of Milwaukee (1991-2007)........................................................ 12 Capital Budget Investment in Infrastructure Systems ....................................................................... 73 Preservation and Expansion, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan............................................... 84 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Function ........................................................................... 85 Tax Levy-Supported Capital Budget ..................................................................................................116 Recurring Infrastructure Percent Cash-Financed ..............................................................................137 Capital Improvement Revenue Sources, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan ...........................148 Surface Transportation, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan ......................................................199 Condition Rating of Local Streets .......................................................................................................2210 Percentage of Bridges with Condition Rating Greater than 50.........................................................2711 1988 Sidewalk Survey Results .............................................................................................................3412 Environment, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan .......................................................................3713 Sewer Inspections, Feet of Sewers Inspected (1995-2000) .................................................................4014 Age of Sewer System by Miles of Sewers...........................................................................................4015 Number of Clogged Sewers Causing Backwater...............................................................................4116 Number of Water Main Breaks ...........................................................................................................4417 Water Main Preservation, Miles Constructed (1994-2000)................................................................4518 Percentage of Facilities in Need of Abatement by Hazard Rating ...................................................5419 Health and Safety, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan ...............................................................5520 Economic Development, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan.....................................................6721 Types of TID Development, Total Project Cost Commitments $299 Million ..................................7022 Development Opportunities Fund Expenditures, 1995-2001............................................................7723 Port of Milwaukee Tonnage Summary...............................................................................................8124 Port of Milwaukee Operating Revenues and Expenditures .............................................................8225 Culture and Recreation, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan......................................................8426 Pabst Theater Operating Revenues (Without City Subsidies) ..........................................................9127 General Government, 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan..........................................................9428 Miles of Underground Conduit and Number of Manholes............................................................10329 Underground Conduit, Miles Replaced and Installed, 1995-2000 .................................................103

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan is anintegral part of the city’s long-range financial plan-ning. The two primary goals of the 2002-2007Capital Improvements Plan are to maintain andstrengthen the city’s existing capital assets and toprovide appropriate funding that meets overallspending, debt, and tax rate goals.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan contin-ues an important city goal of maintaining andstrengthening the city’s capital stock. The plan,which includes the 2002 adopted capital budget,allocates a total of $957.5 million to a variety ofcapital projects and programs. Of this total, $593.5million will be funded directly through city re-sources while the remaining amount, $364 million,will be funded through intergovernmental aid or

through self-funded sources such as the Water,Parking, and Sewer Enterprise Funds.

This section of the document puts the 2002-2007capital plan in a historical context with a discussionof how funding levels over the next six years com-pare to the recent past. Contained within thisoverall discussion will be an explanation of thefluctuations in annual capital budgets as well as adescription of some of the major projects that havehad a significant impact on the city’s capital budgetin recent years. This section also briefly describessome of the specific “critical capital investments”which will be funded during the life of the six-yearplan.

THE CAPITAL BUDGET: PAST AND PRESENT

As shown in Figure 1, the city-funded por-tion of Milwaukee’s capital budget in-creased overall from 1991 to 1999. In2000, the city-funded portion declined andis projected to remain fairly constantthrough 2007 averaging approximately$99 million each year. One factor contrib-uting to this decline is the transfer of theRelief and Relay Sewer Program to theSewer Maintenance Fund. This changealso contributes to the increase in non city-funded capital in 2000 and beyond.

The increase in city-funded capital expen-ditures apparent in 1996 through 2000 re-sults from a series of significant (annualproject cost exceeding $10 million), one-time special projects. In 1996, the city in-cluded $18 million in cash revenue offsetspending authority for stadium improve-ments associated with the Miller Park project. In1997, the budget included $15 million in city bor-rowing authority for a Milwaukee Economic De-velopment Commission (MEDC) loan for the Mil-waukee Brewers, which would also assist in cov-ering stadium-related costs. The 1998 capitalbudget included $10.9 million in borrowingauthority to fund the purchase and installation of a

new Financial Management Information System(FMIS). The 1999 and 2000 budgets included $12.5and $20.5 million respectively for the constructionof a new Data Com Center/District Station for thePolice Department. In 2001, $20.5 million was ap-propriated for tax increment financing districts(TIDs) to provide for emerging economic devel-opment opportunities. This self-funded financingwas over $12 million higher than in 2000.

Figure 1

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

Ann

ual B

udge

t(In

Mill

ions

)…

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Capital Improvements Budgets (1991-1997)

Total City-Funded Total Non City-Funded Total Grant-Funded

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN2

Excluding large one-time projects from the analy-sis, city funding of capital needs appears quite con-sistent. For instance, if the $18 million in cashrevenue offset spending authority is excluded thetotal city-funded capital budget in 1996 is ap-proximately $88 million. If the $15 million MEDCloan is excluded, the 1997 capital budget also totals$88 million. When the funding provided for theFMIS project is excluded from the 1998 budget, thecity-funded capital budget totals only $94.8 million.In the case of 1999, the exclusion of the Data Com-munications Center/District Station project gener-ates a city-funded capital budget of $96.2 million,an amount more consistent with prior-year fundingamounts. In 2000 infrastructure projects, such asthe new Sixth Street Viaduct, received substantialstate and federal aid funding. This resulted inlower city funding requirements for the projects.

Large one-time projects funded through non-citysources also inflate past capital budgets. In 1995,the non city-funded portion of the capital programincludes approximately $80 million for a WaterWorks Ozonation Project (see Figure 1). Excludingthis one-time project, funding levels for non city-funded capital are relatively constant from 1991 to2001.

Funding for the 2002-2007 Capital ImprovementsPlan is also relatively constant over the six-yearperiod. The city-funded portion of the programranges from approximately $103 million to ap-proximately $97 million over the life of the plan.The non city-funded portion, which includes theWater Works, Parking Fund, and Sewer Mainte-nance Fund ranges from approximately $33.3 mil-lion to approximately $46 million. Grant and aidfunding over the life of the plan ranges from $25.6million in 2002 to $14.7 million in 2006. Grant andaid capital funding peaks at almost $29 million in2003 due to grants for the West Canal Street recon-struction, expansion, and preparation for theMarquette Interchange reconstruction.

This analysis shows that capital funding has re-mained relatively constant (in nominal terms) oncecertain large one-time projects are removed fromthe equation. It is important to note that althoughthe aggregate level of funding has not increasedover time, Milwaukee’s capital infrastructure hasnot been adversely affected. In fact, Milwaukee’sinfrastructure systems have not only been ade-quately maintained but in fact have even expandedover the last decade.

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: CRITICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan outlinesthe major initiatives and/or program changes thatare planned during the life of the six-year plan.The following is an overview of some of the “criti-cal investments” that the document describes ingreater detail.

Capital Equipment: Beginning in 2002, durableequipment with a unit cost of $50,000 or more isfinanced through the capital improvement fund.This long lasting equipment included fire engines,ladder trucks, and ambulances, DPW vehicles suchas sweepers, dump trucks and garbage packersand other specialized equipment such as a conduitdirectional boring machine. Over the six-year plan$34.7 million is provided for capital equipment.

City Hall Restoration Program: Milwaukee’s CityHall is an architecturally significant landmarkbuilding listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. The 2002-2007 plan includes funding of$22.5 for city hall restoration. This initial estimate

was made by DPW staff based on their preliminaryvisual analysis of the building’s exterior conditionand records of work accomplished during the1973-1974 renovation. Subsequent detailed studiesby engineering and architectural consultants havefound significant structural problems with thetowers, exterior walls, interior walls, and support-ing structure. The consultants’ cost estimate tocomplete the required repairs and renovations isapproximately $44 million.

Department of Public Works staff and Budget andManagement Division staff are currently evaluat-ing this extensive, detailed restoration and repairsreport.

In addition, a Historic Structures Report will bewritten by consultants who are experts in historicpreservation to obtain historic landmark statusfrom the National Park Service. This may allowthe city to seek federal funding for a portion of thisproject.



Please refer to the General Government, Maintenanceand Remodeling, Program Changes and Initiatives sec-tion for detailed information.

City Telephone Switch (System) Replacement:The city’s telephone system is long obsolete, nolonger supported by its manufacturer, and be-coming increasingly difficult to repair. In 2002, $5million is provided to replace this obsolete system.The new system will directly interface into primarytrunk lines, lower energy bills, save space, complywith environmental requirements, and allow pre-cise location (building and room) for emergency911 calls.

Police Data Communications Center/Third Dis-trict Station: Construction began in late 1999 onthe Data Comm Center/Third District Station onMilwaukee’s west side. The 2002 capital im-provements budget includes $4 million for thisproject. The project has an expected budget ofover $50 million and will be completed in 2002.

Consolidated Fire Equipment Repair MunicipalGarage Study: The city will study the equipmentrepair needs of the Fire Department and other citydepartments to determine if efficiencies may begained from consolidating maintenance and repairoperations. The current separate Fire and Munici-pal Garage facilities are aged and outmoded forrepair of modern fire and other equipment. Mod-ern diagnostic equipment and associated toolswere not contemplated when these facilities werebuilt in the early- and mid-1900’s. Repair bays arecramped and the layouts preclude efficient move-ment of equipment. To properly accommodate theequipment in the long-term future, new facilitiesneed to be constructed. The study will determine

whether separate or combined facilities will opti-mize maintenance and repair operations.

New Library Construction: A new Finney neigh-borhood library will be constructed to replace anaging, outmoded facility. Construction began in2001. The project cost was funded over two years,$1.6 million in 2001 and $2.7 million in 2002. Theold library site will be turned over to MilwaukeePublic Schools (MPS) for construction of a newneighborhood school as part of MPS’s Neighbor-hood School Initiative.

Trunked Radio Communications: Nearly $15million will be provided for trunked radio com-munications in 2004 and 2005. A $300,000 study todetermine citywide requirements was funded in2001. This conversion is imperative, as the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) is reallocatingfrequency ranges in 2005. A FCC compliant digitalsystem will allow several users to communicateover the same frequency simultaneously. It willalso ensure that various local agencies are able tocommunicate on mutually accessible frequencies.

West Canal Street Reconstruction and Extension:The improvement and extension of West CanalStreet from North Sixth Street to the Miller ParkBaseball Stadium is scheduled to begin construc-tion in 2003. Approximately $10 million of cityfunding is provided to match grant funding for thisproject. This project is considered vital to the re-development of the Menomonee Valley. It willalso serve as an alternate travel route during theplanned upcoming reconstruction of the MarquetteInterchange.



2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Monitoring State Financial Crisis

The State of Wisconsin has a $1.1 billion budgetdeficit in the current (2001-2003) biennium. InJanuary 2002, Governor McCallum proposed animmediate reduction and in 2004 elimination of theState Shared Revenue Program. The State Assem-bly and Senate have passed dramatically differentversions of a budget bill to eliminate the deficit.The proposals are now being debated by a confer-ence committee.

The proposed state shared revenue reduction andelimination would have a substantial impact on thecity’s operations and capital budgets. The exactimpact is not currently known because of thewidely varying proposals being considered in con-ference. As a precaution, the Common Counciland administration have placed nearly $17.5 mil-lion in 2002 capital projects on hold pending stateaction. Should significant reductions in stateshared revenue occur, the city will have to repriori-

tize its capital program with specific attentionplaced on preserving Milwaukee’s physical infra-structure.

Strengthening Decision Making

The City of Milwaukee has historically engaged invigorous planning as a strategy to preserve andstrengthen its capital stock. The city will not onlycontinue the implementation of this strategy butenhance its efforts as well. Capital decision mak-ing will be strengthened through the developmentof a capital investment model. This model willhelp policymakers choose between various projectsbased upon the project’s “value-added” impact onthe city’s capital stock. In addition, the city willimplement stricter project management and ac-countability standards to ensure that decisionsmade by policymakers are implemented in a man-ner consistent with budgetary and policy intent.

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 5

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING:MILWAUKEE’S APPROACH

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan reflectsthe city’s long-range capital needs and citywideobjectives as outlined in the city’s strategic plan. Inaddition, the plan incorporates the city’s long-range fiscal plan through the implementation ofvarious capital financing strategies.

The capital improvements plan not only identifiesprojects and estimates costs, it also identifiesfunding sources. A summary of the capital im-provements planning process, as well as definitionsof capital projects, is presented below.

Program Assumptions

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan esti-mates future costs based on present value (in 2002dollars) and does not adjust for inflation. This iscomparable to other local taxing jurisdictions,which do not adjust for inflation in their capitalimprovement plans.

Planning Process

The capital improvements planning process in-cludes development of both a one-year budget anda six-year plan. The six-year plan is reviewed an-nually by city departments and the Budget andManagement Division as part of the overall budgetreview process.

By April of each year, city departments prepareand submit a one-year budget and a six-year capi-tal improvements plan to the Budget and Man-agement Division. Capital requests are reviewedand recommendations are made to the Mayor.After a series of public hearings, the Mayor sub-mits the executive city budget, which includescapital improvements, to the Common Council.The Common Council’s Finance and PersonnelCommittee reviews the executive budget, holdsadditional public hearings, and submits its recom-mendations to the full Common Council. After theCommon Council and the Mayor approve thebudget, the adopted capital improvements budgetis established as the initial year of the six-year capi-tal improvements plan.

Planning for the “Out” Years

The value of any capital plan can be evaluated inhow well it enables the city to anticipate futurecapital commitments. Through planning, the citycan avoid system failures and corresponding fiscalstresses. A long-term horizon is essential to thisplanning process, yet it is the most challenging as-pect of planning. The city will continue to focus onimproving its ability to plan for projects in the lastseveral years of the six year plan.

Capital Project Definition

A capital project includes the purchase, construc-tion, enhancement, or maintenance of physical in-frastructure systems or facilities. These includebridges, streets, alleys, sidewalks, street lighting,traffic control, parking facilities, port facilities,sewer system, water system, public buildings andrelated equipment, underground conduit andmanholes, communication systems, major equip-ment purchases, boulevards, trees, and recreationfacilities. In addition, a capital project may en-hance economic development through job creation,business formation, and housing production.

Capital improvements typically meet one or moreof the following criteria:

1) Renovation or restoration of buildings, struc-tures, facilities, and integral equipment itemswhose cost exceeds $25,000;

2) Construction of new or replacement buildingsor structures at a cost exceeding $25,000 in-cluding planning and design costs;

3) Remodeling of office and shop areas;4) Durable equipment with an original unit cost

of $50,000 or more;5) Equipment and furnishings which are to be

purchased as a part of a capital project; and6) Replacement equipment (an integral part of a

building, structure, or facility) which costs$25,000 or more.

Oversight of Capital Projects

The city employs a decentralized approach to capi-tal project management and oversight. In the re-

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING: MILWAUKEE’S APPROACH


cent past, large capital projects have presentedadministrative challenges. These include budgetoverruns and contention regarding controlling de-cision making authority for changes to the originalplan. While individual departments are nowgranted expenditure authority for a project, theDepartment of Public Works – Operations Divi-sion, Buildings and Fleet Section works as the proj-ect manager for the facility design and construc-tion. This split of authority and responsibility hascaused difficulties in communication betweenDPW and “customer” departments, for account-ability, accurate estimation of project expenditures,

and design/construction changes. In 2002, Budgetand Management Division analysts will evaluatehow capital accounts are managed with the goal ofensuring better reporting and accountability to theadministration and the Common Council. It is an-ticipated that changes in how projects are reportedand monitored will increase departments’ account-ability to ensure projects are kept within budgetand time constraints. This should minimize fund-ing shortfalls and requests to the administrationand Common Council for additional funding tocomplete projects.


2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN:MAKING CRITICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOCUS: STRENGTHENING INFRASTRUCTURE

An important function of local government ismaintaining basic infrastructure systems. Thesesystems – sewers, water mains, streets, bridges,alleys, sidewalks, and street accessories(traffic signals and streetlights) - are es-sential to the economic viability of anycity.

The City of Milwaukee invests significantresources in its infrastructure systems.Figure 2 shows the capital budget for in-frastructure in real terms for the years1997-2007 (intergovernmental grant andaid is excluded). As the graphic demon-strates, the real dollar amount budgetedfor infrastructure has remained relativelystable, with the exception of 1999 and2003. In 1999, a large sewer project con-tributed to a significant increase in theamount budgeted for infrastructure. In2003, a major street project, the recon-struction and extension of West CanalStreet, increases infrastructure spendingto over $60,000,000. Figure 2 also showsthat the percentage of total capital expen-diture dedicated to infrastructure expan-sion and replacement increased from the 1996 to1999 budget. It decreased slightly in 2000 andagain in 2001 with the multi-year construction ofthe Police Data Communication/Third District Sta-tion and large intergovernmental grant and aid forthe Sixth Street Viaduct project. With the excep-

tion of 2003 (West Canal Street referred to above)the proportion shows a slight increase during the2002-2007 plan.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan contin-ues to maintain the real dollar value of the annualinfrastructure maintenance and expansion budget.The effect of this level of commitment to infrastruc-ture is quite substantial.

PRESERVATION vs. EXPANSION

Capital projects are classified into two categories:preservation and expansion. Preservation refers tocapital improvement projects whose major objec-tive is to reconstruct, rehabilitate, or otherwise re-store an existing system or facility to full function-ality. In contrast, expansion refers to projectswhose primary objective is to construct a new sys-tem or to expand an existing system or facility tomeet increased demands or to enhance develop-ment.

Figure 3 illustrates the proportion of capital proj-ects that either preserve or expand capital infra-structure. The 2002-2007 Capital ImprovementsPlan (including grants and aid and self-fundedprojects) allocates $833.4 million, or 87% of the to-tal budget, to preserve the city’s existing infrastruc-ture. A total of $124.1 million, or 13%, is allocatedto expand public facilities. Expansion projectsprimarily include economic development-relatedprojects and new street and sewer constructionprojects. Preservation projects include mainte-

Figure 2

Capital Budget Investments in Infrastructure Systems

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20070%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Total Infrastructure Investment (1996 $) Infrastructure as % of Total Capital Budget

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: MAKING CRITICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS


nance and replacement of existing sys-tems and facilities.

SIX YEAR CAPITAL PLAN BY FUNCTION

The final sections of this document pro-vide an overview of the 2002-2007 CapitalImprovements Plan by function (see pages19 through 114). An analysis of each proj-ect category is provided, including themajor initiatives and program changesbrought about by the 2002 adopted capitalbudget as well as those proposed in the2003-2007 capital plan.

Figure 4 provides a breakdown of the planby its seven functional areas, includingsurface transportation, environment,health and safety, economic development,culture and recreation, general govern-ment, and grants and fringe benefits.

Surface transportation projects make upthe largest component of the six-year plan,approximately 29%. Funding for envi-ronmental projects constitute the secondlargest functional area at 28% of totalfunding. The smallest functional area is cultureand recreation, which includes funding for librariesand totlots and amounts to about 2.1% of totalfunding.

The grants category includes the grant fund thatprovides funding authority to receive grants not

previously budgeted. Grants and fringe benefitsspecifically identified to projects are included intheir respective functional area. The grand totalincludes city-funded projects, the Parking Fund,Milwaukee Water Works, the Sewer MaintenanceFund, and grants and aid. Table 2 (see page 16)summarizes capital projects in the six-year plan byfunctional area.

Figure 3

Preservation and Expansion2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Preservation87.0%

Expansion13.0%

Figure 4

2002-2007 Capital Improvements PlanBy Function

Health and Safety7.4%

Grants6.5%

Surface Transportation

29.0%

General Government16.5%

Culture and Recreation

2.1%

Economic Development

10.5%

Environment28.0%

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: MAKING CRITICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS


SIX-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN BY DEPARTMENT

Table 3 (see page 17) shows the 2002-2007 CapitalImprovements Plan by Department. The table alsoshows totals for city-funded capital improvementprojects, as well as for self-funded projects, in-cluding the Parking Program, the Sewer Mainte-

nance Fund and the Milwaukee Water Works(which are not funded directly by property taxes).Specific capital projects and funding amounts areshown in the appropriate functional category in thefinal six sections of this document.


2002-2007 CAPITAL PLAN: FINANCING THE PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan not onlyincludes a list of projects which the city intends tofund over the next six years, but also an explana-tion of how it will finance these projects. The fi-

nancing goals and strategies used by the city aswell as a thorough description of the variousfunding sources utilized to fund the capital planare discussed in this section.

CAPITAL FINANCING GOALS

The primary objective of the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan is to protect and enhance thecity’s infrastructure in the most cost-effective man-ner. To achieve this objective, the city has estab-lished four specific capital financing goals:

1) To fund adequately the city’s infrastructureand general capital needs;

2) To moderate the city’s overall debt burdens;3) To achieve greater intergenerational equity in

terms of funding major, non-recurring capitalprojects; and

4) To control tax levy-supported capital spendingso as to assist the city in meeting its generalgoal of tax rate reduction which, in turn, fur-ther enhances the city’s competitive position.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan achievesall four of these goals. The 2002-2007 capital plandedicates a total of $957.5 million to the city’s capi-tal budget (including Parking, Sewer Maintenanceand Water Works, and intergovernmental grants).This sum reflects the city’s intention to maintain itsexisting infrastructure in a manner that will notonly heighten Milwaukee’s economic vitality to-day, but also ensure that the next generation in-herits a city that remains physically strong andeconomically sound.

In attempting to achieve the second stated goal ofmoderating the city’s debt burden, the 2002-2007capital plan continues to implement the city’s in-frastructure cash conversion policy. This policyhas helped the city control debt by increasing taxlevy financing of recurring infrastructure projects.By 2005, 100% of the city’s recurring infrastructurebudget will be cash levy-financed.

Although moderating the burden of outstandingdebt has been an important goal of the city, policy-makers also remain pledged to use long-term debtinstruments, when appropriate, to spread the costof appropriate capital expenditures across multiple

generations of taxpayers. Large non-recurringprojects, such as the Police Department’s recentlyconstructed Data Communications/Third DistrictStation facility, are most appropriately funded withlong-term debt. Such projects have long usefullives and, as a result, benefit several generations oftaxpayers. Intergenerational equity is an importantgoal for any municipality that plans for the longrun. Milwaukee has made a commitment to sup-port intergenerational equity while limiting in-creases in outstanding debt.

Conversely, short-term projects are financedthrough one to five year notes. An example is theone-year note to finance the 2002 Equipment Re-placement Program, which is replacing agedequipment that is beyond economic repair. An-other example is the past issuance of five-yearnotes for certain short-lived aspects of the financialmanagement information system.

The fourth goal of controlling spending in order toassist the city in reducing property taxes will beachieved by moderating growth in the tax levy-supported capital budget (specifically, tax levy-cash and tax levy-supported debt; self-supporteddebt is excluded) and by pursuing alternatives foraddressing capital needs. In 2002, the tax levy-supported portion of the capital budget totals ap-proximately $74.3 million. The 2002-2007 capitalplan holds the annual tax levy-supported capitalbudget at approximately $71.6 million. To com-pensate for inflationary price increases and othercost increases over time, the city must continue tofind more cost-effective methods for meeting itscapital needs.

In addition, the plan will hold the tax levy-supported portion at approximately 45% of thetotal capital budget. The tax levy-supported por-tion of the capital budget is slightly lower in 2003due to increased intergovernmental aid for majorstreet and bridge projects, most notably the West



Canal Street reconstruction and extension.Figure 5 shows how the tax levy-supported portion of the city’s capitalbudget will fluctuate over the life of theplan.

Non-property tax resources finance morethan half of the city’s capital needs. Thesesources include Parking and Sewer Funds,the Milwaukee Water Works and inter-governmental aids. Since 2000, the SewerMaintenance Relay capital program hasbeen financed by the Sewer MaintenanceFund. The transfer of the sewer capitalmaintenance program to the fund wasintended to capture all costs related tomaintenance of the city sewer system onthe Sewer User Fee. Sewer capital pro-grams related to system expansion remainin the tax levy-funded portion of the capi-tal budget.

Intergovernmental grants and aids are of particularimportance to the city, especially in the area oftransportation projects, which make up roughly12.7% of total city funding for capital in the 2002-2007 capital plan.

Most of the intergovernmental grants to the cityhelp to finance major street projects, bridge proj-ects, and the Port’s Dockwall Rehabilitation Pro-gram. These funds typically come from the state,while the city is usually required to finance a por-tion of the cost.

In the case of major bridge and street projects, thecity is typically required to finance between 12.5%and 20% of the design and construction costs. Inreturn, the county, state, and federal governmentsfinance the remaining costs.

Tax incremental districts (TIDs) represent yet an-other important funding source for city capitalprojects. Since the mid-1970’s, the city has created48 TID districts. Funding provided in the 2002capital budget, as well as in the last five years ofthe 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan, will fi-nance existing TID projects, provide funding forprojects currently in the initial stages of planning,and allow for city involvement in potential devel-opments under discussion.

DEBT FINANCING STRATEGIES

An objective of the city is to maintain Milwaukee’sAA+ general obligation bond rating (Standard andPoor’s and Fitch’s Investors Services). As ofAugust 2001, the city received strong ratings fromthe credit rating agencies: an AA+ from Fitch’sInvestor’s Services, an Aa2 rating from Moody’sInvestors Services, and an AA rating from Stan-dard and Poor’s. The city’s ratings are a reflectionof a substantial Public Debt Amortization Fund,rapid debt pay-out, and increased use of pay-as-you-go financing for recurring capital needs. Al-though all the bond-rating agencies indicate thatthe city’s debt levels are moderately high, they re-main affordable and are offset by the capital fi-nancing policies employed by the city. Appropri-

ately managing future debt levels will continue tobe an important goal for the city.

Debt Structure

One especially important debt financing strategyused by the city relates to how it structures its debtissuances. The general policy of the city relating togeneral obligation bonds is to issue 15-year, levelprincipal-payment bonds. This policy produceshigher payments in the early years of a bond issue,but produces lower total financing costs. As a re-sult of this rapid debt amortization schedule, 55%

Figure 5

Tax Levy-Supported Capital Budget

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

In M

illio

ns

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tax Levy Supported Capital Budget Percentage of Total



of principal is retired in five years and 86% is re-tired in ten years.

One area of the capital improvement budget,which is financed through a different debt struc-ture, is tax incremental districts (TIDs). In 1998,the city began to implement a new debt structurefor TID projects which was designed to eliminate atiming problem which required the city tax levy tohelp support these normally self-supported proj-ects. The TID financing structure stretches out thematurity schedule of the bonds to 17 years (twoyears longer than the typical GO bond term usedpreviously) and capitalizes interest (principal andinterest payments are deferred) in the first twoyears of the bond’s life.

Although this new structure adds to the totalamount of debt service to be repaid, it significantlyreduces the cost impact of any new TID borrow-ings for two years. This in turn allows time forincrements of newly created TIDs to be sufficientto cover costs.

In 2001, the city began issuing revenue bonds toimplement its capital financing policy goal whereappropriate. Currently, most of the city’s debt isgeneral obligation, irrespective of the project’sability to generate revenues. The 2000 budgetincluded borrowing authority for revenue bondsfor projects with revenue sources. The SewerMaintenance Fund issued $28.3 million of revenuebonds in November, 2001. The Water Works andParking Fund may issue revenue bond debt in thenear future. In addition, capital projects financedby tax increments may also use revenue bonds.

The reason for the use of revenue bonds is toeliminate taxpayer liability (as under generalobligation debt issues) for debt payment ifrevenues are insufficient to retire the debt. Tojustify the investment, projects funded withrevenue bonds should maintain an adequaterevenue stream to cover debt service costs.

Public Debt Amortization Fund

Another important debt financing strategy used bythe city involves use of the city’s Public Debt Am-ortization Fund (PDAF). This fund, which is ad-ministered by the city’s Public Debt Commission,was created in 1925 by state statutes. Fund reve-nue includes interest earned by assets of the fund,one-third of the general interest earnings of the city

and one-third of interest received on delinquentpersonal property taxes.

Table 1 shows how the unsegregated portion of thePDAF balance has fluctuated over time. This islargely due to the PDAF’s investments in interestrate sensitive long-term U.S. Treasury securities.In 1997 and 1998, the PDAF had earnings of ap-proximately $10.3 million each year. In 1999, risinginterest rates caused significant market value de-clines. Revenues declined to $3.9 million. In 2000,revenues rebounded to $9.4 million. Revenues for2001 totaled $7.2 million. These market fluctua-tions have made it difficult for the city to achieveits goal of maintaining the unsegregated portion ofthe PDAF within the range of 15% to 20% of thecity’s non-self supporting general obligation debt.The city has addressed this challenge by reducingthe annual PDAF draw for prepayment purposes.

Fund assets play an important role in capital fi-nancing in two primary ways: (1) fund resourcesmay be used to prepay a portion of the principaland interest on city debt due the following year,thereby reducing the levy portion of the debtbudget (in 2002, $7 million of fund resources willbe used for this purpose), and (2) the fund itselffunctions as a “debt reserve” which helps providecity bondholders with added assurance of thecity’s ability to make principal and interest pay-ments. This in turn reduces the city’s interest ratecosts because city bonds are more attractive to in-vestors.

Debt Management Working Group

As previously mentioned, a primary goal of thecity is to maintain its AA+ bond rating. The cityrecognizes that overlapping debt is an important

Table 1

Fund FundYear Balance Year Balance

1988 56,809 1995 56,891

1989 56,935 1996 52,622

1990 55,663 1997 53,797

1991 56,551 1998 52,666

1992 56,803 1999 45,054

1993 56,456 2000 43,499

1994 57,088 2001 43,652

PDAF Unsegregated Balance (In Thousands)



factor in meeting this goal. In 1992, a Debt Man-agement Working Group was created by CommonCouncil resolution. The working group includesfive local units of government including the City ofMilwaukee, Milwaukee County, Milwaukee Met-ropolitan Sewerage District, Milwaukee AreaTechnical College, and Milwaukee Public Schools.Since its inception, the working group has com-pleted four annual reports on “Capital Spending andDebt” for the five local units of government. The

report analyzes the historical and planned capitalspending and debt trends of each unit of govern-ment. The purpose of this analysis is to developpractical methods for coordinating, managing, andcontrolling the amount, structure, and timing ofdebt issued by each of the member governments.The goal is to minimize the overall debt burden oncity residents while meeting essential capital im-provement needs over the next five years.

CASH FINANCING STRATEGIES

One key cash financing strategy of the city’s capitalimprovements program is to limit debt financingfor capital improvements to only those projectswhich occur at irregular intervals and benefit fu-ture as well as current taxpayers. Thepurpose of cash financing recurring infra-structure projects is to decrease overalldebt and ultimately reduce costs and re-sulting tax levies for what are, in effect,annual recurring replacement projects.

To implement this strategy, the CommonCouncil adopted a resolution in 1986 thatgradually converts funding for recurringinfrastructure preservation projects fromborrowing to cash financing. Recurringinfrastructure includes local streets, alleys,sidewalks, street lighting, traffic control,communications, underground conduits,and recreational facilities. With the adop-tion of this resolution, city policymakersrecognized that a moderate growth econ-omy and slow growing tax base couldn’tsustain payment of large deferred expen-ditures.

The strategy employed by the City ofMilwaukee includes financing 100% of recurringinfrastructure replacement with cash by the year2005. Figure 6 compares the percent of infrastruc-ture cash financed as required by resolution with

the percent of infrastructure cash financed in the1986-2001 capital improvements budgets and the2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan.

The city has met or exceeded its cash financed in-frastructure goals since 1991, a period of elevenyears. The city will meet its 100% cash financinggoal in 2005.

Figure 6

Recurring Infrastructure Percent Cash-Financed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Per

cent

of P

rese

rvat

ion

Tota

l

Actual/Est. Required



STRATEGY IN ACTION: SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THE 2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

All projects identified in the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan are fully-funded through a vari-ety of sources. These sources include tax levy-supported debt, tax incremental districts, specialassessments, cash revenues, tax levy, self-funded,and grants and aids. Figure 7 illustrates the per-centage of the six-year plan financed by eachfunding source. Use of these diverse funding re-sources is wholly consistent with the financingstrategies discussed earlier. As a result of usingthis diverse set of funding sources over the next sixyears:

1) The overall capital needs of the city will bemet;

2) The city will continue to increase the propor-tion of recurring infrastructure projects fi-nanced with tax levy resources;

3) The cash conversion policy will, in the longrun, reduce outstanding debt and save taxpay-ers millions in interest costs; and

4) The city will continue to use long-term debt tofinance non-recurring projects that have longuseful lives. This policy will help spread thecosts of these projects fairly across generationsof project users.

The specific sources of funding for the2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan aredescribed in the following sections. In ad-dition, Table 4 (see page 18) details howthe six-year plan is financed.

Tax Levy-Supported Debt: The six-yearplan estimates the amount of funds thatmust be borrowed to finance capital proj-ects. This amount does not include specialassessments or tax incremental financingsince they are considered self-sustaining,though they are funded through generalobligation borrowing. In the six-year plan,$327.1 million, or 34.2% of the total capitalbudget is expected to be borrowed, ex-cluding $106.4 million in special assess-ment and tax incremental borrowing. Asshown in Table 4, tax levy-supported debtremains stable throughout the six-yearplan, averaging $54.5 million. This trend, in part,reflects a strategy of cash financing for infrastruc-ture projects, which reduces projected debt fi-nancing of infrastructure projects by nearly $1.8million from 2002 to 2007.

Tax Incremental Districts: These districts are con-sidered self-sustaining and have been fundedthrough issuance of general obligation debt.Again, starting in 2000 borrowing authority wasprovided to finance TIDs with revenue bonds.Self-sustaining debt refers to the use of borrowedproceeds to generate a stream of revenues that willoffset related principal and interest payments. Af-ter a tax incremental district is established, debtinstruments are issued to finance public improve-ments to aid development within the district. Theincrease, or increment in real property taxes after adistrict is established is set aside and used to retiredebt contracted by the authority. As shown inFigure 7, $63.4 million, or 6.6% of total capitalfunding is provided to fund tax incremental dis-tricts. Funding for this purpose ranges from $14.5million to $9 million annually in the six-year plan.

Special Assessments: Special assessments areconsidered self-sustaining debt even though theyare issued as general obligation debt. Self-sustaining debt refers to the use of borrowed pro-ceeds to generate a stream of revenues that willoffset related principal and interest payments.

When certain infrastructure improvements aremade, such as repaving a street or installing a newsewer, part of the cost is charged to the abuttingproperty owners as special assessments. Theproperty owner may either pay the entire amountwhen the bill is received, have the assessment

Figure 7

Capital Improvement Revenue Sources2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

New Debt34.2%

Parking, Water and Sewer Enterprise

25.3%

Grants and Aid12.7%

Special Assessment4.5%

Cash Revenue6.0%

TID6.6%

Contribution to Tax Levy

10.7%



placed on the next tax bill, or pay the amount oversix years, with interest charged for the final fiveyears. If the latter option is chosen, the interestcost to the city is offset by the interest charged tothe property owners. However, regardless of howthe property owner pays the special assessment,the city borrows the funds as general obligationdebt to finance the project.

As Figure 7 shows, $43 million, or 4.5%, of capitalprojects are financed through special assessments.Funding throughout the six-year plan ranges annu-ally from $4.9 million to $10.2 million.

Cash Revenues: A portion of capital projects arefinanced through cash revenues, including general(or unassigned) grant and aid, developer financing,and other sources of revenue. The grant fund pro-vides funding authority for grant and aid that maybe received throughout the year but is not specifi-cally included in the capital improvements plan.Developer-financed projects occur when a privatedeveloper requests the city to expand street orsewer systems. These projects are fully financedby the developer who enters into a formal agree-ment with the city. In the six-year plan, $57.8 mil-lion, or 6% of all capital projects are fundedthrough cash revenues. This source of fundingaverages $9.6 million in the six-year plan.

Tax Levy: Tax levy-funding of capital projects to-tals $102.7 million, or 10.7% of total funding, overthe six-year plan. As shown in Table 4, total taxlevy-funding is projected to remain stable through-out the plan, averaging $17.1 million each year.During the 2002-2007 plan, the city meets its infra-

structure cash financing objectives, increasingfunding from $11.3 million in 2002 to $14.7 millionin 2007. In addition, at least 5% of non-infrastructure projects are cash financed during thesix-year plan.

Self-Funded: These projects include those fi-nanced through the Parking Fund, Sewer Mainte-nance Fund and Milwaukee Water Works. TheParking Fund was established to account for reve-nues received from parking operations. Parkingrevenues are used to defray all costs related tothese operations, including debt service costs onvarious parking obligations. Milwaukee WaterWorks’ capital improvement projects and SewerMaintenance Fund capital improvements are fully-financed by their respective user fees. In total,$241.8 million, or 25.3%, of capital projects arefunded through the Parking Fund, Sewer Mainte-nance Fund and Milwaukee Water Works.

Grants and Aid: In the six-year plan, funding pro-vided through grants and aids totals over $121.7million, or 12.7% of total funding. This funding isreceived from the state and federal governments,primarily for bridge and paving programs. Grantand aid funding fluctuates dramatically, from ahigh of $28.9 million in 2003 to a low of $14.7 mil-lion in 2006. The reconstruction and extension ofWest Canal Street and other preparations for thereconstruction of the Marquette Interchange ac-count for most of the higher 2003 grant and aidamount.


Table 2

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Function

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTALADOPTED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SIX-YEARBUDGET PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

Streets $28,937,975 $43,525,000 $19,973,666 $27,767,500 $19,171,666 $21,636,000 $161,011,807Alleys 1,479,000 3,879,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 16,074,000Bridges 7,682,000 6,256,000 4,391,000 4,830,000 3,975,000 8,750,000 35,884,000Street Accessories 7,528,000 7,113,000 7,231,000 7,441,000 7,591,000 7,316,000 44,220,000Sidewalks 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 11,100,000

Parking 822,000 3,457,700 1,610,000 800,000 1,555,000 1,625,000 9,869,700

Subtotal $48,298,975 $66,080,700 $37,734,666 $45,367,500 $36,821,666 $43,856,000 $278,159,507

ENVIRONMENT Sewer System $21,059,000 $21,009,000 $22,909,000 $22,909,000 $24,909,000 $24,909,000 $137,704,000Water System 15,050,000 16,100,000 17,285,000 21,991,000 22,805,100 21,740,610 114,971,710Sanitation 275,000 1,354,000 600,000 430,000 1,125,000 896,000 4,680,000Forestry 887,062 925,000 935,000 945,000 955,000 965,000 5,612,062

Environmental Remediation 634,000 834,000 1,830,000 688,000 699,200 712,000 5,397,200

Subtotal $37,905,062 $40,222,000 $43,559,000 $46,963,000 $50,493,300 $49,222,610 $268,364,972

HEALTH AND SAFETY Fire $2,730,000 $3,395,000 $4,630,000 $6,160,000 $4,150,000 $5,860,000 $26,925,000Police 9,862,914 2,542,793 11,186,679 10,656,072 2,338,474 4,787,883 41,374,815

Public Health 130,900 486,400 421,900 423,500 567,200 509,100 2,539,000

Subtotal $12,723,814 $6,424,193 $16,238,579 $17,239,572 $7,055,674 $11,156,983 $70,838,815

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TID $14,500,000 $11,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,500,000 $9,700,000 $9,700,000 $63,400,000Development District Funds 2,350,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 11,600,000Business Improvement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000

Port of Milwaukee 2,765,000 2,150,000 5,325,000 1,850,000 4,600,000 2,650,000 19,340,000

Subtotal $20,615,000 $16,000,000 $17,175,000 $14,200,000 $17,150,000 $15,200,000 $100,340,000

CULTURE AND RECREATION Libraries $3,415,000 $2,218,000 $1,891,000 $2,875,000 $2,676,000 $1,275,000 $14,350,000Recreational Facilities 721,000 734,000 782,000 762,000 776,000 791,000 4,566,000

Pabst and Art Fund 630,000 105,050 105,000 108,835 105,000 105,000 1,158,885

Subtotal $4,766,000 $3,057,050 $2,778,000 $3,745,835 $3,557,000 $2,171,000 $20,074,885

GENERAL GOVERNMENT Maintenance and Remodeling $11,738,890 $15,929,000 $15,429,000 $15,227,000 $15,954,000 $11,635,500 $85,913,390Underground Conduits and Manholes 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 760,000 4,560,000Communications and Control 5,621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 8,726,000Capital Equipment 6,480,000 3,272,400 3,367,572 3,465,599 3,566,567 3,670,564 23,822,702

Other Projects 2,524,945 1,390,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 34,914,945

Subtotal $27,124,835 $21,972,400 $23,177,572 $23,073,599 $33,401,567 $29,187,064 $157,937,037

GRANT AND AID $10,300,000 $10,300,000 $10,300,000 $10,300,000 $10,300,000 $10,300,000 $61,800,000

GRAND TOTAL $161,733,686 $164,056,343 $150,962,817 $160,889,506 $158,779,207 $161,093,657 $957,515,216

Note: In 2002, fringe benefit appropriations were distributed directly to programs and projects.

FUNCTIONAL AREA

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N17


CITY-FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTSSpecial Projects $14,880,000 $11,405,050 $13,405,000 $13,408,835 $22,905,000 $22,905,000 $98,908,885Department of Administration 324,945 2,080,000 0 0 0 0 2,404,945City Attorney 352,000 153,000 0 0 0 0 505,000City Treasurer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Common Council-City Clerk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Department of City Development 17,850,000 13,850,000 11,850,000 12,350,000 12,550,000 12,550,000 81,000,000Comptroller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fire Department 2,730,000 3,395,000 4,630,000 6,160,000 4,150,000 5,860,000 26,925,000Health Department 130,900 486,400 421,900 423,500 567,200 509,100 2,539,000Library 3,415,000 2,218,000 1,891,000 2,875,000 2,676,000 1,275,000 14,350,000Municipal Court 1,833,900 0 0 0 0 0 1,833,900Neighborhoods Department 2,949,990 0 0 0 0 0 2,949,990Police Department 9,862,914 2,542,793 11,186,679 10,656,072 2,338,474 4,787,883 41,374,815Port of Milwaukee 785,000 550,000 2,825,000 1,050,000 1,300,000 1,050,000 7,560,000 Grant and Aid 1,980,000 1,600,000 2,500,000 800,000 3,300,000 1,600,000 11,780,000DPW-Administrative Services 5,621,000 671,000 1,771,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 9,926,000DPW-Operations 13,750,062 21,055,400 21,693,572 21,417,599 22,975,767 18,570,064 119,462,464 Grant and Aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DPW-Infrastructure 28,856,602 39,566,950 28,171,033 30,491,350 28,138,633 29,030,700 184,255,268 Grant and Aid 23,139,373 27,325,050 12,222,633 18,345,150 11,397,033 17,469,300 109,898,539

TOTAL CITY-FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS $103,342,313 $97,973,593 $97,845,184 $99,453,356 $98,222,074 $97,158,747 $593,995,267

TOTAL GRANT AND AID $25,119,373 $28,925,050 $14,722,633 $19,145,150 $14,697,033 $19,069,300 $121,678,539

NON-CITY-FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS

Parking $822,000 $3,457,700 $1,610,000 $800,000 $1,555,000 $1,625,000 $9,869,700Milwaukee Water Works 15,050,000 16,100,000 17,285,000 21,991,000 22,805,100 21,740,610 114,971,710Sewer Maintenance Fund 17,400,000 17,600,000 19,500,000 19,500,000 21,500,000 21,500,000 117,000,000

TOTAL NON-CITY-FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS $33,272,000 $37,157,700 $38,395,000 $42,291,000 $45,860,100 $44,865,610 $241,841,410

GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT $161,733,686 $164,056,343 $150,962,817 $160,889,506 $158,779,207 $161,093,657 $957,515,216

Table 32002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Department

DEPARTMENT

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N18

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTALADOPTED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SIX-YEAR

BUDGET PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN

TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN $161,733,686 $164,056,343 $150,962,817 $160,889,506 $158,779,207 $161,093,657 $957,515,216LESS:

Enterprise Funds (Parking, Water, Sewer) 33,272,000 37,157,700 38,395,000 42,291,000 45,860,100 44,865,610 241,841,410Special Assessments 4,936,093 10,193,800 6,508,853 7,654,100 6,491,053 7,202,700 42,986,599Cash Revenues 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,783,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 57,783,000Tax Incremental Districts 14,500,000 11,000,000 9,000,000 9,500,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 63,400,000Grant and Aid 25,119,373 28,925,050 14,722,633 19,145,150 14,697,033 19,069,300 121,678,539Infrastructure Cash Financed 11,303,004 14,289,456 13,073,631 14,876,800 14,040,800 14,780,800 82,364,492

As a percent of total infrastructure funding 86.56% 91.04% 95.52% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%Compared to percent required by resolution 86.56% 91.04% 95.52% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Infrastructure Debt Financed 1,754,995 1,406,344 613,169 0 0 0 3,774,507

REMAINING EXPENDITURES TO BE FINANCED $61,248,220 $51,483,993 $58,866,531 $57,822,456 $58,390,221 $55,875,247 $343,686,668Cash 6,212,814 2,574,200 2,943,327 2,891,123 2,919,511 2,793,762 20,334,736Debt 55,035,406 48,909,793 55,923,204 54,931,333 55,470,710 53,081,485 323,351,932

SUMMARY OF FINANCING SOURCESTax Levy-Supported Debt $56,790,401 $50,316,137 $56,536,373 $54,931,333 $55,470,710 $53,081,485 $327,126,439Tax Incremental Districts 14,500,000 11,000,000 9,000,000 9,500,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 63,400,000Special Assessments 4,936,093 10,193,800 6,508,853 7,654,100 6,491,053 7,202,700 42,986,599Cash Revenues 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,783,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 57,783,000Tax Levy 17,515,818 16,863,656 16,016,958 17,767,923 16,960,311 17,574,562 102,699,229

TOTAL CITY FUNDING $103,342,313 $97,973,593 $97,845,184 $99,453,356 $98,222,074 $97,158,747 $593,995,267

Enterprise Funds (Parking, Water, Sewer) $33,272,000 $37,157,700 $38,395,000 $42,291,000 $45,860,100 $44,865,610 $241,841,410

Grant and Aid $25,119,373 $28,925,050 $14,722,633 $19,145,150 $14,697,033 $19,069,300 $121,678,539

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT $161,733,686 $164,056,343 $150,962,817 $160,889,506 $158,779,207 $161,093,657 $957,515,216

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.*Does not reflect a PDAF withdrawal of $7 million.

Table 42002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan by Funding Source

DEPARTMENT



Capital improvements that support surface trans-portation consist of projects involving streets, al-leys, bridges, street accessories, sidewalks, andparking structures. The objective of the surfacetransportation capital program is to provide safe,attractive, and efficient surface public ways andinfrastructure systems. Funding for these systemsis determined primarily through the use of condi-tion criteria, including age, structural adequacy,maintenance problems, construction projects, citi-zen complaints, and aldermanic requests. Thesecriteria are used to assess the condition of the in-frastructure system, plan budgets in a cost-effective manner, and predict annual preservationeffort requirements.

Surface transportation projects are funded throughspecial assessments, federal/state grants and aids,revenue from developers, city borrowing, andproperty tax levy. Surface transportation projectstotal $278.2 million, or 29% of the total six-yearcapital improvement plan. Figure 8 shows the2002-2007 plan for these projects. Funding de-creases after 2002 because the state government,which funds and schedules many projects, hasproposed fewer street and bridge projects resultingin a decrease in the amount of grants and aids.This decrease is further explained below. The 2002budget provides $48.3 million in funding for sur-face transportation projects.

Streets

Street-related capital improvement proj-ects account for the largest portion, 57.9%of the surface transportation plan. Thesix-year plan includes $161 million forstreet improvements. Street-related proj-ects include major street improvements,such as: state and/or federal-aided streetreconstruction and resurfacing, street re-surfacing by contract, new street construc-tion and developer-financed streets. AsFigure 8 illustrates, funding for streetspeaks in 2003 at $43.5 million. The peak isdue to the reconstruction and extension ofWest Canal Street, funded in 2003 at ap-proximately $10 million. In the six-yearplan, grants and aids (including CDBGfunding) are expected to total $86.8 mil-

lion, or 53.9% of total funding for street-relatedcapital improvement projects.

Alleys

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan pro-vides $16.1 million, or 5.8% of total surface trans-portation funding to finance reconstruction andresurfacing of city alleys. Figure 8 shows thatfunding for this purpose varies over the six-yearplan from $1.5 million in 2002 to $3.9 million in2003 and $2.7 million thereafter.

Bridges

Funding for bridge projects accounts for $35.9 mil-lion, or 12.9% of total funding provided in the six-year plan. Figure 8 shows that funding for bridgespeaks in 2007 at $8.8 million. The major state aidedbridge project; C. P. Rail Systems will be funded in2007. In the six-year plan, $23.2 million, or 64.7%of total funding for bridges is received from federaland state transportation aids.

Street Accessories

This category includes street lighting and trafficcontrol facilities. The six-year plan includes ap-proximately $44.2 million for street accessories,which accounts for 15.9% of total funding. Fund-ing for this purpose is steady throughout the six-

Figure 8

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Surface Transportation2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Streets Alleys Bridges Street Accessories Sidewalks Parking



year plan. The 2002 budget provides $7.5 millionfor street accessories.

Sidewalks

Funding for sidewalks and other pedestrian-related projects in the six-year plan totals $11.1million and accounts for 4% of total surface trans-portation funding. Funding of $1.9 million is pro-vided in 2002.

Parking

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan includes$9.9 million for parking-related projects. This ac-counts for 3.5% of total surface transportationfunding. Funding of $822,000 is provided in the2002 budget. These projects will be financed withParking Fund revenues.



STREETS

LINK TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN

One of many important functions of local govern-ment is to ensure that citizens have access to anadequate system of pedestrian-friendly streets androadways in order to ensure that safe and efficienttravel and commerce are possible. Since the city’sincorporation in 1846, there has been a consistentcommitment on the part of city officials to fund thestreet expansion, repair, and replacement needs ofMilwaukee.

At present, the focus of the city’s street pavingprogram is on preserving the existing asset. Mil-waukee is a mature city and many of its roadwayshave existed for over 100 years. As a result of theaging of the street system, most of the city’s effortswith regards to funding levels are associated withrepair and/or reconstruction. In fact, the 2002-

2007 Capital Improvements Plan calls for an alloca-tion of approximately 96.6% of street constructionfunds for preservation-related projects while only3.4% will be directed for new street construction.

The specific link between street construction andthe city’s strategic plan is found with the city’sstrategic goal - to strengthen the local economy,attract and retain family-supporting jobs, and en-sure economic opportunities. The city’s attractive-ness to private sector investment is enhanced whenit is home to a well-maintained and diverse trans-portation network. Expenditures for street im-provements improve and expand the street system,thereby promoting economic development, sup-porting residential and commercial development,and increasing property values.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The paving program was the first major capitalimprovement program to use a database systemfor condition-based project planning and needsassessment. The database, known as the PavementManagement System (PMS), contains an estimated40 records on street conditions and inventory ele-ments, surface and structural adequacy, type andage of pavement, and maintenance history. Thepurpose of the Pavement Management System is toplan paving budgets in a more cost-effective man-ner and predict annual preservation effort re-quirements.

In 1997, the Infrastructure Services Division up-dated the city’s PMS by implementing a new ratingsystem wherein each street segment was assigned anew rating value. This index called the PavementQuality Index (PQI), rates street conditions on ascale of 0 to 10. Under PQI, condition ratings areprovided for two general categories of streets: lo-

cals and collectors/arterials. Each type of streethas a different minimum acceptable PQI. A ratingbelow the minimum acceptable PQI indicates thatthe street requires reconstruction or rehabilitation.The minimum rating for local streets is 4.0 com-pared to 4.5 for collectors, 5.0 for minor arterials,and 5.5 for major arterials. The higher ratings forcollectors and arterials reflect the premise thatmore heavily traveled streets need to be in bettercondition than those that are less frequently trav-eled.

Currently, the Department of Public Works Infra-structure Services Division is in the process of re-fining the PQI and the software used to developcondition ratings in order to ensure that this sys-tem accurately models the condition of city streets.Once this refinement is completed in 2002, data onprojected condition ratings in future years will beused to adjust funding for street improvements.

STATUS OF THE ASSET/PROGRAM

The City of Milwaukee contains 1,416.7 miles offreeways, highways, arterials, collectors, and localroads. Of this amount 8.6%, or 121.7 miles, is theresponsibility of other governmental units, which

include federal, state and county roads, as well asPort of Milwaukee and Water Department roads.Table 5 indicates the type and mileage of roads inthe city. City streets are composed of various



types of materials primarily asphalt and concrete.Other materials include crushed rock and gravel,brick, granite block, and macadam. Macadam con-sists of layers of stone penetrated with tar or as-phalt emulsion.

Most streets classified as arterial and collector aredesignated as part of the Federal Aid Transporta-tion System and are eligible for county, state,and/or federal funding. The State of Wisconsinalso funds the Local Road Improvement Program,which assists the city in financing necessary im-provements for local residential street systems.County, state, and federal funds assist the city withfinancing the costs of street resurfacing and recon-struction under the major street improvementsprogram.

Streets that do not qualify for county,state, or federal funding are financed un-der the Street Reconstruction and Resur-facing Program administered by the Infra-structure Services Division. These proj-ects are funded through the capital budgetwith a portion of the costs recoveredthrough special assessments levied againstabutting properties.

The Infrastructure Services Division isresponsible for contracting for partial re-surfacing of certain arterial streets that arein fair or poor condition but are notscheduled for future reconstruction orresurfacing under the paving program.This activity is funded in the capitalbudget as well; however, no special as-sessments are levied for these projects. The divi-sion is also responsible for preventive and emer-gency maintenance of city streets which is fundedin the operating budget.

As for the status of the city’s street system, thePavement Quality Index (PQI) provides a goodpicture of the integrity of the present street system.As shown in Figure 9, the majority of local streets,75.5%, are currently rated above the minimum rec-ommended rating of 4.0.

In addition to the PQI, the Infrastructure ServicesDivision continuously updates the Roadlife Data-base, which is a historical data file containing in-formation about construction activities by cityblock. The Roadlife Database helps generate spe-

cific roadwork schedules. Many of these projectsresult from citizen or aldermanic requests. Theopportunity to coordinate major street repairs withsewer and water main repairs/replacement canaffect the scheduling of infrastructure maintenance.According to the Roadlife data, the majority of lo-cal and collector streets have a concrete surface,whereas the majority of arterial streets have an as-phalt surface with a concrete base.

Pavement composition dictates the estimated use-ful life of city streets. According to the Infrastruc-ture Services Division, concrete reconstruction hasa life cycle of 40-50 years, whereas asphalt recon-struction has a life cycle of 25-35 years. A streetresurfaced with asphalt has an estimated useful lifeof 25 years.

Figure 9

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

17.5%

20.0%

Per

cent

age

of S

treet

s

0.0-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.9 3.0-3.9 4.0-4.9 5.0-5.9 6.0-6.9 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9 9.0-10.0

Pavement Quality Index

Condition Rating of Local Streets

Table 5

Type MilesFreeways 40.1State Highways 25.7State Maintained Roads 7.0County Trunk Highways 25.7County Park Roads 21.7Harbor and Water Dept Roads 1.5Arterials 279.5Collectors 72.2Locals 943.3

TOTAL 1,416.7

Miles of City Streets and Highways by Type as of December 31, 2001



SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan calls forallocation of approximately $161 million for therebuilding/repair of city streets. However, only$48.4 million represents city resources. The re-mainder is funded by federal, state and countygrants and aids, special assessments, and revenuefrom developers. Table 6 below breaks down thevarious capital accounts that fund street improve-ments.

The funding levels described below are sufficientto preserve and maintain the city’s street system ata standard considered safe for motorists and pe-

destrians. The condition rating of streets will bemonitored and funding adjusted if necessary toensure adequate preservation of the street system.The Infrastructure Services Division anticipatesthat a total of 95 miles of street will be repavedduring the life of the six-year plan. Of this aggre-gate sum, 38 miles of local roadways will berepaved while 57 miles of collectors and arterialswill receive attention. This represents an annualaverage street preservation effort of 16 miles, or1.1% of the total street system under the responsi-bility of the city.

PROGRAM CHANGES AND INITIATIVES

Park East Redevelopment: The 2001 capitalbudget included initial funding for $25 million tobegin the removal of the Park East Freeway. ThePark East Freeway removal project is expected tocreate more than $220 million in housing, retail,and entertainment development. The project in-cludes construction of a new lift bridge over theMilwaukee River and other traffic improvementson surface streets. Federal, state, and local fundingwill be used for this project. Removal of the free-way spur will begin in 2002.

West Canal Street Reconstruction and Extension:The 2002-2007 plan includes approximately $10million of city funding for the reconstruction andextension of West Canal Street from Sixth Street toMiller Park. Construction is scheduled to begin in2003. This project is considered vital to the rede-velopment of the Menomonee Valley. It will alsobe a main alternate route for travel during theplanned upcoming reconstruction of the MarquetteInterchange.

Table 6

Project Title

Regular Streets, Net City Cost $2,692,000 $4,492,000 $2,842,000 $3,842,000 $2,842,000 $3,842,000 $20,552,000New Street Construction, Net City Cost 651,000 351,000 351,000 351,000 351,000 351,000 2,406,000Major Street (Federal & State Aided), Net City Cost 5,320,509 8,736,150 2,973,180 3,284,250 2,848,580 2,294,000 25,456,669Revenue 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000Grant and Aid 17,723,373 23,145,050 10,163,633 15,501,150 9,504,033 10,811,300 86,848,539Assessments 2,151,093 6,400,800 3,243,853 4,389,100 3,226,053 3,937,700 23,348,599

TOTAL $28,937,975 $43,525,000 $19,973,666 $27,767,500 $19,171,666 $21,636,000 $161,011,807

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Street Improvements

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006



ALLEYS


The Department of Public Works InfrastructureServices Division is responsible for the alley recon-struction and resurfacing program. The city’s alleysystem contains 415.0 miles of alleys that are com-posed of asphalt, brick, macadam, and other mate-rials. Project funding is provided in the capitalbudget with a portion of program costs recoveredthrough special assessments levied against adjacentproperties.

The link between alley construction and the city’sstrategic plan is found with the strategic goal - to

strengthen the local economy, attract and retainfamily-supporting jobs, and ensure economic op-portunities. The purpose of the alley program is tomaintain the alley system at a standard which issafe and nuisance free, while holding annual main-tenance costs at a reasonable level. Expendituresfor alley reconstruction and rehabilitation ensuresafe and efficient access to the rear of residentialand commercial properties and enhance propertyvalues. This contributes to maintaining the city’stransportation system, which in turn helpsstrengthen Milwaukee’s economic environment.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Infrastructure Services Division inspects andrates alley condition utilizing the following criteria:(1) age and condition; (2) citizen complaints; and(3) aldermanic requests. Alleys are inspected on athree-year cycle.

Alleys are rated as excellent, good, fair, poor, orrecommended for replacement. Alleys rated asexcellent generally have been replaced in the last 5-10 years and require no maintenance activities.Alleys rated as good, require minor repairs such ascrack filling. Alleys rated as fair, require generalmaintenance such as grinding, crack filling, patch-ing, or slab replacement. Alleys rated poor, maynot be replaced or maintained but would requirerepair of serious defects or hazardous conditionsand are likely projects for reconstruction or resur-

facing. Alleys which are rated as recommendedfor replacement, require reconstruction or resur-facing and are proposed as a part of the alley-paving program.

At present, the Infrastructure Services Divisionplans to utilize the above described criteria untilthe newly implemented street Pavement QualityIndex is further tested and proves to be a consis-tent measure of street integrity. Following thistesting period, the division intends to apply thePQI to the city’s alley system in order to provide areliable and quantitative evaluation system for as-sessing the status of the city’s alleys. The PQI willalso assist the division in determining appropriatefunding levels and setting the overall repavementschedule.


As with streets, the Infrastructure Services Divi-sion inspects and rates alley condition. In late1992, the division completed an Alley PavementManagement System (PMS) that rated the condi-tion of alleys using four variables: surface defects,crack filling, condition of patches, and surfacegrade. This system rated alley segments on a scalefrom 0 to 100. In 1994, the system reflected a con-dition rating of 76, which indicates that alleys arein generally good condition and typically requireminor repair rather than extensive maintenance,reconstruction, or resurfacing.

In conjunction with the development of a newstreet PMS, the alley PMS is being updated. Thealley condition rating was updated for the devel-opment of the alley program for the years 2002through 2007. Because of the special assessmentformula for alleys, wherein a larger portion of thecost is borne by the abutting property owners incomparison to a street project, alleys tend to reacha higher level of deterioration before they receiveapproval at public hearings.



SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan allocatesa total of $16.1 million to the reconstruction andresurfacing of alleys. Of this total, $8.3 million, orapproximately 51.8%, will be provided throughspecial assessments against property owners. Thislevel of funding will allow for continuation of an-nual alley improvement at a level sufficient to al-low for the construction, rehabilitation, or restora-tion of alley pavements necessary to maintain the

present status of the alley system. Specifically, thefunding allocated in the 2002-2007 capital plan willallow for repavement/reconstruction of approxi-mately three miles of alleys each year, with a totalof 21 miles of alleys scheduled to be repaved. Ta-ble 7 below indicates the level of funding allocatedin the plan, along with the funding source for thenext six fiscal years.

Table 7

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Six-YearProject Title Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

City Funding $1,179,000 $1,851,000 $1,179,000 $1,179,000 $1,179,000 $1,179,000 $7,746,000Assessments 300,000 2,028,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 8,328,000

TOTAL $1,479,000 $3,879,000 $2,679,000 $2,679,000 $2,679,000 $2,679,000 $16,074,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Alley Improvements



BRIDGES


One of the primary objectives of the Department ofPublic Works Infrastructure Services Division is toprovide a safe, attractive, and efficient surface forpublic ways and infrastructure systems by makingsure the city’s network of bridges are in good con-dition. At present there are 711 bridges containedwithin the city limits. Of this total, 216 are main-tained and city-owned, 35 are the responsibility ofthe county, and 460 are maintained by the state.

The specific link between bridge construction andthe city’s strategic plan is found in the city’s strate-

gic goal - to strengthen the local economy, attractand retain family-supporting jobs, and ensure eco-nomic opportunities. The city’s attractiveness toprivate sector investment is enhanced when thecity maintains a safe and efficient transportationsystem. Expenditures for bridge reconstructioncontribute to this objective by ensuring the efficientmovement of vehicles, people, and commodities;preserving a bridge system considered safe for mo-torists and pedestrians; and promoting commercialdevelopment.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Infrastructure Services Division uses the Na-tional Bridge Sufficiency Rating System to aid inthe development of a capital improvement pro-gram for city bridges. Other considerations in-clude improving and expanding the transportationsystem and providing for public safety and wel-fare. Most bridges are inspected on a two-yearcycle, with the majority completed in even numberyears. Bridges in poor condition are inspectedmore frequently while railroad bridges are in-spected on an as needed basis. The following crite-ria are used to determine bridge sufficiency rat-ings: (1) structural adequacy and safety; (2) serv-iceability and functional obsolescence; (3) necessityfor public use; and (4) special factors pertaining todetour lengths and structure type.

Bridge sufficiency ratings are used by the county,state, and federal governments to determine eligi-bility for grantor funds and are an indicator ofbridge serviceability and structural adequacy.

Each bridge receives a rating between 0 (majorstructural and other deficiencies) and 100 (excellentcondition and constructed to current standards).The Federal Highway Administration and the Wis-consin Department of Transportation require thesufficiency rating to be below 50 to qualify forbridge replacement funds.

A bridge rated below 50 has structural deficienciesand may be functionally obsolete (outlived its use-fulness). Bridges with sufficiency ratings between50 and 80 may be structurally deficient or func-tionally obsolete. Bridges with sufficiency ratingsbelow 80 may be eligible for bridge rehabilitation.If an engineering study can show that rehabilita-tion can extend the life of a bridge by ten years, iscost efficient, and raises that bridge sufficiencyrating above 80, funds will be provided to preventfurther deterioration. A bridge rated over 80 isgenerally considered in good condition and has nomajor deficiencies.


The Infrastructure Services Division’s objective isto maintain 81% of bridges at a condition ratinggreater than 50. As shown in Figure 10, 89% ofbridges are rated at or above 50. Since the State ofWisconsin does not require inspection reports forpedestrian bridges, bridges less than 20 feet, andrailroad bridges, these are not rated. However,Infrastructure Services Division staff conducts in-

spections of these bridges. The condition rating ofbridges has improved since 1992, with a greaterpercentage of bridges maintained at a satisfactorylevel or higher. The division estimates thatplanned funding from 2002 through 2007 willmaintain the current bridge condition rating.However, the specific effect on the condition ratingis uncertain because of potential changes in the cost



of planned projects, the possible additionof new projects to the bridge program, ordelays in the timetable for existing proj-ects.

State, federal, and county funds are usedto assist the city with financing bridge re-habilitation and reconstruction improve-ments. Approximately 65.2% of the totalcost of the current major bridge programwill be funded by state, federal, and othersources. Some of the major state projectsfunded in the 2002-2007 plan include re-construction of the State Street Basculeover the Milwaukee River, replacement ofthe West Highland Boulevard Bridge overC. P. Rail Systems, renovation of theHawley Road Viaduct over theMenomonee Valley, replacement of theNorth Sherman Boulevard Bridge overLincoln Creek as part of the Lincoln Creek FloodControl Project and replacement of the West ForestHome Avenue Bridge over the Kinnickinnic River.

In addition, the 2002-2007 plan includes fundingfor total replacement of the Sixth Street Viaduct.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan calls forallocation of $35.9 million for repair, replacement,and/or enhancement of bridges and viaductswithin city limits. Of this total, $12.5 million willcome from city resources, approximately $183,000will come from revenue received from the City ofMequon and $23.2 million will be in the form of

state and federal grants. Approximately 43 differ-ent bridges throughout the city have been specifi-cally designated for improvements during the lifeof the six-year plan. Table 8 outlines the plannedexpenditures for the city’s bridge programthroughout the life of the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan.

Figure 10

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percentage of Bridges withCondition Rating Greater than 50

Table 8

Project Title Plan

Net City Cost $2,116,000 $2,076,000 $2,149,000 $1,986,000 $2,082,000 $2,092,000 $12,501,000Revenue 0 0 183,000 0 0 0 183,000Grant and Aid 5,566,000 4,180,000 2,059,000 2,844,000 1,893,000 6,658,000 23,200,000

TOTAL $7,682,000 $6,256,000 $4,391,000 $4,830,000 $3,975,000 $8,750,000 $35,884,000

Six-YearPlan

2006Plan

2007

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Bridge Improvements

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan




Sixth Street Viaduct Reconstruction: This multi-year project was funded in the 2000 budget, whichprovided approximately $54 million in city, county,state, and federal funds for reconstruction of theSixth Street Viaduct. In 2000, preliminaryengineering was completed and demolition andconstruction began in 2001. The new viaduct willbe brought down to grade at Canal Street, whichwill significantly enhance the economicdevelopment environment in the Menomonee

River Valley. The new viaduct will be open totraffic in Fall of 2002.

McKinley-Knapp Street Bridge: As part of theproject to remove the Park East Freeway, the 2002-2007 plan includes funding for construction of anew river bridge at McKinley Boulevard andKnapp Street. This new bridge is expected to openin early Summer 2003.



STREET ACCESSORIES - STREET LIGHTING


The Department of Public Works InfrastructureServices Division is responsible for constructing,maintaining, and operating the city’s lighting sys-tem. The city purchases electricity from the Wis-consin Electric Power Company, which in turn,provides electrical power to the city’s substations.Underground and overhead cables distributepower from these substations to streetlights. Con-struction of substations and replace-ment/installation of cable, circuitry, light poles,and streetlights are funded through the capitalbudget. Maintenance of the lighting system isfunded through the division’s operating budget.

The street lighting program supports the city’sstrategic goal - of maintaining quality neighbor-

hoods by enhancing the safety and security of resi-dents and the aesthetics of neighborhoods andbusiness districts. By providing a safe, attractive,and reliable lighting system, the street lightingprogram helps to provide pleasant and secureneighborhoods. The street lighting program alsocontributes to the city’s goal of strengthening thelocal economy, attracting and retaining family-supporting jobs. The street lighting program sig-nificantly enhances the safety of the city’s transpor-tation system by providing adequate light fornighttime travel. By improving transportationsafety, the street lighting program, like the streetreconstruction program, makes the city attractiveto private sector investments.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Infrastructure Services Division uses the fol-lowing criteria to determine street lighting capitalneeds: (1) paving program; (2) age and historicalcircuit problems; (3) aldermanic and citizen re-quests; (4) traffic and pedestrian safety; (5) inci-dence of crime; and (6) lighting standards.

Where possible, replacement of street lighting as-sets occurs in conjunction with the city’s pavingprogram, minimizing replacement costs and main-taining the integrity of newly paved streets and

sidewalks. Substations are replaced when theyshow signs of deterioration. The age and historicalcircuit problems dictate cable replacement, whichis coordinated with the street paving program.Aldermanic service requests and citizen complaintsare taken into account to determine upgrading andinstallation of streetlights. In addition, streetlightsin high-crime areas are given priority for upgradesand additional alley lights are provided in areaswith a higher than average crime rate.


One of the most important criteria utilized by theInfrastructure Services Division when assessing thelong-term needs of the city’s street light system isthe Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Guidefor new street lighting installations. The IES basesits recommendations on cost, traffic volume,roadway construction material, and the need toimprove traffic safety and reduce crime. Gener-ally, the IES recommends that a street light be in-stalled every 120-150 feet, depending uponwhether the area is residential or commercial. In-

frastructure Services will evaluate the efficacy ofthis standard over the next year, paying particularattention to the reasonableness and design impactit presents. For instance, based on IES information,during the period 1996-2000 an average of 200 newstreetlights were installed. The goal of the Infra-structure Services Division is to ensure that at least94% of city streets meet IES lighting standards.The division has met this goal, with 96.7% oflighted streets meeting IES standards as of Decem-ber, 2000.



SIX-YEAR PLAN

In total, the 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan(see Table 9) allocates $39.8 million for installationof streetlights and related infrastructure. The divi-sion estimates that this level of funding will main-tain the existing level of compliance with IES stan-dards.

Specific objectives of the street lighting programinclude: converting series circuitry to multiple cir-cuitry; converting existing mercury vapor and in-

candescent street lights to high pressure sodiumlighting; and replacing all low pressure sodiumvapor units. Major areas of work include installa-tion and replacement of streetlights associated withthe paving program and the neighborhood lightingprogram. Activities include street light conver-sions, lighting upgrades, excavation repairs, re-moval of series circuitry, and pole and cable re-placement.


An annual average of $6.6 million is provided forthe ongoing street lighting program during the2002–2007 plan. This funding level is necessary tocontinue to maintain and improve the reliability ofthe current street lighting system, to upgrade thesystem to meet the needs of area residents andbusinesses, and to meet minimum lighting levelsdefined in national standards. This includes re-placement of deteriorated poles and other lightingequipment, replacement of defective cable andequipment, removal of overhead wires, replace-ment of outdated circuitry and electrical substa-tions, and modernization of the street lighting con-trol system.

As the city’s street lighting system ages, some ofthe technology and materials used have becomeoutdated. Replacement parts necessary to keep thesystem in service have become increasingly diffi-cult to locate and purchase. This occasionally leadsto long term outages in affected areas. The capital

plan will provide funds to systematically replaceaging and obsolete street lighting equipment.

Upgrading Control Circuits: The division willimplement a pilot street lighting control circuitsupgrade in 2002 to enhance system reliability.

Central Lighting Control Units: The current cen-tral lighting control unit system will be replacedbeginning in late 2002. The current lighting controlunit, located at 1540 West Canal Street, is a 1950’selectrical-mechanical device that is reaching theend of its useful life. A new non-mechanized com-puterized control unit will assist in identifying,locating and repairing malfunctions more quickly,thereby improving customer service and ensuringeffective operation of the street lighting program.The request for proposal is being drafted and willbe released in 2002. Control units and the sup-porting communication system will be replacedthroughout the six year plan.

Table 9

Project Title

Net City Cost $5,484,000 $5,784,000 $6,034,000 $6,234,000 $6,384,000 $6,109,000 $36,029,000Assessments 1,220,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,720,000

TOTAL $6,704,000 $6,284,000 $6,534,000 $6,734,000 $6,884,000 $6,609,000 $39,749,000

Six-YearPlan

2006Plan

2007Plan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Street Lighting

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan



STREET ACCESSORIES - TRAFFIC CONTROLS


The primary objective of traffic control facilities isto provide for the safe, efficient, and economicalmovement of pedestrians and vehicles through thecity’s street system. This is integrated in the De-partment of Public Works’ strategic objective - tomaintain the livability of city neighborhoods andthe economic viability of the city, as well as reducethe environmental impact of the automobilethrough traffic control policies established by theInfrastructure Services Division.

The specific link between the traffic controls pro-gram and the city’s strategic plan is found in thecity’s strategic goal - to strengthen the local econ-omy and to attract and retain family-supportingjobs. The traffic control program significantly en-hances the safety of the city’s transportation sys-tem by providing direction of traffic throughoutthe city. By improving transportation safety, thetraffic control program, like the street reconstruc-tion program, adds economic value to Milwaukee.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Department of Public Works InfrastructureServices Division uses the following criteria to de-termine traffic control equipment capital needs: (1)age and condition of traffic control devices; (2) traf-fic and pedestrian volume and travel time; (3) ac-cident experience; and (4) state and federal re-quirements.

Coordinated with the street-paving program, traf-fic signs are replaced after 15 years (their estimateduseful life). However, changes in national stan-

dards, aldermanic or citizen requests, and engi-neering studies which indicate a need for im-proved signals also affect replacement of signals.The reconstruction of traffic signals is based onpaving programs, accident reduction efforts, orsafety improvement projects. Traffic controllers,which regulate traffic signals, are installed to meetnational standards and are replaced due to age,damage, deterioration, or insufficient capacity toaccomplish required functions.


Table 10 shows the inventory of trafficcontrol devices as of December 31, 2000.

Wisconsin State Statutes require that alltraffic control devices placed and main-tained by local authorities conform to theFederal Manual on Uniform Traffic Con-trol Devices for Streets and Highways.The manual sets basic principles for thedesign and use of traffic control devicesand provides guidance for their properinstallation, operation, and maintenance.Traffic patterns and roadway geographygoverns the appropriate combination oftraffic control devices.

Table 10

Traffic Control Device Units Traffic Control Device Units

TRAFFIC SIGNS TRAFFIC CONTROLLERSStop and Stop-Related 13,918 Electromechanical 44Yield 760 Solid State 652Parking 32,108 TOTAL 696Other Regulatory 17,827Warning 6,890 PAVEMENT MARKINGSStreet Names 21,712 Center and Lane LinesReflectors 4,938 Painted 178 (miles)Miscellaneous 2,031 Semi-permanent 133 (miles)

TOTAL 100,184 TOTAL 311 (miles)

TRAFFIC SIGNALS Crosswalks 1,680 Signalized Intersections 705Traffic Control Beacons 12

TOTAL 717

Traffic Control Device Inventoryas of December 31, 2000



As of December 1996, the city was compliant withthe federal manual and the Infrastructure ServicesDivision believesthat the 2002-2007 capital planwill allow this important trend to continue.

In addition to complying with federal standards,the city remains committed to providing trafficcontrols in areas of special needs. Traffic checksand studies are conducted on a regular basis to

evaluate the performance of existing traffic controldevices and to assess additional needs. The cityperforms weeklong, 24-hour automated traffic vol-ume counts once a month at 23 key sites, onceevery three years on arterial roads, and as neededon non-arterial roads and for specific traffic situa-tions. These counts are used to determine levels ofroad use and to analyze citywide travel habits andpatterns.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

In total, the 2002-2007 capital plan allocates $4.2million to the improvement of traffic control facili-ties. Table 11 breaks down traffic control funding

for the 2002-2007 capital plan. (Table 11 includesfunding for the OPTICOM System which is dis-cussed below.)


Emergency Response Management (OPTICOM):The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan pro-vides $147,000 for 2002 and 2003 for the OPTICOMProject. This project equips traffic signal installa-tions along primary emergency vehicle routes withdevices to allow signal preemption for emergencyvehicles. The project converts high traffic volumecontrolled intersections on emergency responseroutes to the OPTICOM system and, in the past,has helped install emitters on all Fire Department

vehicles. Out of 325 targeted intersections, 124were fully converted by the end of 2000 and manyothers have been partially converted. Moreover,all of the Fire Department’s existing vehicles havebeen converted. The funds provided in the six-year plan are sufficient to cover the cost of install-ing the system, as well as providing additional ve-hicle emitters for new vehicles and replacement offailed units.

Table 11

Project Title

Traffic Control Improvements $677,000 $682,000 $697,000 $707,000 $707,000 $707,000 $4,177,000Emergency Response Management 147,000 147,000 0 0 0 0 294,000

TOTAL $824,000 $829,000 $697,000 $707,000 $707,000 $707,000 $4,471,000

20062004Plan

2005Plan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Traffic Control Improvements

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002Budget

2003Plan



SIDEWALKS


A key strategic objective of the Department ofPublic Works is to provide safe, attractive, andefficient surface public ways and infrastructuresystems, including sidewalks. The primarypurpose of sidewalks is to provide a means for safeand efficient pedestrian travel. At present, the cityhas approximately 2,200 miles, or 68.5 millionsquare feet of sidewalk. More than 150 pedestrianways and malls also contain public sidewalks.

The sidewalk reconstruction program supports thecity’s strategic goal - to ensure economic opportu-

nities in the city by strengthening the local econ-omy, and attracting and retaining family support-ing jobs. The goal of the program is to keep side-walks in a safe condition for use by the generalpublic. This not only keep sidewalks in proper re-pair but also enhances the restoration of neighbor-hoods. By providing a safe system of transporta-tion for pedestrians throughout the city, the side-walk reconstruction program significantly en-hances the city’s transportation system and addseconomic value to Milwaukee.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Department of Public Works InfrastructureServices Division utilizes the following criteria todetermine the capital needs for sidewalks and pe-destrian curb ramps: (1) age and condition; (2)street, sewer, and water construction projects; (3)citizens’ complaints; and (4) handicapped accessi-bility.

Random sample sidewalk condition surveys areconducted to accurately assess the condition of citysidewalks. The surveys categorize a sidewalk con-dition by defect type; worn or deteriorated,cracked, settled, raised, or satisfactory. Severalfactors contribute to sidewalk defects:

Age – deterioration, wear, cracking, and disin-tegration;

Trees – root growth which causes heaving ofsidewalk slab;

Trench settlement – utility service trenchescontinue to settle after many years of installa-tion;

Frost action – causes heaving and movement ofsidewalk slabs;

Heat expansion – heat expands concrete caus-ing heaved sections; and

Damage – nearby construction or work activi-ties can damage sidewalks causing cracks andsettlement.

In addition to the condition surveys, the Infrastruc-ture Services Division utilizes a cyclical approachto review sidewalk condition. Under this ap-proach, all sidewalks are examined every 25-30years.


In 1988, a comprehensive survey (see Figure 11)was conducted to assess the condition of city side-walks. The result of this survey revealed that ap-proximately 26%, or 17.8 million square feet ofsidewalk had one or more defective conditions.Although a study to assess the condition of thecity’s sidewalk network was conducted in 1992,

Infrastructure Services Division is not confidentthat the random sample method used providesaccurate results. The division has delayed con-ducting another survey until a more accurate con-dition analysis method can be developed. Work todevelop this method is on-going.



Since 1988, 14.6 million square feet ofsidewalk has been replaced. The amountincludes work performed by all sources,including city and Wisconsin Departmentof Transportation paving contracts, cityforces, and utility replacement and side-walk repair contracts. Approximately430,000 square feet of sidewalk is replacedannually through utility replacement andsidewalk repair contracts. This level ofsidewalk replacement is able to maintainthe system at its current condition.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan allocatesa total of $11.1 million to the replacement or repairof city sidewalks (see Table 12). This level offunding will allow the city to continue to replace

city sidewalks on a 25-30 year replacement cycle.On average, the division contends this level offunding will replace approximately 400,000 squarefeet per year throughout the life of the plan.

Figure 11

74.3%

2.4%

7.4% 10.9%

5.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Acceptable Worn Cracked Settled Raised

1988 Sidewalk Survey Results

Table 12

Project Title

City Funding $585,000 $585,000 $585,000 $585,000 $585,000 $585,000 $3,510,000Assessments 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 1,265,000 7,590,000

TOTAL $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $11,100,000

Six-YearPlan

2006Plan

2007Plan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Sidewalk Improvements

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan



PARKING


The city’s parking activities are managed by Park-ing Fund staff who work under the direction of theCommissioner of the Department of Public Works.The fund is responsible for the administrating andoperating four city-owned parking structures;managing and leasing approximately 70 leased,permit, and metered lots; and for the managementand collection of approximately 6,500 on- and off-street parking meters. Capital improvements aswell as operating and management costs arefunded through the Parking Fund.

The primary objectives of city-owned parkingstructures in the downtown area is to provide safeand secure parking for patrons and employees ofdowntown businesses, to enhance economic devel-

opment, and also to retain existing businesses inthe downtown area.

The parking improvements program supports thecity’s strategic goal - to strengthen the local econ-omy, attract and retain family-supporting jobs, andensure economic opportunities. The presence ofsufficient levels of safe and secure parking facilitiesfosters and promotes commercial/residential de-velopment.

The city’s Parking Fund helps to guarantee thatMilwaukee has an adequate amount of parkingthroughout the city, especially in the downtownarea where all of the city-maintained parking struc-tures are located.


The city owns and operates five parking structuresthrough the Parking Fund. One of the five, theMilwaukee/Michigan parking structure, is leasedto a local business. The city is responsible for itscapital repairs and improvements. Four otherstructures are operated using contracted parkingcompanies. The city receives revenues from thesecontractors. In addition, the city has title to fiveother structures through the RedevelopmentAuthority.

Table 13 provides a summary of the four city-owned and operated parking structures. Thissummary includes date of construction, descriptiveinformation, and revenue data.

Parking staff developed and annually reviews along-term capital maintenance plan in order to en-

sure proper maintenance of fund facilities, in par-ticular, its parking structures. A range of mainte-nance items, if not addressed within the propertime frame, may result in more extensive andcostly repair or replacement needs. By identifyingthese maintenance items and budgeting for them inadvance, the fund can minimize the potential forunanticipated and significant capital expenses.This will help the fund maintain its assets in propercondition and will also reduce the use of reservesto finance capital costs.

Almost $2 million was spent in 2001 to renovatethe Milwaukee/Michigan parking structure. Con-crete sections, aluminum façade panels, and achain link fence were repaired or replaced as re-quired.

Table 13

Construction Square No. of 2001Structure Date Footage Levels No. of Stalls Revenues

MacArthur Square 1966 573,000 3 1,418 $3,178,098724 North 2nd 1961 212,800 8 501 411,845North 4th and East Highland 1987 356,000 8 993 1,057,0311000 North Water 1991 638,000 8 1,542 1,317,282

Summary of City-Owned and Operated Parking Structures



SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan includes$9.9 million for parking-related projects (see Table14). Funding of $822,000 is provided in the 2002budget. These projects will be financed withParking Fund revenues.

The current ongoing capital projects for parkingstructures include:

Repair of concrete spalling and steel rein-forcement bar corrosion in the common wallof the MacArthur Square Parking Structureand the state owned I-43 freeway tunnel;

Replacement of the revenue control equip-ment (gates, ticket machines, electronic entrypads, and cash registers) at the four structuresto replace worn equipment and obsolete, un-supported software;

Evaluation of consolidation of Parking en-forcement personnel and equipment into onefacility. Since parking enforcement was trans-ferred from the Police Department to DPW,the 94 people and 58 vehicles have operatedfrom two overcrowded facilities at the CentralGarage and the DPW Tow Yard. Flexibility,other operating efficiencies, and workplaceimprovements will result from consolidation.The city will evaluate whether a new facility isnecessary or whether other city-owned sitescould be used; and

Resealing deck membrane, painting, recaulk-ing, and repair of expansion joints at the vari-ous parking structures.

Table 14

Project Title

1) MacArthur Square I-43 Ramp Repair $422,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $422,0002) MacArthur Square Remembrane Project 0 0 460,000 375,000 405,000 0 1,240,0003) 4th and Highland - Concrete Sealer and Caulk Joint 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,0004) 4th and Highland - Paint Beams and Snow Chute 0 0 205,000 0 0 0 205,0005) 4th and Highland - Recaulking 0 0 0 0 0 475,000 475,0006) Replace Revenue Control Equipment - Four Structures 0 940,700 0 0 0 0 940,7007) Consolidated Facility for Parking Enforcement 0 1,600,000 0 0 0 0 1,600,0008) 2nd and Plankinton Traffic Membrane 0 217,000 217,000 0 0 0 434,0009) Milwaukee/Michigan Remembrane Project 0 0 335,000 0 0 0 335,000

10) Milwaukee/Michigan Repainting 0 0 0 0 950,000 950,000 1,900,00011) 1000 North Water Membrane Replacement 0 0 193,000 0 0 0 193,00012) 1000 North Water - Joint Replacement 0 0 0 225,000 0 0 225,00013) Miscellaneous Repairs and Upgrades 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 750,00014) Structural Repairs to Various Structures 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 750,000

TOTAL $822,000 $3,457,700 $1,610,000 $800,000 $1,555,000 $1,625,000 $9,869,700

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Parking Improvements

2002 2005 Six-YearBudget

2003Plan

2004Plan PlanPlan

2006Plan

2007Plan


ENVIRONMENT

Environment-related capital projects include thesewer system, water facilities, sanitation, forestry,and environmental remediation. The objective ofthe environmental capital program is to enhancethe long-term environmental health of Milwaukeeby reducing lake and river pollution, protectinghuman health and the local ecosystem, andmaintaining the cleanliness and beauty of cityneighborhoods. Funding for environmentalprojects is determined by a wide range of criteria,including condition, age, maintenance problems,state and environmental regulations, citizencomplaints, and aldermanic requests. Whenpossible, replacement of environment-relatedinfrastructure is coordinated with the pavingprogram.

Environmental projects are funded through cityborrowing, special assessments, revenue from de-velopers, user fees, and the property tax levy. The2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan provides

$268.4 million for environment-related capital proj-ects, the largest functional category representing28% of total funding in the six-year plan. Figure 12shows projected costs of environment-related capi-tal projects.

Sewers

The six-year plan includes $137.7 million for sewersystem projects, which accounts for 51.3% of total

funding for environment-related projects. Thesewer program includes relief and relay sewers,expansion of capacity sewers, and developer-financed sewers. As Figure 12 shows, funding forthe city’s sewer infrastructure is relatively stablethroughout the six-year plan. The Relief and RelayProgram has been financed with a user fee since2000.

Water Works

Capital improvement funding for the MilwaukeeWater Works totals approximately $115 millionover the six-year plan and accounts for 42.8% of to-tal funding for environment-related capital proj-ects. Of this amount, $84.4 million is appropriatedfor the water main program, which includes distri-bution and feeder mains. The remaining $30.6 mil-lion finances purification plants, pumping stations,storage facilities and the control center.

Forestry

Funding for forestry-related activities to-tals over $5.6 million in the six-year capi-tal improvements plan, which accountsfor 2.1% of total funding for environ-mental projects. These activities include$2.5 million to maintain landscaping oncity boulevards and $3.1 million for thetree planting program.

Sanitation

The six-year plan provides $4.7 million forsanitation related capital improvementprojects or 1.75% of total funding for envi-ronment related capital projects. Fundingfor sanitation projects ranges from$275,000 to $1.35 million in the six-yearplan.

Environmental Remediation

The six-year plan provides approximately $5.4million or 2% of total funding for a variety of envi-ronment-related capital projects. Funding for thispurpose ranges from $634,000 in 2002 to $1.8 mil-lion in 2004.

Figure 12

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Environment2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Sewer System Water Works Sanitation Forestry Environmental Remediation

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns)

ENVIRONMENT


SEWERS


The environmental component of the 2002-2007Capital Improvements Plan includes funding forthe city’s sewer infrastructure. The InfrastructureServices Division is responsible for constructingthe city’s sewer infrastructure, including storm andsanitary sewers, stormwater inlets, catch basins,and manholes. Since the year 2000, the SewerMaintenance Relay Program in the Sewer Mainte-nance Fund has supported replacement of existingsewers. Preventive and emergency maintenanceand most inspections of the city’s sewer infrastruc-ture are funded through the Sewer MaintenanceFund’s operating budget.

The sewer program contributes to the city’s strate-gic goal of strengthening the local economy, at-tracting and retaining family-supporting jobs, andensuring economic opportunities for all city resi-dents. A safe and effective sewer system helps toenhance the city’s attractiveness for private sectorinvestment, supports residential, industrial, andcommercial development, and provides employ-ment opportunities as all capital sewer projects areconstructed by private contract.

The sewer program not only promotes growth anddevelopment, but also preserves neighborhood andenvironmental quality. Maintaining a qualitysewer infrastructure helps reduce lake and river

pollution by improving the quality of stormwaterrunoff entering rivers. Compliance with currentstate and federally mandated pollutant abatementprograms and monitoring clean water legislationprevents discharges that adversely affect the city’sharbor and rivers. In addition, watershed man-agement of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kin-nickinnic Rivers and remedial action plans for theharbor and river estuaries, help to restore andmaintain water quality standards and protect hu-man health. The sewer infrastructure program alsominimizes service backups and street flooding in-cidents, which maintains the quality and safety ofthe city’s neighborhoods.

The city’s system of collector, sanitary, and com-bined sewers empties into the sewer system of theMilwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District(MMSD). MMSD, a special purpose municipalcorporation, provides sewage treatment services tothe City of Milwaukee and 17 other cities and vil-lages within the district’s legal boundary, as wellas other areas outside of its boundary. MMSDowns and maintains two treatment plants thatconvey wastewater using a 305 mile system of in-tercepting and main sewers owned and maintainedby the district. These activities are funded throughthe property tax and user fees levied by the dis-trict.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The goal of the sewer program is to ensure that thecity’s sewer infrastructure remains structurallysound, properly maintained, and capable of han-dling adequate volumes of wastewater and storm-water. If properly maintained, the sewer programwill limit service backups, street flooding incidents,and meet stormwater quality standards set by theState of Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-sources (DNR).

The following criteria are used to determine thecapital needs of the city’s sewer infrastructure: (1)paving program; (2) state, federal and MilwaukeeMetropolitan Sewerage District mandates; (3)backwater complaints and sewer main failures; (4)age and condition; (5) sewer capacity; (6) develop-

ment projects; (7) cleaning and maintenance prob-lems; and (8) aldermanic requests.

The sewer infrastructure currently has no auto-mated data-based system for condition-based proj-ect planning. Sewer system data includes mapproducts, a computer-based inventory, reports, ex-aminations, computation sheets, backwater com-plaints, and aldermanic requests. Specific informa-tion on a particular section of sewer requires re-searching the sources identified above. Analysis ofthe sewer system requires computation of the up-stream portion of the system to obtain flow condi-tions. Sewer examination reports are analyzed anda rating for the sewer is determined using such fac-tors as age, backwater complaints, aldermanic re-

ENVIRONMENT

2002-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 39

quests, and scheduled pavings. The research in-volved and the computations required during thisprocess are very labor intensive. The Department

of Public Works will explore the merits of anautomated condition assessment system during2002.


The Infrastructure Services Division annually up-dates an inventory of the city’s sewer infrastruc-ture. The inventory contains information on loca-tion, type, length, diameter, age, and appurte-nances of each segment of sewer. Table 15 showsthe major components of the city’s sewer infra-structure.The city’s sewer infrastructure inventory containssanitary, storm and combined sewers, storm inlets,

catch basins, and manholes. Sanitary sewers carrysanitary flow to intercepting sewers that carry theflow to sewage treatment facilities. Storm sewerscarry surface drainage from parking lots, roofs,and streets to rivers or the lake. Combined sewerscarry both sanitary flow and stormwater. Duringperiods of dry weather, the sanitary flow is con-veyed to intercepting sewers that carry the flow tosewage treatment facilities. When heavy rain oc-curs, crossovers between sanitary and storm sew-ers allow stormwater to mix with the sanitary flowand this combined flow empties into rivers and thelake. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-trict’s deep tunnel project has reduced this over-flow from approximately 50 occurrences to 2 oc-currences a year.

Under the Wisconsin Permit Discharge EliminationSystem (WPDES), the city must eliminate existingcrossovers between sanitary and storm sewers. Toprevent sanitary sewer backups, bypass pumps are

used to transfer excess flows from sanitary tostorm sewers. The Department of Natural Re-sources requires the city to remove all bypasses be-tween sanitary and storm sewers by repairing,sealing, relaying or relining sanitary sewers.

A stormwater inlet collects stormwater and drainsit to a storm sewer. A catch basin, which is an 8-foot deep underground tank, collects debris fromstormwater run-off and drains either into a com-bined or storm sewer. Manholes provide access tothe sewer system.

Information on the condition of sewers is gatheredprimarily through sewer inspections, which arefunded through the Sewer Maintenance Fund. TheInfrastructure Services Division conducts most in-spections of sewer mains using video cameras.Sewers are examined under the following condi-tions: (1) prior to all paving projects, (2) whenbackwater complaints are received, or (3) part of asystematic review program. When a segment ofsewer is inspected, it is rated based upon the fol-lowing criteria; mandatory project, structural con-dition, hydraulics, age, cleaning and maintenanceproblems, and aldermanic request. The ratingsrange on a scale from 0 to 100 with 100 indicatingthe best condition. Table 16 illustrates the rating

Table 15

Facility Quantity

Sanitary Sewers 932 miles

Storm Sewers 949 miles

Combined Sewers 547 miles

TOTAL 2,428 miles

Storm Inlets 32,000 *Catch Basins 24,000 *Manholes 73,888

City Sewer Infrastructure Inventory

* An estimated database of storm inlets and catch basins is not maintained.

as of December 31, 2001

Table 16

Factors Used for Calculating Sewer Index Rating

Category

Mandatory WorkAldermanic Service RequestBackwaterStructural ConditionHydraulicsAge of SewerCleaning/Maintenance ProblemDeleted from Prior Year's Schedule

Note: Index rating is from 0=Worstto 100=Best

ENVIRONMENT


system for the sewer program. Sewerbackups occur when there is inadequatesystem hydraulics, structural failure, rootsor debris blocking flow, or a surchargedmetropolitan interceptor sewer.

During the period 1995 to 2000, the divi-sion remotely viewed over 3.8 million feetof sewer, an annual average of 633,000feet. The division also inspected nearly630,000 feet of sewer over the same timeperiod, for an annual average of 125,000feet. In total, almost 4.5 million feet ofsewer have been inspected between 1995and 2000 which represents nearly 35% ofthe total sewer system (see Figure 13). Atthis rate of inspection, each sewer segmentwould be inspected every 15 years on av-erage.

Another criterion used to assess conditionis the age of the sewer system. The cur-rent estimated useful life of a sewer sys-tem is 90 years. According to Figure 14,2,045 miles of sewer, or 84.2% of the sys-tem is 75 years old or younger. Almost242 miles, or 10% of the system is between75-100 years, and over 142 miles or 5.8%of the system is over 100 years old. Al-though age can be an important indicatorof condition, ascertaining actual conditionand determining the need for replacementrequires an actual inspection. Based uponinspections, sewers that have an indexrating of 65 or less will be scheduled forreplacement.

The replacement of sewers is fundedthrough the Sewer Maintenance RelayProgram. During the period 1996 to 2000, an aver-age of 8.7 miles of sewers were replaced each year,of which 81% were combined sewers, 12% weresanitary sewers, and 7% were storm sewers. Atthis level of effort, approximately 1% of the sewersystem is replaced annually.

Fluctuations in sewer preservation efforts reflectthe type and size of sewer replaced. Pipe diameteraffects the flow volume and, consequently, con-struction costs. For example, in 1998 the cost toreplace one mile of 8-inch sewer totaled $841,000compared to $2.9 million to replace one mile of 60-inch pipe. Other circumstances, such as groundconditions, depth of the pipe and utility locationalso affect replacement costs. Rather than com-

pletely replace a sewer main, the InfrastructureServices Division seals mains to extend their usefullives by 25-50 years. Sealing helps to keep clearwater from infiltrating the sanitary or combinedsewer main. Between 1996 and 2000, 28 miles ofsewers have been sealed.

If the sewer system is properly maintained thenumber of sewer backups and street flooding inci-dents should be minimized and stormwater qualitystandards should be met. An objective of the De-partment of Public Works is to limit the number ofsewer backups to less than 55 incidents each year.In 2000, 78 incidents of backwater were reported(see Figure 15). The increase was due to an equip-ment shortage, which reduced triennial mainte-

Figure 13

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Sew

ers

Insp

ecte

d (In

Mill

ions

of F

eet)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Sewer Inspections Feet of Sewers Inspected 1995 - 2000

Camera Inspected Inspected by Other Methods

Figure 14

Age of Sewer System By Miles of Sewers

More than 100 Years

5.8%76-100 Years

10.0%

Less than 25 Years12.5%

25-50 Years45.7%

51-75 Years26.0%

ENVIRONMENT


nance efforts and extensive manhole rehabilitationby contractors, which restricted flow in the imme-diate vicinity. Both of these difficulties have been

resolved. The division expects about 50 backwaterincidents in 2002.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan pro-vides $137.7 million for the city’s sewer system. Ofthis amount, $117 million, or 85% is for sewer pres-ervation and approximately $20.7 million, or 15%,is for sewer expansion. Table 17 shows the six-yearcapital improvements program for the sewer sys-tem including the following: (1) the Sewer Mainte-nance Relay Program; (2) Expansion ofCapacity Sewer Program; (3) Sewer DebrisDewatering Sites; and (4) Developer-Financed Sewer Program.

Sewer Maintenance Relay Program: The2002-2007 Capital Improvements Planprovides $116.8 million for the SewerMaintenance Relay Program. This level offunding is expected to replace ten miles ofsewer annually. The 2002 budget pro-vides approximately $3 million to replacesewer mains associated with the pavingprogram and $14.4 million to replace sew-ers other than those associated with thepaving program.

Expansion of Capacity Sewer Program:The 2002-2007 plan provides approxi-mately $17.7 million in funding for expan-sion of capacity sewer projects, which includesconstruction of new sewers and large-diameter re-lief sewers. Approximately $16 million is providedto construct new large-diameter relief sewers,which provide additional capacity to the sewersystem in order to ensure that sewers are sufficientto handle demand.

The remaining $1.7 million is provided to extendsewer service to areas of the city that does not cur-rently have service. These extensions may occur ineither established or undeveloped areas of the citybecause of failing septic systems, surface floodingproblems, paving of a local street, or requests by

abutting property owners. These sewer extensionsare financed in part through special assessmentslevied against the owners whose properties havebenefited from the new sewer system.

Developer-Financed Sewers: The 2002-2007 planprovides $3 million for developer-financed sewers.

Figure 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Number of Clogged Sewers Causing Backwater

Table 17

Project Title

Sewer Maintenance Relay Program $17,400,000 $17,400,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $21,500,000 $21,500,000 $116,800,000Expansion of Capacity Program City Cost 3,159,000 2,909,000 2,909,000 2,909,000 2,909,000 2,909,000 17,704,000Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL $20,559,000 $20,309,000 $22,409,000 $22,409,000 $24,409,000 $24,409,000 $134,504,000

Sewer Debris Dewatering Sites $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000Developer Financed Sewer Program Revenue 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000

SUBTOTAL $500,000 $700,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,200,000

TOTAL $21,059,000 $21,009,000 $22,909,000 $22,909,000 $24,909,000 $24,909,000 $137,704,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Sewer Program2002

Budget2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

ENVIRONMENT


Developer-financed construction occurs when aprivate developer requests that the city extendsewer service to the developer’s lands or when thedevelopment requires modifications to the existingsystem. This program is fully-financed by the de-

veloper, who enters into a formal agreement withthe city. Developers are refunded if a sewer main,which is larger than needed by the particular de-velopment, is installed to serve properties otherthan the developers or to address future city needs.


Cash Financing Policy for the Relay Sewer Pro-gram: The 2000 budget transferred the Relief andRelay Sewer Program from the city-funded capitalbudget to the Sewer Maintenance Fund. As part ofthis transfer, a cash financing program will be de-veloped for the Relay Sewer Program. Cash fi-nancing some of this program is appropriate be-cause it maintains the condition of the currentsewer infrastructure by annually replacing a por-tion of the sewer system. The major advantage ofcash financing is the long-term savings realizedthrough debt service avoided. This policy will bal-ance increased costs and future savings so as tomake annual fee increases manageable and accept-

able. Continuing implementation of this policy, the2002 budget cash financed 7.25%, or $1.3 million ofthe Sewer Maintenance Relay Program.

Sewer Debris Dewatering Sites: The State of Wis-consin Department of Natural Resources has re-quired that sewer debris must be dry prior to land-fill disposal. Currently, the city has contracted todry this material at a cost of approximately$1,000,000 annually. The $200,000 in the 2003budget will fund a study to determine if it wouldbe in the city’s best interest to construct our owndewatering facility.

ENVIRONMENT


WATER


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for theenvironment includes funding for the city’s watersystem. The Milwaukee Water Works is a publicutility owned by the City of Milwaukee and regu-lated by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.It is responsible for constructing, operating, andmaintaining facilities and equipment used to col-lect, filter, treat, store, pump, and distribute waterto Milwaukee area residents.

The primary objective of the Milwaukee WaterWorks is to provide potable and palatable water inquantities sufficient to meet domestic consumptionand fire protection needs, while enhancing thelong-term economic and environmental health ofthe city.

The water system contributes primarily to thecity’s strategic goal of strengthening the local econ-

omy, attracting and retaining family-supportingjobs, and ensuring economic opportunities for allcity residents. Ensuring high quality water serviceis a key contributor to sustaining the economicprosperity of the city. Maintaining efficient andhigh quality public water utility enhances the city’sattractiveness for private sector investment, in-creasing land values and promoting new develop-ment. Moreover, by ensuring that drinking wateris safe and healthy for human consumption, thewater system promotes and protects the environ-mental quality of the Milwaukee metropolitan area,which renders the city a more desirable destinationfor private investment.

The magnitude of the Water Works’ infrastructure,and the city’s commitment to high quality water,require a vigorous, on-going capital program.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Milwaukee Water Works maintains an extensiveinfrastructure system consisting of treatmentplants, pumping stations, storage facilities, watermains, hydrants, meters, and valves. An inventoryof this infrastructure, as of December 31, 2000 isshown in Table 18.

Various criteria are used to assess the condition ofthis infrastructure and to plan on-going capital im-provements. Water engineering utilizes a WaterMain Break Experience Index to rank water mainreplacement projects on the basis of break fre-quency. The resultant ranking is modified by otherfactors including: (1) water quality considerations;(2) types of breaks; (3) potential damage from fu-ture breaks; (4) adequacy of existing mains; and (5)the paving program.

Criteria used to assess the condition of other com-ponents of the water system, such as treatment fa-cilities, pumping stations, and storage facilities in-clude the following: (1) ability to optimize opera-tion of the facility; (2) maintenance history; (3)pressure or flow concerns; (4) water quality stan-dards; and (5) growth and development.

Milwaukee Water Works is exploring the use of adatabase management system to monitor the watermain infrastructure system. The project will linkvarious databases such as water main diameter,

Table 18

Componet Quantity

Water Mains (Miles):Distribution 1,605Feeder 347

Total Mains 1,952

Purification Plants 2

Pumping Stations:Major 3Booster 11

Total Pumping Stations 14

Storage Facilities 9

Hydrants 19,594

Active Service Connections 164,660

Valves 46,640

Meters 160,609

WATER WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMas of December 31, 2000

ENVIRONMENT


age, composition, joint material, pressure district,valves, hydrants and main break frequency. Whencompleted, this system will allow Water Works tobetter track the age of installed mains, quantities ofmains, and other details related to mains. It will

also have the ability to generate statistical reportsfor management decision making. Mains in needof replacement or repair can be identified usingstatistical reports and other related data.


The City of Milwaukee water distribution systemconsists of distribution and feeder mains. Feedermains carry water from the two purification plantsto the distribution system for service to customers,or to storage facilities to be re-pumped during pe-riods of maximum demand. Distribution mainscarry water from feeder mains to customers’ serv-ice lines. The oldest active water mains in the citywere originally installed in 1872. For long-rangeplanning purposes, the estimated useful life for themajority of the water mains currently in existenceis 110 years. As of January 1, 2001, 71% of the sys-tem was less than 75 years old.

One of the criteria used to determine the conditionof the water main system is the number of mainbreaks. Breaks are caused by several factors; se-vere winter weather, the size of mains, location ofmains, period of installation, pipe material, lengthof pipe, and the corrosiveness of the soil sur-rounding the main. Figure 16 shows the number ofwater main breaks over the last six years. In 2000,there were 667 water main breaks, a decrease of 43from 1999. The recent declining trend in watermain breaks is attributed to milder winters. Mostmain breaks occur during December, January, andFebruary. The number of breaks is muchgreater in severely cold weather. Recentwinters have not been as frigid as wintersof the mid-1990’s.

Currently, the system’s mains are in-spected when a break occurs. This data iscompiled into a Water Main Break Experi-ence Index which ranks water main re-placement projects on the basis of breakfrequency based on the number of breaksper 100 feet of pipe.

As shown in Figure 17, between 1994 and2000, 80.3 miles of water mains have beenconstructed for an annual average of 11.5miles. This includes mostly main re-placement and some new main construc-tion.

The Distribution Section of Water Works is pri-marily responsible for maintenance and repair ofthe utility’s distribution system. Distribution staffcurrently works out of two field offices a southsidelocation at 3801 West Lincoln Avenue and a north-side location at 2919 West Cameron Avenue.These existing facilities are inadequate and in needof major renovation. The increasing size andamount of equipment, the need for larger garagespace to house diesel vehicles and the age of thecurrent facilities drive the cost of operating the Dis-tribution Section. Budget authority exists to con-solidate into a single site to gain efficiencies. Thesearch for a suitable location continues.

Water Treatment Facilities: The Milwaukee WaterWorks operates two water treatment facilities eachwith its own intake. The Linnwood Plant, con-structed in 1938, is located on the northside of thecity and has a design capacity of 275 million gal-lons of water per day. The Linnwood Plant isserved by the Linnwood Intake Facility, a concretetunnel 12 feet in diameter extending 6,565 feet intoLake Michigan.

Figure 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Number of Water Main Breaks

ENVIRONMENT


The Howard Avenue Plant, constructed in1962 is located on the city’s southside andhas a design capacity of 105 million gal-lons per day. This plant is served by theTexas Avenue Intake Facility, a 9 foot di-ameter concrete pipe extending 11,823 feetinto Lake Michigan.

The treatment process at both plants be-gins with the contact of raw water withozone, the primary disinfectant. Coagula-tion with aluminum sulfate, settling andrapid dual media filtration follows. Freechlorine is added after filtration. A phos-phorus compound is added to controllead and fluoride is added to preventtooth decay. The final step is the additionof chloramine to maintain a disinfectantresidual throughout the distribution sys-tem.

Water Pumping Facilities: After treatment, waterenters the distribution system at three primarypumping stations: (1) Riverside; (2) North Point;and (3) Howard Avenue. As water passes throughthe distribution system, it gradually loses pressuredue to distances traveled, friction on the inside sur-faces of the mains, and higher elevations found insome areas. Booster pumping stations assist inmaintaining proper pressure throughout the sys-tem. Currently, the Milwaukee Water Works op-erates 11 booster stations strategically locatedthroughout Milwaukee County and operated re-motely from one of three locations. Booster sta-tions include: (1) Kilbourn Reservoir, which dis-tributes water from the reservoir during periods ofpeak demand; (2) Menomonee Valley; (3) LincolnAvenue; (4) Lake Drive; (5) Florist Avenue; (6)Grange Avenue; (7) Bluemound Road; (8) Okla-homa Avenue; (9) Adler Street; (10) Capitol Drive;and (11) Lisbon Avenue.

The total rated pumping capacity of all primarypumping stations and booster stations is 1.005 bil-lion gallons of water per day.

Water Storage Facilities: In addition to thepumping stations, the water distribution systemalso includes reservoirs and ground level and ele-vated storage tanks. These include the following:(1) Kilbourn Reservoir; (2) two storage tanks nearthe Menomonee Valley Booster Station; (3) twostorage tanks adjacent to the Lincoln AvenueBooster Station; (4) one storage tank near Lake

Drive Station; (5) two storage tanks near the FloristAvenue Booster Station; (6) one storage tank lo-cated in Greenfield; and (7) one storage tank lo-cated on Hawley Road. Other water storage facili-ties include the clearwells at the Howard Avenueand Linnwood Avenue purification plants.

These storage facilities have a total storage capacityof 139 million gallons of water. The reservoirs andtanks provide excess capacity and assist in han-dling peak demands, which reduces the need forlarge investments in treatment and pumpingequipment when demand is high.

The six-year plan includes funding for improve-ments at three storage facilities:

The tanks at the Menomonee Valley Pumping Sta-tion have excessive leakage because the base of thetank has separated from the side walls; these tankswill be replaced and altitude valves will be in-stalled on the new tanks to prevent tank overflowand flood damage.

The one million gallon elevated Lake District stor-age tank has not been painted since 1977 and needspainting of both the interior and exterior surfaces.

The tanks at Lincoln Avenue Station are in need ofreplacement. Altitude valves will be installed onthe new tanks to prevent tank overflow and flooddamage in the event of alarm failure.

The structure of the clearwell at the Howard Ave-nue Plant was found to be cracked, allowing the

Figure 17

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Water Main Preservation Miles Constructed (1994 - 2000)

ENVIRONMENT


possible infiltration of groundwater into the basins.A membrane arterial will be bonded to the roofslab to prevent leaking.

In addition to the work on the above storage facili-ties, construction of a new storage tank at the Kil-bourn location began in 2001. This project will befunded with borrowings authorized in the 1999capital budget.

Control Center: The Milwaukee Water Works’Control Center contains centralized electronic datatelemetering, recording, and supervisory equip-ment for remote control of storage and boosterpumps. The Control Center can monitor operationof pumps and valves. Additionally, load centers atthe treatment plants control and monitors thepumpage from Lake Michigan, the entire treatmentprocess, and continuously analyzes water qualityand chemical content.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan calls forthe allocation of $115 million for the city’s watersystem. Most of this funding, approximately$107.8 million, will come from water revenues;with the remaining $7.2 million funded by landdevelopers for installation of new water mains innew developments. Table 19 (on the followingpage) summarizes the various capital accounts thatfund water improvements.

Distribution Main Program: The six-year planprovides, approximately $77.2 million for replace-ment and installation of new distribution mains.The Milwaukee Water Works intends to increasethe annual allocation to this account by approxi-mately 10% annually, as part of an increased focuson buried infrastructure. This program will main-tain the reliability and adequacy of the water mainsystem. An additional $7.2 million is provided bythe Developer Out-of-Program Agreement Pro-gram, which facilitates the extension of watermains to serve new customers.

Feeder Main Program: The six-year capital im-provements plan provides $7.7 million for theFeeder Main Program. This funding is expected toreplace, reinforce, and extend one mile of feedermains each year. This program will maintain theintegrity of the feeder main system.

Treatment Improvements: The six-year capitalimprovements budget provides approximately $5.9

million for various treatment improvement proj-ects at the Linnwood and Howard Avenue treat-ment plants. The 2002 budget provides funding to-taling $300,000 for the replacement of flucculatorbearings and shafts at the Linnwood and HowardAvenue plants.

Pump Facilities: The six-year capital improve-ments plan provides $7.1 million for pump facili-ties. The 2002 budget includes funding totaling$300,000 to replace outdated brush type pump mo-tors with lower maintenance brushless motors atthe Linnwood Plant. Also, $1.4 million will beused to replace an outdated substation at theHoward Avenue Pump Station.

Storage Facilities: The six-year capital improve-ments plan provides $6 million for water storagefacilities including tanks and reservoirs. No capitalimprovements to storage facilities are planned for2002.

Building Improvements: The six-year capital im-provements plan provides $3.1 million for buildingimprovements. The 2002 budget includes $850,000for security upgrades at Linnwood and HowardAvenue Plants, in addition to the replacement of acorroded steam radiator heating system at theLinnwood Plant.


Clean and Safe Water Program: Over the pastseveral years, the Milwaukee Water Works imple-mented a program to significantly improve its wa-ter quality monitoring and treatment facilities. The

program had three components: (1) the HowardAvenue Intake Facility was extended an additional4,200 feet at a cost of $11 million to provide cleanerwater for the Howard Avenue Plant; (2) new fil-

ENVIRONMENT


ters, monitoring equipment, and systems to controlthe leaching of lead and copper from plumbingwere installed at both treatment plants at a cost of$27 million; and (3) systems using ozone, thestrongest available disinfectant for drinking water,were installed at both treatment plants at a cost of

$36.5 million. An additional $12.9 million wasspent on various enhancements to plant systems.All three components of the program are complete.However, the Water Works continues to work onoptimizing system operation and on warranty-related issues.

Table 19

Project TitleWATER MAIN PROGRAM

Distribution MainsDeveloper Financed $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $7,200,000

Revenue 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,125,000 13,310,000 14,641,000 16,105,100 77,181,100SUBTOTAL $11,200,000 $12,200,000 $13,325,000 $14,510,000 $15,841,000 $17,305,100 $84,381,100

Feeder Mains Revenue $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $1,210,000 $1,331,000 $1,464,100 $1,610,510 $7,715,610

SUBTOTAL $12,200,000 $13,300,000 $14,535,000 $15,841,000 $17,305,100 $18,915,610 $92,096,710Treatment Improvements $300,000 $700,000 $600,000 $950,000 $2,400,000 $975,000 $5,925,000Building Improvements 850,000 600,000 450,000 1,200,000 0 0 3,100,000Storage Facilities 0 0 0 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 6,000,000Pump Facilities 1,700,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 600,000 850,000 7,100,000Meter Repair Shop

Improvements 0 250,000 200,000 300,000 0 0 750,000

TOTAL $15,050,000 $16,100,000 $17,285,000 $21,991,000 $22,805,100 $21,740,610 $114,971,710

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Milwaukee Water Works

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006

ENVIRONMENT


FORESTRY


The activities of the Forestry Division link to thecity’s strategic goal of strengthening the qualityand ensuring the stability of Milwaukee’s neigh-borhoods. The city works to create stronger neigh-borhoods by encouraging residents to becomemore invested in their neighborhoods. The city’sneighborhoods possess many unique assets, in-cluding their extensive boulevard system and thesurrounding urban forest. Trees and boulevardsadd to the quality of life for Milwaukee’s residents,providing aesthetic and environmental benefits,which make the city an attractive place to live. The2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan preservesthese assets and maintains the quality of Milwau-kee’s neighborhoods primarily through two for-estry-related programs: (1) Concealed Irrigationand General Landscaping; and (2) Planting Trees,Shrubs, and Evergreens.

The Concealed Irrigation Program installs irriga-tion systems and provides general landscaping fornew boulevards after street construction or trafficcontrol modifications have been completed. Rou-tine maintenance of boulevards, including repair ofirrigation systems and general maintenance ofplant material is funded through the operatingbudget. The Forestry Division is responsible fordesigning boulevard medians as a part of streetconstruction projects.

The Planting Program plants and maintains treeslocated on city right-of-ways and property. Thecapital budget provides funds to replace trees re-moved due to street and sidewalk construction.Funds to maintain these trees are provided in theoperating budget.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Forestry Division uses the following criteria todetermine its capital needs for irrigation and land-scaping of city boulevards: (1) the number ofboulevards affected by street construction; and (2)the number of boulevards affected by traffic con-trol changes.

Renovation of boulevards is based not on age orcondition but on the street construction program.Since renovation of boulevard irrigation systemsoften requires breaking street pavement, boulevardrenovation is scheduled to coincide with street re-construction. As a result, capital funding forboulevard irrigation and landscaping activities canvary year-to-year as boulevards are included in thepaving program.

The Forestry Division utilizes similar criteria to de-termine its capital needs for tree planting, includ-ing: (1) street construction projects; (2) sidewalkconstruction projects; and (3) replacement trees.

The capital program for tree planting is based noton condition assessments but rather on street andsidewalk construction activities. Tree planting isnecessary where new street or sidewalk construc-tion requires an initial planting or where recon-struction of existing streets and sidewalks requirestree replacement. The city makes every effort toreplace each removed tree. Trees are scheduled forreplacement within one year after the completionof the street or sidewalk construction.


The city’s boulevard system encompasses ap-proximately 120-miles of landscaped boulevardmedians and traffic triangles. The Forestry Divi-sion uses a database to record landscape and irri-gation plans for every city boulevard. The data-base is updated and boulevard plans are redrawn

if the boulevard is impacted by a street construc-tion project.

In 2000, the Forestry Division conducted an inven-tory of street trees. The division estimates thatthere are approximately 200,000 trees on city right-of-ways and property. These trees are located be-

ENVIRONMENT


tween the sidewalk and the curb, as well as onboulevards, municipal properties, concreteboxouts, and other green spaces.

In addition, the division uses a computerized data-base to record tree planting locations and generateannual planting lists. A Master Planting Plan platbook contains listings of tree species designated forstreets and blocks. The appropriate species of treesare planted on city right-of-ways where growingspace is suitable. Type of species, property width,and the presence or absence of traffic control signs,streetlights, utilities, or other permanent structuresdetermines tree spacing.

The average useful life of a tree located on a cityright-of-way is estimated to be 60 years. The divi-

sion uses tree mortality rates to help assess thehealth of the city’s urban forest. Over the last tenyears, the tree mortality rate has decreased fromover 2.5% to approximately 2%. A slight increasein the mortality rate was experienced in 1997 and1998 due to a change in criteria for removal. Atthat time, Forestry began removing marginal treeswhen their condition has declined 75% instead ofwaiting until they are almost dead. In the longrun, this policy will result in a healthier urban for-est and decreased mortality rate.

In order to ensure a healthy urban forest, the For-estry Division wants to reduce the three-year aver-age tree mortality rate to less than 1.5%.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan calls forallocation of nearly $2.6 million to irrigate andlandscape city boulevards and approximately $3.1million for tree planting activities (see Table 20).

Concealed Irrigation and Landscaping: In the2002 budget, approximately $372,062 is providedfor all construction phases of new and existingboulevard irrigation systems, including water tapinstallation, raising water services, and construc-tion of concealed irrigation systems in conjunctionwith the city’s paving program. The 2002-2007

plan provides an average of about $420,000 peryear for this purpose. In 2002, the city will explorethe merits of constructing new boulevards that uselimited turf and require irrigation for flowerbeds.

Tree Planting: The 2002 budget includes $515,000to plant 4,648 trees. Between 2003 and 2007,$515,000 is provided each year for the Tree Plant-ing Program. This funding is intended to maintainthe tree stock on Milwaukee streets at 98% of fullcapacity.

Table 20

Project Title

Concealed Irrigation andLandscaping City Boulevards $372,062 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $2,522,062

Planting Program 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 3,090,000

TOTAL $887,062 $925,000 $935,000 $945,000 $955,000 $965,000 $5,612,062

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Forestry Division

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

ENVIRONMENT



Greening Milwaukee’s Schools: In 1999, the For-estry Division partnered with Milwaukee PublicSchools, the UPAF/Visions Urban Forestry Fund,and 53rd Street School to establish a demonstrationproject by which a grove of trees were planted inand around a three-acre asphalt playground.

In 2002, the Forestry Division will seek to expandthis program to other schools. A total of $50,000 is

allocated in the 2002 capital budget to fund the di-vision’s participation in the Greening Milwaukee’sSchools Program. The Forestry Division will pro-vide trees to schools, help to coordinate volunteersand train volunteers on how to plant and care fortheir new trees.

ENVIRONMENT


SANITATION


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for envi-ronment-related projects includes funding for theSanitation Division. The Sanitation Division is re-sponsible for collection and disposal of solid wasteand recyclables, cleaning of streets and alleys, as-sessable and non-assessable weed cutting, andsnow and ice control on city streets.

The capital program for the Sanitation Divisioncontributes to the city’s strategic goal to improvethe environmental health of Milwaukee and thepersonal health of its citizens. Milwaukee has astrong commitment to the environment and isproud of its reputation as a clean city. The Sanita-tion Division helps maintain the cleanliness of the

city by providing a number of services includingresidential garbage collection, neighborhood clean-up box program, special collections, street and al-ley sweeping. The division is also responsible forthe city’s curbside recycling program. This pro-gram exhibits the city’s commitment to improvingthe environment through waste reduction efforts.

The six-year capital program for the Sanitation Di-vision includes funding for improvements to divi-sion facilities such as district stations and the Ma-terials Recovery Facility. These facilities supportall operations of the division. Therefore, it is criti-cal that they are kept in sound structural condition.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Sanitation Division uses the following criteriato determine its capital needs: (1) environmentalconcerns and regulations; (2) salt storage capacity;

(3) office, equipment, and vehicle storage facilityrequirements; and (4) age and condition of facility.


The operations of the Sanitation Division are or-ganized into three geographic areas of the city:North, Central and South. Each area is dividedinto two districts. Each district location providesstorage for salt and equipment and space for fieldstaff responsible for garbage collection and snowplowing. In addition, the Sanitation Division is re-sponsible for providing a self-help, drop-off loca-tion at each of the city’s transfer stations.

Map 1 shows the location of the following: districtboundaries, district offices, transfer stations, satel-lite station, and material recovery facility.

In 1994, the Sanitation Division reduced the num-ber of transfer stations and self-help stations it op-erates from three to two, when it converted thecentral transfer station located on Mount VernonAvenue to a materials recovery facility. Transferstations are facilities where city garbage packersunload garbage onto “tipping floors”. Refuse isthen pushed into a compactor and loaded into trac-tor-trailer trucks for transport to a landfill. One of

Map 1

Brown DeerRd.

SilverSpring Dr.

Capitol Dr.

Good HopeRd.

91st/92nd St.

Oklahoma Ave.

North Ave.

Greenfield Ave.

Layton Ave.

College Ave.

60th St.

27th St.

1st St.

Howell Ave.

North 2

North 1

Central 1Central 2

South 1

South 2District OfficesTransfer StationsSatellite Station

District Boundaries

Material RecoveryFacility

Department of Public WorksSanitation Division

Major Facilities (1995)

ENVIRONMENT


the facilities, Lincoln Avenue, is located on thesouthside of the city and is approximately 50 yearsold. The second facility, Industrial Road, is locatedon the northside and is approximately 20 years old.Funding to reconstruct both transfer stations wasprovided in the 1995 budget. The amount of gar-bage handled at both facilities averages 1,100 tonsper day. On peak days, the amount of tonnagehandled can approach 1,800 tons.

The Sanitation Division is also responsible for op-erating and maintaining two self-help stations.Self-help stations provide a place where city resi-dents can dispose of yard waste, recyclables, bulkyitems, clean fill, and various other types of refuse.These facilities, which have been at their currentlocations since 1990, handle 150 tons of refusedaily.

The city has a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)where all recyclables collected by the city aresorted, processed, and marketed by a private con-tractor. Although this facility is owned by the city,

the contractor is responsible for any capital im-provements until the contract expires in 2004.

Currently, there are six district headquarters. Theage of each district station ranges from 27 to 35years old. Each district is responsible for garbagecollection, recycling, snow and ice removal for asection of the city. Located at each district are theoffice headquarters, a salt storage facility, and agarage. While the majority of these facilities are insatisfactory condition, district stations such asSouth District I, North District II and South DistrictII are in need of expansion. Currently, these dis-trict stations do not have adequate office space foroffice staff and other personnel.

The 1990 reorganization of the Sanitation Divisionresulted in the consolidation of district stationsfrom nine locations to six locations. In addition,there is one satellite salting location. As a result ofthis consolidation, the six remaining district loca-tions require additional capacity for salt andequipment storage.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 21 shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for the Sanitation Division’s capitalprojects. The six-year plan, totaling just under $4.7million, provides funding for improvements to thedivision’s facilities. In 1999, funding for capitalprojects was consolidated into one account insteadof several different accounts in order to give thedivision the flexibility to prioritize among variousprojects.

The plan provides funding for reconstruction ofjoint Sanitation/Forestry headquarters at IndustrialRoad. Improvements include headquarters recon-

struction and retrofitting/reconstruction of the ve-hicle garages.

The six-year plan also provides funding for variousimprovements at other Sanitation facilities. Im-provements include modifications to office andpersonnel buildings at North District I, North Dis-trict II, South District II, and Central District II. Inaddition, the plan provides funding for roof re-placement and overhead door replacement at theMaterials Recovery Facility, and a repaving projectat the 72nd and Fond du Lac Avenue Salting Facil-ity.

Table 21

Project Title

Sanitation Headquarters Modifications Various Sites $275,000 $1,354,000 $600,000 $430,000 $1,125,000 $896,000 $4,680,000

TOTAL $275,000 $1,354,000 $600,000 $430,000 $1,125,000 $896,000 $4,680,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Sanitation Division

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

ENVIRONMENT


ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROGRAM

LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN

One of the city’s strategic goals is to improve theenvironmental health of Milwaukee and the per-sonal health of its citizens. Environmental con-tamination can adversely impact the health ofMilwaukee citizens if not addressed properly. Thesix-year capital plan for the environmental reme-diation program provides funding to address po-tential environmental risks and preserve the envi-ronmental health of the city.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for theenvironment includes approximately $5.4 millionfor several projects. Projects funded through theenvironmental program address asbestos abate-ment, lead abatement, soil and groundwater reme-diation at city-owned facilities.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Regulations established by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the Wisconsin Departmentof Commerce require that the city equip under-ground storage tanks (USTs) with corrosion protec-tion and devices to prevent spills and overfills, aswell as to monitor USTs for leaks. The city met thefederal deadline of December, 1998 for completingUST replacements, upgrades or closures.

Currently, the Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources requires that the city conduct investiga-tions to determine the extent of contamination, po-tential for groundwater impacts, and remedial ac-tions necessary to clean-up contaminated soil andgroundwater at these sites. The Buildings and

Fleet Division works with contractors to conductongoing investigations and remediation activities.

In addition to soil and groundwater remediation,the environmental remediation program addresseshazards associated with asbestos and lead in cityfacilities. The Buildings and Fleet Division has de-veloped management plans for asbestos abatementin city facilities. The plans allow the division toprioritize asbestos abatement projects according tohazard ratings. Buildings are rated on a scale of Ato D, with A indicating the most important to ad-dress. Abatement activities are then scheduled ac-cordingly.


The Buildings and Fleet Division is responsible forunderground storage tanks located on city-ownedproperty. The division’s UST Management Pro-gram monitors 53 active underground storagetanks and 13 active above ground storage tanks.

Since 1988, the division has been involved in theremoval, replacement, and upgrade of USTs, aswell as monitoring and testing activities. As of De-cember 31, 2001 139 USTs and 10 above-groundtanks (ASTs) have been removed, 47 new USTs and13 new ASTs have been installed to meet currentregulations. Tanks were removed for the followingreasons: (1) improper abandonment; (2) site con-tamination; and (3) changes in department opera-tions.

There are currently 27 city sites that have soiland/or groundwater contamination that requireremediation. The contamination was found duringremoval and replacement of tanks. The division isresponsible for conducting investigations to deter-mine the extent of contamination, analyzing the po-tential for groundwater impacts, and meeting re-mediation needs for contaminated soil andgroundwater.

Where appropriate, the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources will allow natural attenuation asa viable active remedial action rather than costlyengineered systems. Natural attenuation usesnaturally occurring physical, chemical and/orbiological processes to restore soil and groundwa-ter quality within a reasonable period of time.

ENVIRONMENT


As long as the source of contaminationhas been addressed, and there is no addi-tional release to the groundwater, theDNR will allow natural attenuation as theremedy for the site. Monitoring wells areinstalled and quarterly ground watersamples are analyzed for two or moreyears before closure is granted by theDNR.

The Buildings and Fleet Division is alsoresponsible for asbestos and lead abate-ment in many city buildings. Most of the220 buildings operated and maintained byBuildings and Fleet (not including Librar-ies, Health Centers, Fire and Police De-partment buildings) were constructedprior to 1973. As a result, the probabilityof many city buildings containing asbestosmaterial is high. The age of many of thesestructures also contributes to a potential presenceof lead in the paint or piping systems of the build-ings.

The Buildings and Fleet Division has identifiedseveral city facilities that require asbestos abate-ment. Facilities include the Police Administration

Building, Fourth District Station, the DowntownComplex, Health Department, and Library facili-ties. Asbestos management plans have prioritizedabatement projects at these facilities according tohazard ratings. Figure 18 shows the percentage ofbuildings by hazard rating, with a rating of “A”indicating the highest priority facilities.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Environmental Remedication Program: The six-year plan provides approximately $4.2 million forthe environmental remediation program (see Table22). Funding is provided for activities related toremediation of contaminated soil and groundwa-ter, as well as asbestos and lead abatement.

Environment Projects Fund: The city’s remaininglandfill, the Hartung Quarry Landfill, is used to

dispose of clean construction debris generated bycity crews. The landfill is expected to reach capac-ity in 2004. Funding is provided in 2003 for testingand to prepare closure plans. In 2004, $1.2 millionis provided to close and cap the landfill per Wis-consin Department of Natural Resources specifica-tions.

Figure 18

Percentage of Facilities in Need of Abatementby Hazard Rating

(A = most important to address)

A11%

B11%

C22%

D56%

Table 22

Project Title

Environmental Remediation $634,000 $784,000 $680,000 $688,000 $699,200 $712,000 $4,197,200Environmental Projects Fund 0 50,000 1,150,000 0 0 0 1,200,000

TOTAL $634,000 $834,000 $1,830,000 $688,000 $699,200 $712,000 $5,397,200

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Environmental Remediation Projects

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan


HEALTH AND SAFETY

The city’s strategic plan includes goals of makingMilwaukee safer, and improving its environmentalhealth and the personal health of its residents.Health and safety are also critical components oftwo other strategic goals; a strong local economy,and stable, attractive neighborhoods.

Capital projects in the health and safety categorymake the Fire, Police, and Health Departments -the primary providers of public health and safetyservices - more effective at what they do. Theprojects described in this section provide themwith more useful, efficient, aesthetic settings formany of their interactions with Milwaukee resi-dents.

Funding for health and safety totals $70.8 millionand accounts for 7.4% of total funding. Figure 19shows projected funding levels for health andsafety capital projects. As the remainder of thissection explains, most of that funding improvesfacilities for the Fire, Police, and Health Depart-ments.

Map 2 shows the location of all engine houses, po-lice district stations, and public health centers.

Fire

Funding for Fire Department capital im-provement projects total $26.9 millionover six years, or 38% of total health andsafety funding. Across the six-year plan,funding for Fire Department projectsranges from $2.7 million in 2002 to $6.2million in 2005.

Police

The six-year plan provides $41.4 million,or 58.4% total health and safety fundingfor Police Department capital improve-ment projects. Of this amount, $4 millionis for the construction of the combinedData Communications and Third DistrictStation. The six-year plan also includesapproximately $15.8 million for the reno-

Map 2

Brown Deer Rd.

Silver Spring Dr.

Capitol Dr.

Good Hope Rd.

91st/92nd St.

Oklahoma Ave.

North Ave.

Greenfield Ave.

Layton Ave.

College Ave.

60th St.

27th St.

1st St.

Howell Ave.

Public Health andSafety Facility Sites

Fire Department FacilitiesPolice District StationsHealth Centers

Figure 19

$0

$4

$8

$12

$16

$20

$24

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns).

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Health and Safety2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Fire Police Public Health

HEALTH AND SAFETY


vation of the Police Administration Building andparking garage. Replacement of the department’sradio system with a flexible, trunked system willbe completed in 2005.

Health

Health Department capital improvement projectsinclude maintenance of five public health centers

and one remote clinic site. Funding for this pur-pose total approximately $2.5 million, or 3.6% oftotal health and safety funding in the 2002-2007Capital Improvements Plan working with theHealth Department, the Budget and ManagementDivision will evaluate whether this level of fundingis sufficient to cost effectively maintain the de-partment’s facilities. Additional resources may benecessary.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


FIRELINK TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Milwaukee protects its residents from a variety ofpotential threats, enabling them to feel safe in theircommunity as well as within their own homes.The specific link between the responsibilities andobjectives of the Fire Department and the city’sstrategic plan is found in the city’s strategic goal -to protect Milwaukee’s citizens from crime, fires,and other hazards. The Fire Department contrib-utes to this goal by protecting life and propertythrough rapid professional response to threats of

fire, medical or other emergencies. In order to beable to respond to 95% of calls received within fiveminutes, the department operates 36 firehousesstrategically located throughout the city. In addi-tion, the department operates a repair shop for themaintenance of equipment and a training facilityfor recruit and in-service training. The mainte-nance, renovation, and reconstruction of these fa-cilities make up the department’s capital plan.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Fire Department uses the following criteria todetermine its capital needs: (1) age and conditionof facilities; (2) current and future firefighting,

emergency medical, and rescue service needs; and(3) accommodations for Fire Department person-nel.


There are 36 firehouses located throughout the city,as well as construction and maintenance shops (seeMap 2). Seventeen firehouses were constructedprior to 1960. The remaining firehouses were ei-ther constructed or remodeled after 1960. Most ofthe firehouses constructed prior to 1960 no longermeet the city’s firefighting and medical responseneeds.

These facilities lack modern utilities and space forpersonnel. They also cannot accommodate currentvehicle numbers and size. Personnel have foundways to manage around the lack of a modern facil-ity; however, vehicle placement has created prob-lems. Vehicles are located where they can fit in astation rather than being located where they may

be needed. This hinders the department’s effortsto meet its goal of responding within five minutes.

In addition, the Fire Department is also responsiblefor maintenance of its vehicular fleet. The Fire Re-pair Shop was constructed near the turn of the cen-tury. Since then, the types of vehicles being re-paired have changed dramatically which has madethe existing facility inadequate to meet the mainte-nance needs of the department.

Finally, funding has been provided over the lastfew years to improve the quality of the fire trainingfacility. That facility is being improved to ade-quately meet the needs of the department.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 23 shows the six-year capital improvementplan for the Fire Department. From 2002 to 2007,$26.9 million is provided for capital improvementprojects, or 38% of total health and safety funding.Of this amount, approximately $15.1 million is for

construction and renovation of eleven firehousesand the department’s repair shop. Across the six-year plan, funding for Fire Department projectsranges from $2.7 million in 2002 to approximately$6.2 million in 2005.

HEALTH AND SAFETY



Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System: In2002, the Fire Department will implement theirnew CAD system. This system will replace thecurrent CAD system, which has been operationalsince 1991. CAD is a unique system that employscommunication hardware and software to aid andimprove Fire Department dispatching operations.The CAD system will be installed in the Fire De-partment’s portion of the new Data Communica-tions Center/Third District Police Station. All 36firehouses throughout the city will be linked toCAD.

Funding of approximately $4 million was providedover a two-year period (2000 and 2001) for the ini-tial phase of this project. The 2002-2007 plan in-cludes funding of $1 million in 2003 for the secondphase of this project, placing Mobile Data Termi-nals (MDT) and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)devices in emergency vehicles. This phase of theproject will enhance the information reporting ca-pabilities of the CAD system to personnel in thefield and improve response times to emergencysituations.

Fire Repair Shop Alterations: The 2002 budgetincludes $150,000 in the special projects section ofthe capital budget to study the renovation and/orexpansion needs of the Fire Department’s RepairShop and other city repair facilities (ConsolidatedMunicipal Garage-Fire Repair Facility Study). The

Fire Department’s Repair Shop was constructed in1928, and reflects the needs of the departmentduring the 1920’s and 1930’s. Since then, the typesof vehicles being repaired have changed dramati-cally (in both size and technology) and the existingfacility is inadequate to meet the maintenanceneeds of the department. In preparation for theresults of this study, the capital plan includes $1.6million in 2003 and $1 million in 2004 for the ex-pansion of and upgrades to the Fire Department’sRepair Shop or a consolidated citywide repair fa-cility.

Facility Alterations: The six-year capital planfunds alterations at various firehouses. Alterationsare planned for houses 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22, and34 in 2002 through 2007. The plan also includes atotal of $1.8 million for the construction of a newfirehouse for Engine No. 8.

Some of these firehouses were built in the early- tomid-1900’s and lack sufficient space to house amodern engine company and paramedic unit.They also lack space for modern plumbing and airconditioning units, plus space for personnel andnew equipment. These alteration and renovationprojects account for a total of $13.9 million in capi-tal funding through 2007.

Equipment Replacement Program. The 2002-2007capital plan includes $10.8 million to continue the

Table 23

Project Title

Engine House Construction/RenovationEngine House #1 - Alterations $0 $0 $1,180,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,180,000Engine House #2 - Alterations 0 85,000 0 0 0 0 85,000Engine House #3 - Alterations 980,000 0 0 0 0 0 980,000Engine House #6 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #7 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000Engine House #8 - Land Acquisition and New Building 0 0 100,000 1,700,000 0 0 1,800,000Engine House #9 - Floor Repairs 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000Engine House #10 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #12 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #22 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000Engine House #34 - Alterations 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 1,200,000Repair Shop Addition and Expansion - 118 W Virginia 0 0 1,600,000 1,000,000 0 0 2,600,000Ventilation and Toilet Separation - Various Locations 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000Window Replacement - Various Locations 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000

Subtotal $1,180,000 $335,000 $3,080,000 $4,100,000 $2,600,000 $3,800,000 $15,095,000

Other ProjectsMajor Capital Equipment $1,550,000 $2,060,000 $1,550,000 $2,060,000 $1,550,000 $2,060,000 $10,830,000Computer Aided Dispatch System 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,000,000

Subtotal $1,550,000 $3,060,000 $1,550,000 $2,060,000 $1,550,000 $2,060,000 $11,830,000

TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECTS $2,730,000 $3,395,000 $4,630,000 $6,160,000 $4,150,000 $5,860,000 $26,925,000

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Fire Department2002

Budget2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006

HEALTH AND SAFETY


equipment replacement program initiated in the2001 budget. The 2002 budget shifts acquisition ofreplacement fire equipment from the operatingbudget to the capital budget because fire equip-ment, including pumper trucks, ladder trucks, andparamedic ambulances, are long lived, high valueassets. The equipment replacement schedule callsfor the purchase of three pumper engines annually.In alternating years, either one or two ladder

trucks will be purchased. These fire vehicles haveanticipated service lives of twelve years with anadditional five years in reserve status. Ambu-lances are replaced every six to seven years due toextraordinarily heavy usage. This replacementcycle is based on national standards and is essen-tial to maintaining short response times to emer-gency situations.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


POLICE


The Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) protectsthe safety of Milwaukee’s residents and visitors,and enhances the quality of life in the city. Gener-ally, the MPD accomplishes this through preven-tion of crime, apprehension of criminals, and bypreservation of public peace and order. Also, thedepartment assists in the safe movement of pedes-trians and vehicles on city streets, acts on citizencomplaints, provides juvenile services, and investi-gates persons applying for various city licenses.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan forhealth and safety includes Police Department capi-tal improvement projects. The capital facilities ofthe Police Department are the joint responsibility ofthe DPW-Operations Division, Buildings and FleetSection and the Police Department. The six-yearcapital improvements plan concentrates primarilyon improving the efficiency and expanding thefunctionality of the department’s facilities.

The Police Department accomplishes its responsi-bilities through three primary objectives: (1) re-

sponding to the Commission of Crimes by success-fully detecting criminal activity, identifying, ap-prehending, and assisting in the prosecution ofcriminal offenders; (2) preventing, deterring, andsuppressing crime in order to make Milwaukee thesafest city of its size in the Nation; and (3) provid-ing services in a manner acceptable to a diversecommunity with varying needs and demands forpolice services.

The specific link between the responsibilities andobjectives of the MPD and the city’s strategic planis found in the city’s strategic goal to protect Mil-waukee’s citizens from crime, fires, and other haz-ards. Furthermore, the city’s strategic plan specifi-cally identifies making city neighborhoods safer asan objective under this goal. By working withcommunity-based organizations, MPD also con-tributes to another city strategic goal, to promote asense of community among neighborhood resi-dents and foster cooperation among city neighbor-hoods.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The MPD uses the following criteria to determineits capital needs: (1) age and condition of facilities;and (2) current and future Police Department per-sonnel, technological, and communication needs.

There are seven district police stations locatedthroughout the city (see Map 2). The oldest ofthese, the Second District Station, was built in 1953,while the newest station, Sixth District Station, wasconstructed in 1987. In addition to the district sta-

tions, there is a Police Administration Building(PAB). This facility, constructed in 1971, alsohouses the First District Station and the MunicipalCourt. The Safety Academy, constructed in 1965,is the training facility for both the Police and FireDepartments. In 1998, the department acquired abuilding to be used for evidence and propertystorage. The renovation of this facility was com-pleted in January, 2001.

STATUS OF ASSET/PROGRAM

Since construction of the district stations, Admini-stration Building, and the Safety Academy, severalchanges have occurred that affect the MPD and itscapital needs: (1) an increase in the number of Po-lice Department personnel; (2) department policyand organizational changes; (3) legislated man-dates; and (4) more sophisticated communicationand electronic equipment. These four factors allcontribute to the analysis of MPD capital needs.

Most of the capital appropriations for the depart-ment involve remodeling of facilities due to func-tional obsolescence (see Table 24). However, someappropriations, such as evidence storage, areneeded because of mandates that require the de-partment to retain evidence for a longer period.Other appropriations for a data/communicationsfacility are driven by the evolution of technologyinto a larger, more significant component of policeservice delivery.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan includes$41.4 million for a number of projects that are im-portant to the effective and efficient provision ofPolice services. These projects include:

Data and Communications Center/Third DistrictStation

Police Administration Building Remodeling Proj-ect

District Station Remodeling

ADA Compliance

Data and Communications Center/Third DistrictStation: The 2002-2007 plan provides $4 million tocomplete construction of the Data Services andCommunication Center/Third District Stationproject. The new facility, located in the vicinity of49th Street and Lisbon Avenue, houses the ThirdDistrict Station on the first floor and the Data andCommunications Center on the second and thirdfloors. It will also house the Milwaukee Fire De-partment’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Sys-tem. An attached adjacent garage and parkingramp will house police vehicles and provide park-ing for employees. The garage is needed to pre-vent the facility from having an adverse effect onparking in the Lisbon and North Avenues area.The facility will be a landmark for the area and isexpected to have a positive impact on the busi-nesses and residents of the surrounding neighbor-hood.

Police Administration Building (PAB) Remodel-ing Project: The six-year plan includes $15.8 mil-lion for renovation of the Police AdministrationBuilding and garage. Projects include office and

entrance remodeling, reconstruction of the garagefloor, upgrading of the HVAC system, elevatorreplacement, and asbestos abatement.

District Station Remodeling: The 2002-2007 planincludes $4,000,000 for district station renovationsin 2002 and 2005. A needs assessment was fundedin 2001 for the Second District Station in anticipa-tion of the $2,000,000 renovation funded in 2002.Needs assessments totaling $30,000 are funded in2004 and 2007 for district station renovationsplanned to begin in 2005 and 2008.

ADA Compliance: The six-year capital plan in-cludes a total of $119,315 to comply with theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Thisfunding provides for the construction of ramps,installation of power door openers, modification ofservice counters, and development of appropriatesigns at all Police buildings.

Trunked Radio Communications: Nearly $15million will be appropriated for trunked radiocommunications in 2004 and 2005. A $300,000study to determine citywide requirements wasfunded in 2001.

Radio trunking utilizes modern technology to pro-vide the most efficient use of available radio chan-nels or frequencies. Through radio trunking sev-eral users are able to communicate across a givenfrequency at the same time. This will allow Policeand Fire personnel to more quickly communicatewith one another. The Federal CommunicationsCommission will reallocate radio frequenciesamong different classes of users beginning in 2005,making this modernization imperative.

Table 24


ADA Compliance Program - Various Department Facilities $18,914 $19,293 $19,679 $20,072 $20,474 $20,883 $119,315Data Services and Communication Center Construction 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,000,000Interim Radio Replacements (Pending Trunked Radio) 244,000 71,000 71,000 0 0 0 386,000Renovate Police Administration Building 2,100,000 2,152,500 2,206,000 2,261,000 2,318,000 4,752,000 15,789,500Trunked Radio Communications 0 0 8,725,000 6,225,000 0 0 14,950,000District Needs Assessment 0 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 30,000District Station Renovation 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 4,000,000Automated Fingerprint Identification System 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000Additional Parking District Stations 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 450,000Safety Academy Parking Lot Expansion 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $9,862,914 $2,542,793 $11,186,679 $10,656,072 $2,338,474 $4,787,883 $41,374,815

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Police Department

HEALTH AND SAFETY



Data Communications Center/Police Third Dis-trict Station: Construction began in late 1999 onthe combined Data Communications Center andThird District Station on Milwaukee’s westside.The 2002 capital improvements budget includes $4million

for this project. The project has an expectedbudget of approximately $50 million. The ThirdDistrict Station portion of the project opened in2001. In 2002, $4 million is provided to completethe Data Communications aspects of the project.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


HEALTH


The Milwaukee Health Department supports thestrategic goal of improving the environmentalhealth of Milwaukee and the personal health of itscitizens. The city’s public health role concentrateson protecting residents from food-borne illness andother environmental hazards, reducing the inci-

dence of communicable disease, and coordinatingefforts to ensure that mothers and children haveappropriate access to health care services. TheHealth Department performs these functions in sixfacilities throughout the city. This enables cityresidents to have easy access to available services.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

With the support of the Department of PublicWorks-Operations Division, Buildings and FleetSection, the Health Department uses the followingcriteria to determine their capital needs: (1) ageand condition of facilities; (2) usage patterns of thefacilities, including present and future publichealth needs of the community; and (3) safety

needs of clients, the general public, and depart-ment personnel. However, the Health Departmenthas attempted to set target dates for when somerepairs should take place. For example, the de-partment’s goal is to tuckpoint each building onceevery 10 years, replace carpeting every 10 to 15years, and replace hardwood floors every 30 years.


The Health Department operates and maintainsfive health centers and one remote clinic site lo-cated throughout the city (see Map 2). In additionto their primary health service provision function,these facilities are also used as polling places andlocations for educational programs and communitymeetings.

The Isaac Coggs Community Health Center, con-structed in 1915, is leased from Milwaukee PublicSchools. Under the conditions of the lease, the cityis responsible for the capital needs of the building.This center is the largest Health Department facil-ity at 69,799 square feet. It is one of two locationsfor the department’s Women, Infants, and Children(WIC) Program and also for the Municipal HealthServices (MHSP) Program.

Johnston Health Center, located on the city’s nearsouth side, is 39,573 square feet and was con-structed in 1929. The health center provides somedirect clinic services and serves as both a WIC anda MHSP site.

Keenan Health Center, on the city’s north side, wasconstructed in 1931 and is 21,402 square feet. Thishealth center also serves as a WIC site.

Northwest Health Center is the city’s newest healthcenter. It was constructed in 1968 and occupies30,479 square feet. The garage to the north of thebuilding is 19,547 square feet. This health centeralso houses one district of the Consumer ProtectionDivision, which performs food inspections.

Southside Health Center was constructed in 1912and occupies 29,879 square feet. In addition tobeing the location of the Tuberculosis ControlClinic, the health center also houses eight Food In-spectors and one Food Inspector Supervisor.

The Health Department’s Administration, Epide-miology and Planning, Laboratory, Occupationaland Employee Health, Environmental Health, andVital Statistics Sections are located in the ZeidlerMunicipal Building. Portions of the family andcommunity health services functions are also lo-cated there. The Zeidler Municipal Building wasconstructed in 1960.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 25 shows the six-year capital improvementsplan for the Health Department. The plan empha-sizes regular maintenance, repair, and replacement.The plan provides approximately $2.5 million forthe projects summarized below.

Mechanical Systems Maintenance Program: The2002-2007 plan provides $479,900 for mechanicalsystems maintenance at various health centers.This program focuses on the mechanical infrastruc-ture of the six buildings that the Health Depart-ment maintains. Systems covered under this planinclude boilers, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical.This program ensures that all of the mechanicalsystems are efficient and in safe working condition.

The 2002 budget does not provide funding for theMechanical Systems Maintenance Program.

The 2003 plan provides $162,000 for a boiler re-placement project at Northwest Health Center. Italso provides $14,400 for re-tubing boiler No. 1 atCoggs Health Center. This will improve the effi-ciency of the boiler. The other Coggs boiler was re-tubed in 1985. Re-tubing the boiler will even thewear and improve overall efficiency of the system.

The 2004 plan provides $25,000 for unanticipatedmechanical systems projects.

The 2005 plan provides $32,500 for adding base-board heaters to the second floor of NorthwestHealth Center. In addition, $5,000 is provided toreplace the air compressor, dryer, and related con-trols at Northwest Health Center. The boiler atSouthside Health Center will also be replaced for$151,000. The remaining $20,000 is unallocatedfunding.

The 2006 plan provides $20,000 of unallocatedfunding for this program. Similarly, the 2007 planprovides $50,000 in unallocated funding.

Exterior Building Maintenance Program: TheHealth Department’s Exterior Maintenance Pro-gram is designed to maintain and improve externalcomponents and areas outside of the health centerssuch as parking lots, windows, roofs, and paint. Inthe six-year plan, the department devotes $1.1 mil-lion to exterior maintenance.

The 2002 budget allocates $118,900 in funding toinstall new exterior passage and overhead doorsand replace energy inefficient windows at North-west Health Center. An additional $6,000 is pro-vided to re-grade the blacktop lot on the west sideof the building. The remaining $6,000 is currentlyunallocated.

The 2003 plan provides $120,000 to replace the roofon the detached garage at Northwest Health Cen-ter. Another $47,300 is provided to replace theroof at Johnston Health Center. The roof was lastreplaced in 1982 with flat asphalt and is nowcracking and may begin to leak into the building.Funding of $20,700 is also provided for lighted ex-terior signage at Northwest, Keenan, and South-side Health Centers. An additional $10,000 is pro-vided for unanticipated costs.

The 2004 plan provides $92,800 for projects atNorthwest Health Center. These funds will beused to replace the roof on the main building andto tuckpoint the building’s exterior. Funding of$22,000 is provided to install a commercial over-head canopy at Keenan Health Center. Another$25,000 is provided to replace windows at theCoggs Health Center.

The 2005 plan allocates $36,000 for replacement ofthe exterior overhead garage doors and install anoverhead canopy at Northwest Health Center. Theremaining $50,000 is unallocated.

The 2006 plan includes $500,000 to replace thewindows at Coggs Health Center. An additional$20,000 is unallocated funding.

The 2007 plan sets aside $50,000 for unanticipatedexterior maintenance costs.

Interior Maintenance Program: The Health De-partment has allocated $934,400 for interior main-tenance during the 2002-2007 capital plan. The In-terior Maintenance Program assures that interiorsurfaces and fixtures, such as flooring and lighting,are safe and efficient.

The 2002 budget does not provide funding for theInterior Maintenance Program.

HEALTH AND SAFETY


The 2003 plan includes $112,000 in funding for afire alarm system at Northwest, Keenan, andSouthside Health Centers.

The 2004 plan provides $105,600 to install a newdrop ceiling and to replace the light fixtures at theSouthside Health Center. The original ceiling tileshave been taken down and repaired numeroustimes over the years, causing them to crack. In ad-dition, $82,500 is allocated for the replacement ofall interior doors, frames, and lock sets at theSouthside Health Center. The doors, frames, andlock sets are the original to the center (c. 1912) andare becoming difficult and costly to repair. Theworkstations at Keenan Health Center will also beremodeled in 2004 at an estimated cost of $44,000.Unallocated funding for as yet unidentified proj-ects totals $25,000.

The 2005 plan provides $11,000 to replace the lino-leum flooring in the third floor hallway at theJohnston Health Center. The Keenan Health Cen-ter auditorium ceiling and lighting will be replacedfor $29,000. The plan provides $39,000 to resurfacehardwood floors at the Coggs Health Center. Un-allocated funding totals $50,000.

In the 2006 plan, the Health Department will re-place the carpet in the reception area at the CoggsHealth Center for $7,200. An additional $20,000 offunds are unallocated.

The 2007 plan provides $89,100 to replace flooringthroughout the Northwest Health Center. TheJohnston Health Center front (south) elevator isplanned to be replaced for about $300,000. An ad-ditional $20,000 is provided for unanticipatedcosts.

Table 25


$0 $176,400 $25,000 $208,500 $20,000 $50,000 $479,900

130,900 198,000 139,800 86,000 520,000 50,000 1,124,700

0 112,000 257,100 129,000 27,200 409,100 934,400

TOTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PROJECTS $130,900 $486,400 $421,900 $423,500 $567,200 $509,100 $2,539,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Health Department

Mechanical Systems Maintenance Program - Various Health Department BuildingsExterior Building Maintenance Program - Various Health Department BuildingsInterior Maintenance Program - Various Health Department Buildings


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Market forces that are beyond the direct control ofpublic officials are the most important determi-nants of economic growth and activity in Milwau-kee. However, the city does play a key role as a fa-cilitator in creating the proper environment, urbandesign, and business climate within which the pri-vate sector can innovate, grow, and prosper. Eco-nomic development capital spending should beused to increase the overall attractiveness of thecity for private sector investment. For example,since 1976, city capital spending in active tax in-cremental districts has increased property valuesby approximately $357 million in real terms.

Economic development capital improvement proj-ects consist of tax incremental districts, businessimprovement districts, development district funds,and targeted business loans. The six-year plan in-cludes approximately $100 million, or 10.5%, of to-tal funding for economic development projects.Figure 20 shows projected funding levels in the2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan.

Tax Incremental Districts (TIDs)

The capital budget appropriates general obligationborrowing to finance public improvements andloans in tax incremental districts. The resultingdevelopments are anticipated to increase propertyvalue. Debt service and interest are subsequentlypaid back with the incremental taxes generatedthrough the district’s increased property values.

Of the total amount of funding for economic de-velopment 2002–2007 capital projects, $63.4 mil-lion, or 63.2% is for TIDs.

TID debt is generally considered self-supportingsince revenues will eventually pay back expendi-tures. Each year, TID borrowing authority is pro-vided to finance both new and existing districts. In2002, $14.5 million is provided for TIDs to facilitatea number of developments, including infrastruc-ture for redevelopment after removal of the ParkEast Freeway. Plan funding from 2003 to 2007ranges from $9 million to $11 million.

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)

Business improvement capital funding consists ofthe Business Improvement District Loan Fund andNeighborhood Commercial District Street Im-provement Fund. Business improvement fundingtotals $6 million, or 6%, of economic developmentcapital projects over the six-year plan.

Business improvement funding totaling $1 millionper year is provided in the six-year plan. There areapproximately one to two BID capital improve-ment projects and one to two NeighborhoodCommercial District Street Improvement projectsfunded each year.

Development District Funds

Development funds include the AdvancePlanning Fund and the DevelopmentFund Account. Funding totals $11.6 mil-lion and accounts for 11.5% of economicdevelopment funding in the six-year plan.Funding for this purpose will be $2.35million in 2002 and $1.85 million in each ofthe plan’s remaining years.

Port

In the six-year plan, funding provided tothe Port of Milwaukee totals $19.3 millionor 19.3% of economic development capitalprojects over the six-year plan. This in-cludes $11.8 million from state grants torehabilitate and improve Port facilities. Inthe six-year capital plan, funding for thePort ranges from $1.9 million to $5.3 mil-lion.

Figure 20

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Economic Development 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Tax Incremental Districts Development District FundsPort of Milwaukee Business Improvement

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns)



TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICTSLINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN

Economic growth in Milwaukee tends to reflecttrends in the U.S. economy. When the nationaleconomy booms, Milwaukee usually prospers andvice versa. City government does not have thepower to significantly affect these broader marketforces. However, local public officials can strive tocreate a strong business environment in which theprivate sector can innovate, grow, and prosper.

Tax incremental districts have become an increas-ingly important tool in meeting the city’s strategicgoal of strengthening the local economy. The capi-tal budget appropriates general obligation bor-rowing to finance TIDs, which is subsequently paidback with the incremental taxes generated throughthe district’s development. TID partnerships withprivate developers have taken many forms. Publicparticipation has not been limited to project infra-structure, such as streetscaping and public im-provements but also includes loans to developers.

Private property owners within the district payproperty taxes on the basis of the current value oftheir property. However, the city’s general fund,the county, the school district, and other taxing ju-risdictions receive only the taxes levied on the ini-

tial base value of the district. The remaining taxdollars (tax increments) are set aside in a specialTID fund used to pay TID project costs. The TIDends when all project costs have been retired by taxincrements or the TID reaches its statutory limit ofeither 23 or 27 years, depending on the date of itsestablishment.

The Department of City Development (DCD) usesTIDs to assist in improving job opportunities forcity residents and to increase the city’s commercialand industrial tax base. Active TIDs have led togrowth in real property values of approximately$357 million.

This economic development tool has two basic ad-vantages in meeting the city’s strategic goal ofstrengthening the local economy. First, TIDs en-able the city to share development costs with co-terminous taxing jurisdictions that also benefitfrom the added property values of the proposeddevelopment. Second, they allow the city to re-spond quickly to development proposals since ap-proval can occur at any point in the year ratherthan being constrained by budget timing.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

State statutes require specific criteria for develop-ment of a tax incremental district. Under currentlaw, city and village governments may create a taxincremental district only if 50% or more of the pro-posed district’s area is blighted, in need of rehabili-tation or conservation work, or suitable for indus-trial sites.

In addition to the above criteria, state statutes re-quire that the decision to create a TID considerwhether: (1) the development would occur with-out tax increment financing; (2) the economic bene-

fits of the project compensate for the cost of im-provement; and (3) whether the benefits outweighthe tax increments required to be paid by overlyingtaxing districts.

In Milwaukee, creation of a TID generally beginswhen a private development proposal is presentedto the city. Staff of the Department of City Devel-opment then evaluates whether the project is con-sistent with the city’s development goals and as-sesses whether the use of a TID is feasible.


Currently there are 37 active TIDs (refer to Table26). Table 26 also includes the year in which the

district was created, property value of the districtwhen created adjusted for inflation (inflation esti-



mated by CPI-U), and propertyvalues in 2001. The column, whichshows the percent increase inproperty value in real terms, is oneindication of the relative success ofthe district. More detailed descrip-tions of each TID are available inthe Department of City Develop-ment’s Annual TID Report. Map 3(pages 72-73) shows the bounda-ries of active TIDs.

Several districts have had largereal increases in value since theircreation. Theater District (TID #5)is the most dramatic example withan almost 5800% increase in realterms since its 1985 establishment,when a number of parcels were taxexempt. Other high performers in-clude Park East II (TID #29),Calumet Woods (TID #25), ParkEast (TID #10), and New Covenant(TID #18). Several recent projectssuch as Library Hill (TID #30) and27th and Wisconsin Avenue (TID#35) have experienced delays indevelopment and have not yet re-alized significant real increases inproperty values.

While tax increment financing inWisconsin has typically been usedfor establishing industrial parks, the City of Mil-waukee has used tax increment financing for a va-riety of development initiatives. In contrast toother cities in Wisconsin, industrial/manufacturingprojects have made up a relatively smallproportion of TID costs. Projects likeFlorida Yards (TID #20), Riverworks In-dustrial Park Project (TID # 24), CentralCity Industrial Job Bank Project (TID #21),and Granville Park Project (TID #36) makeup only 11.6%, or approximately $34.7million of TID costs.

A much larger proportion of projects costsare dedicated to commercial, residential,or joint commercial and residential proj-ects. As illustrated in Figure 21, approxi-mately 41.7%, or $124.5 million of projectcost commitments made in TID projectplans approved by the Common Councilsupported commercial projects such asGrand Avenue Mall (TID #4 and TID#37), Theater District (TID #5), Mega Mart

(TID #27), and King Drive (TID #32). Commit-ments for residential housing projects includingBeerline “B” (TID #22), City Hall Square (TID #23),Library Hill (TID #30), City Homes (TID #28), andNew Covenant (TID #18) make up 20.2% or $60.3

Figure 21

Types of TID DevelopmentTotal Project Cost Commitments $299 Million

Commercial/Residential

8.7%

Recreational Infrastructure

8.8%

Residential20.2%

Industrial/Manufacturing

11.6%

Office9.0%

Commercial41.7%

`

Table 26

TID # Project NameYear

Created

Property Value When Created in 2001 Dollars

Property Value as of 2001

Percent Real Property Value

Increase

1 Menomonee Valley 1976 $108,470,197 $65,009,800 -40%5 Theater District 1985 1,442,032 84,748,700 5777%10 Park East 1988 2,212,436 39,803,600 1699%11 Historic Third Ward 1988 44,333,435 76,747,500 73%14 Historic King Place 1990 428,044 1,913,500 347%15 Steeltech 1991 795,380 3,739,000 370%17 Curry-Pierce 1992 841,282 2,547,500 203%18 New Covenant 1992 152,626 2,289,600 1,400%19 Campus Neighborhood 1992 30,996,867 47,104,200 52%20 Florida Yards 1993 3,726,421 5,536,800 49%21 North Avenue Jobs Bank 1993 2,106,313 4,666,100 122%22 Beer-line "B" 1993 9,561,125 26,727,800 180%23 City Hall Square 1994 5,829,800 18,952,000 225%24 Riverworks Industrial Center 1994 7,245,873 17,973,500 148%25 Calumet Woods 1994 443,439 9,780,600 2106%26 Tannery 1995 7,850,571 24,147,000 208%27 Clarke Square Mega Mart 1995 1,950,291 12,694,100 551%28 City Homes 1995 907,169 7,117,200 685%29 Park East II 1995 1,039,151 41,052,700 3851%30 Library Hill 1996 15,957,604 19,784,600 24%31 Milwaukee Street 1996 16,782,371 23,151,300 38%32 King Drive and Walnut 1996 2,892,131 6,260,600 116%33 United Health 1997 7,582,467 19,583,700 158%34 Third Ward Riverwalk 1997 6,418,425 22,718,300 254%35 27th and Wisconsin 1998 2,446,899 1,499,800 -39%36 Granville Park 1998 1,767,879 24,204,100 1,269%37 Grand Avenue 1998 65,868,081 84,218,600 28%38 S 5th St and W Grange 2000 218 200 -8%39 City Center Hilton 2000 26,059,418 37,892,200 45%40 West North Ave. 2000 4,075,982 5,344,300 31%41 Harley Riverwalk 2000 12,280,886 12,485,600 2%42 Capital Court 2000 7,398,019 6,774,590 -8%43 21st and North Retail Center 2001 503,050 503,050 0%44 Locust/ Walnut Residential 2001 33,441,810 33,441,810 0%45 Wilson Commons 2001 1,450,000 1,450,000 0%46 New Arcade Project 2001 13,996,910 13,996,910 0%48 Park East Freeway Removal 2001 * * *

Totals $449,254,602 $805,860,860 79%

Summary of Active Tax Incremental Districts

*Information is currently unavailable



million of all TID cost commitments. Projects withboth residential and commercial components suchas the Historic Third Ward (TID #11), CampusNeighborhood (TID #19), 27th and Wisconsin Ave-nue (TID #35) and Park East (TID #10) make up8.7% of TID cost commitments.

Office projects including Schlitz Park (TID #8 and#13), United Health (TID #33), Curry-Pierce (TID#17), and the Tannery (TID #26) make up 9% of allTID commitments.

Finally, Milwaukee has been fairly unique in usingTIDs to finance recreational infrastructure. In twocases, development of the lakefront Summerfestgrounds (TID #3) and the extension of the River-

walk to the Third Ward (TID #34), the City of Mil-waukee has used TIDs to support recreational landdevelopment.In the past several years, the city has increasinglyrelied on TIDs to carry out development initiatives.Over 86% of the city’s TIDs have been created since1990. An average of three new TIDs per year havebeen established since 1992.

Heightened TID activity continued into 2001, withpreparations for further residential development inBeerline “B” (TID #22), demolition and site prepa-ration at the former Capital Court Shopping Mall(TID #42), building improvements at the GrandAvenue Mall, and site acquisition at 27th and Wis-consin (TID #35).

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 27 shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for tax incremental districts. In the2002 budget, $14.5 million is provided for TIDs.From 2003 to 2007 funding ranges from $9 million

to $11 million. The city will continue to evaluatefuture funding needs of TID projects, which mayor may not require changes in overall funding inthe future.


In 2002, TID borrowing authority totals $14.5 mil-lion. The majority of these funds (over $10 million)will be used for public improvements at Park EastFreeway Removal (TID #48), Capitol Court (TID#42), and 35th and North Avenue (TID #40). Re-moval of the Park East Freeway and redevelop-ment of the 23-acres is projected to increase thedowntown tax base at least $100 million over thenext several years. Transforming the former Capi-tol Court Shopping Mall into a neighborhood towncenter with a main street mixed retail area is ex-pected to revitalize the surrounding area.

A new bridge will be constructed in Beerline “B”(TID #22). Approximately $2.7 million will be usedfor site acquisition for the 21st and North AvenueRetail Center (TID #43). Industrial site preparationand clean-up expenses for the Riverworks Indus-trial Center (TID #24) will use approximately $1.3million.

Several other new projects are being developed forthe plan years 2003 to 2007. They include officebuilding related improvements, further commer-cial and residential projects, and industrial proj-ects.

Table 27

Project Title

Tax Incremental Districts $14,500,000 $11,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,500,000 $9,700,000 $9,700,000 $63,400,000

TOTAL $14,500,000 $11,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,500,000 $9,700,000 $9,700,000 $63,400,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Tax Incremental Districts

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

Six-YearPlan

2006Plan

2007Plan



Map 3



BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTSLINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN

City government’s role in making Milwaukee’seconomy competitive is not always through the di-rect provision of services. Instead, the city is some-times more successful when it acts as a catalyst forprivate sector activity, as is the case with BusinessImprovement Districts (BIDs). BIDs provide a wayfor Milwaukee businesses, renown for their in-volvement and commitment to their community, towork together to make their commercial strips ri-val any in the metro area.

Department of City Development staff assists mer-chants wishing to contribute to efforts designed tostrengthen their local business territory in creatinga business improvement district. This allows thegroup to use city collection methods to commun-ally charge themselves to accomplish projects suchas hiring coordinators for the area, adding pedes-

trian lighting, and sponsoring major streetscapingprojects.

By providing a collection mechanism and makingavailable loans for capital improvements, the city isable to facilitate collaborative action from Milwau-kee businesses. The city has two capital accountswhich support business improvement districts: (1)the Business Improvement District Loan Fund,which provides loans that are paid back from dis-trict proceeds, and (2) the Neighborhood Commer-cial District Street Improvement Fund, whichmatches BID capital investments in block grant ar-eas up to $500,000 and provides funding for othercommercial neighborhood investments. Improve-ments from this type of merchant cooperationmake Milwaukee’s commercial strips more com-petitive and help the city achieve its strategic goalof strengthening the local economy.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Any group of neighborhood merchants that or-ganize to create a business improvement districtunder Wisconsin Act 184 can qualify for businessimprovement district loans. Under the law, prop-erty owners petition the city to create a districtfrom specific contiguous property tax assessableparcels and to adopt an operating plan for the dis-trict. Funding of loans for capital improvementswithin a district can be considered when a districtis created and demonstrates sufficient ability topay back loans.

The Neighborhood Commercial District Street Im-provement Fund enables the city to form pub-lic/private partnerships with neighborhood mer-chant associations to upgrade the appearance of

commercial streets located outside of the down-town area. Use of this fund is intended to serve asan up-front catalyst or a public sector companionto private improvements. City funds are only ex-pended where private financial participation iscommitted, usually through investment of a BID incapital improvements. Projects that receive fund-ing under this capital account are selected based ontheir potential to significantly upgrade the appear-ance of the street and on the likelihood the pro-posed public improvements will promote privateinvestment. Selection of projects is made by theEconomic Development Committee based upon arecommendation from the Department of City De-velopment.

STATUS OF THE PROGRAM

The following sections include a brief descriptionof the two capital accounts that support businessimprovement efforts.

Business Improvement Districts: Business im-provement districts are established to maintain and

improve the viability of commercial business areas.Under the law, property owners petition the city tocreate a district from specific contiguous propertytax assessable parcels and to adopt an operatingplan for the district.



The district establishes an assessment method tocollect funds from its members, which will be usedto develop, manage, and promote commercial ac-tivity within the district. In districts where the cityis a property owner, the city may annually appro-priate a contribution to the district but may not beassessed based on the value of its property. Thecity contribution is funded through an operatingbudget special purpose account. As of the end of2001, the city had 19 active business improvementdistricts.

The 2002 capital budget contains funding totaling$500,000 in the business improvement district capi-tal account for loans to fund capital improvementprojects such as new streetlights, public art, orsidewalk improvements. These loans are made tobusiness improvement districts and are repaidover time by funds the district assesses on itself.These payments are designed to be sufficient tocover associated interest costs of the loans.

As Table 28 indicates, several business improve-ment districts have chosen to make significantcapital investments in their areas through this loanprogram including: Historic Third Ward (BID #2),Riverwalk BID (#3), Avenues West BID (#10),Brady Street BID (#11), Oakland Avenue BID(#13), Downtown Riverwalk BID (#15), UptownTriangle BID (#16), Villard Avenue BID (#19), theNorth/Prospect/Farwell Avenues BID (#20), andRiverworks BID (#25). In 2002, $500,000 is ex-pected to be expended for capital improvementloans to business improvement districts.

Neighborhood Commercial District Street Im-provement Fund: This capital account enables thecity to form public/private partnerships withneighborhood merchant associations to upgradethe appearance of commercial streets located out-side of the downtown area. Many of Milwaukee’scentral city commercial areas are struggling to sur-vive against competition from newer, more attrac-tive commercial areas. At the same time, many ofthe city’s older commercial districts have substan-tial historic tradition and architectural character.

The Neighborhood Commercial District Street Im-provement Fund is often used to match capital in-vestments that business improvement districtsmake in their district. This fund will provide a50% match (up to $500,000) for capital improve-ments in BIDs. In 2002, $500,000 is expected to beexpended in this fund.

Rapidly growing property values are the bestdemonstration that BID capital account and neigh-borhood commercial district expenditures are suc-cessful. Established in 1992, the Avenues West BID(#10) has experienced a 44% increase in propertyvalues in four years. The Oakland Avenue BID hasseen a 39% increase in property values between its1993 establishment and 1996. Brady Street valueshave risen an incredible 48% in only five years,closely followed by King Drive with a 41% increasebetween 1992 and 1996. In all of these cases, prop-erty values have grown at least three times fasterthan the average city commercial property growthduring the same period. While these BIDs haveinitiated diverse improvements projects and are invery different areas, business involvement in BIDshas correlated with higher than average increasesin property values.

Table 28

BID # BID NameBID Loan Amount

2 Historic Third Ward $688,800 $03 Riverwalk 343,000 04 Greater Mitchell Street 0 05 Westown 0 08 Historic King Drive 0 09 735 North Water Street Riverwalk 277,000 010 Avenues West 425,000 425,00011 Brady Street Business Area 582,600 500,00013 Oakland Avenue 192,560 16,00015 Downtown Riverwalks 3,666,278 016 Uptown Triangle 500,000 500,00017 Northwest Area/76th and Brown Deer 175,000 019 Villard Avenue 237,500 237,50020 North/Prospect/Farwell Avenues 885,950 500,00021 Downtown Management District 0 022 Edgewood/Oakland 0 025 Riverworks 650,000 650,00026 The Valley 0 027 Burleigh Street 0 0

Neighborhood Commercial Improvement

Capital Investments inActive Business Improvement Districts



SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 29 shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for business improvement districtswhich totals $6 million.

Business Improvement District Loans: The 2002-2007 capital plan provides funding of $3 million forthis purpose. Funding of $500,000 annually willprovide sufficient resources for one or two capitalimprovement loans per year to BIDs.

Neighborhood Commercial Districts: This fundprovides financial assistance for public improve-ments of commercial streets located outside of thedowntown area. The six-year plan provides $3million for this purpose. This level of funding issufficient to provide matching funds for one or twoprojects per year.

Table 29

Project Title

Neighborhood Commercial DistrictStreet Improvement Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000

Business Improvement Districts 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000

TOTAL $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000

Plan2002Plan

2003Plan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Business Improvement Districts

Six-YearPlan

2006Plan

2007Plan

2004Plan

2005



DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUNDSLINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN

The Department of City Development works tostrengthen the local economy and attract and retainjobs through the Development Fund Program andthe Advance Planning Fund.

These capital improvement efforts fund public im-provements, façade grants, brownfield clean-up,planning studies of the downtown, and provide

funds for loans targeted at minority-owned,women-owned, and disadvantaged owners ofbusinesses. Many of these programs assist in cre-ating public/private partnerships with developersand business owners in order to promote privateinvestment in the development area and help tostrengthen the local economy and attract middle-income families to Milwaukee.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The criterion used for the Development DistrictFunds varies. However, there are general criteriathat may be applicable to each project. These in-clude the following: (1) the project is located in acommercial district, a Community DevelopmentBlock Grant area, a “mainstreet” area or a city de-velopment zone; (2) the project is historically sig-nificant for the community; (3) the project is rec-ommended by a resident business or merchant or-

ganization, community development organization,Neighborhood Business Improvement DistrictBoard, or the Department of City Development; (4)the project stimulates development and invest-ment; (5) the project increases the tax base and em-ployment opportunities; (6) the project removesblighted conditions; (7) the project is an appropri-ate use of public funds; and (8) the project has po-tential to be completed.


The Development Fund provides a cata-lyst for developer- and neighborhood-based project initiatives with great poten-tial that need quicker response than possi-ble with more structured options. Thisflexibility allows the city to address de-velopment opportunities as they arise.

The 2001 budget provided $2.5 million forDeveloper Fund initiatives. During 2001,$1.7 million was expended in support ofstreetscaping, façade grants, small-scalepublic improvements, and Historic ThirdWard dockwall renovation. Figure 22 in-cludes expenditures for the DevelopmentFund and its predecessors, the Develop-ment Opportunities Fund, the Develop-ment Zone-Commercial Development Re-vitalization Fund, and the Riverfront andOther Downtown Planning and Im-provements Fund. Higher expenditures in themid- and late- 1990’s were due to support of vari-ous segments of the downtown Riverwalk projectand related development.

Projects that receive financial assistance from theDevelopment Fund are chosen on their potential tostimulate development, to remove blighting condi-tions, to be completed within a reasonable periodof time, and to involve a public subsidy. These

Figure 22

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Development Fund Expenditures 1995-2001



projects include smaller projects that do not re-quire the establishment of a tax incremental dis-trict. Specific projects will be selected in accor-dance with the following criteria: (1) location ofthe project, appropriateness to the surroundingarea and consistency with any applicable cityplans; (2) site plan, urban design, and overall proj-ect concept; (3) financial feasibility, redevelopercapacity, long-range development benefit, cityresident and tax base impact; (4) lack of otherfunds for city share; and (5) private sector com-mitment to the project and the potential leverage ofprivate funds.

The Development Fund provides complementarypublic improvements along neighborhood com-mercial thoroughfares to encourage and enhanceprivate investment and to make development proj-ects more feasible. The intent of these public im-provements is to encourage greater pedestrian traf-fic, upgrade the quality of design of existing facili-ties and uses, and to make the public environmentmore accommodating to business.

Map 4 shows the current Riverwalk system. Nine-teen Riverwalk segments have already been devel-oped, encompassing most of thedowntown business district andsegments stretching from the Sum-merfest grounds to Veteran’s Parkalong Lake Michigan.

During the mid-1990’s funding wasprovided to the Department of CityDevelopment to work with privatedevelopers and business improve-ment districts to create Riverwalksthroughout the downtown area. Inaddition, the city has participated inupgrading some existing downtownsegments, most notably Riverwalksadjacent to the Grand Avenue Mall,the Theater District, and the River-front Plaza by improving lightingand adding pre-cast concrete skirts.

The Department of City Develop-ment uses the following criteria todetermine the capital needs of theRiverwalk system and downtownimprovements: (1) complete devel-opment of the Riverwalk; (2) com-plete illumination of adjacent streets,buildings, and parks; (3) level of pri-vate participation and financial con-

tribution; (4) availability of other funding re-sources; (5) level of commercial activity; (6) level ofpedestrian traffic; and (7) desired enhancement ofthe city’s physical attributes.

Advance Planning Fund: This fund financesplanning studies and research into land use, mar-keting, development and redevelopment propos-als, and other issues related to the physical andeconomic development of the city. These studiesassist the department in developing strategic posi-tions on major planning issues. These studies alsoprovide timely information and/or policy recom-mendations to city officials on housing, industrialdevelopment, transportation, community facilitiesand services, preservation, and other issues affect-ing the economic stability and livability of the city.This fund also provides the means to contract forprofessional services. Studies financed through theAdvance Planning Fund are based on requestsfrom the Mayor, aldermen, or citizen groups.

Some examples of studies conducted through theAdvance Planning Fund include the Fond du LacTransit Corridor Study, the King Drive PlanningStudy, the 27th Street Corridor Study, the Lisbon

Map 4



Avenue Study, New Zoning Code Plan and anumber of TID feasibility studies. In 2001, $208,000

was expended to finance various economic devel-opment plans and studies.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 30 shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for development districts and otherprojects, which total $11.6 million.

Development Fund: The six-year plan provides atotal of $10.7 million, $2.2 million in 2002, and $1.7million in each year thereafter for the DevelopmentFund. These funds will be used to finance publiccosts associated with various development proj-ects. Several projects are slated for 2002, includingMenomonee Valley improvements ($500,000),neighborhood retail area improvements ($500,000),façade grants ($350,000), 30th Street corridor im-

provements ($500,000), and other projects($350,000).

Advance Planning Fund: The purpose of thisfund is to finance planning studies and researchinto land use, marketing, development and rede-velopment proposals, and other issues relating tothe physical and economic development of the city.From 2002-2007, a six-year total of $900,000 is pro-vided. In 2002 study areas include; Walker's Point,Riverwest, King Drive in-fill housing, comprehen-sive neighborhood plans, and tax incrementalfunding (TIF) planning studies.

Table 30

Project Title

Development Fund $2,200,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $10,700,000Advance Planning Fund 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000

TOTAL $2,350,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $11,600,000

Six-YearPlan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Development Districts

2006Plan

2007Plan

and Other Economic Development Projects

2002Budget

2005Plan

2003Plan

2004Plan



PORT OF MILWAUKEELINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN

One of the city’s strategic goals is tostrengthen the local economy, attractand retain family-supporting jobs,and ensure economic opportunitiesfor all city residents. Port activitiessupport this goal by providing qual-ity transportation and distributionservices designed to anticipate andsatisfy the needs and desires of Portcustomers. With higher activity lev-els, the Port hopes to enhance theoverall economic environment of theregion by stimulating trade, busi-ness, and employment.

The Port of Milwaukee, which is lo-cated on Lake Michigan, is ownedand operated by the City of Mil-waukee. Ships and barges access thePort in one of two ways: (1) throughthe St. Lawrence Seaway System; or(2) through the Mississippi Riverand the Illinois River System (seeMap 5).

The Port of Milwaukee offers opera-tional flexibility unique to the West-ern Great Lakes. Terminals de-signed for the efficient handling ofcontainers, general cargo, roll-on/roll-off vehicles, dry and liquidbulk, and heavy machinery, plus in-ter-modal connection to all Midwestcities, make the Port the economicchoice for routing all types of cargo.

Improvements to Port facilities arefunded through the city’s capital budget and arefinanced by property taxes, either through the cur-rent tax levy or levy-supported borrowing. The

major focus of the Port’s capital program is on pre-serving existing assets.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The following criteria are used to determine thePort’s capital needs: (1) age and condition; (2)cargo storage capacity; (3) cargo handling capacity;

(4) Port accessibility; (5) product markets; and (6)state and federal regulations.

Map 5

Missouri River

Mis

siss

ippi

Riv

er



STATUS OF THE ASSET

Storage Facilities: The Port maintains four cargoterminals. These facilities, which have steel framesand asphalt floors, have a total storage capacity of300,000 square feet and house general cargo. Thereis also a reefer shed that has a storage capacity of180,000 cubic feet. This facility is refrigerated andstores meat and other perishable items.

The Port has three liquid cargo facilities eachserved by the Port’s liquid cargo pier and/or byconnections on one of the Port’s outer generalcargo piers. These liquid cargo terminals areserved by the West Shore Pipeline Company andare connected to Chicago distribution centers, ma-jor pipelines, and East Coast and Gulf Coast refin-eries. These Port liquid terminals generally storepetroleum, edible and non-edible fats and oils, andhave tank capacities between 200,000 and 300,000barrels.

Several parcels of Port land, totaling 23.2-acres, arededicated to the handling and storage of dry bulkcommodities, roll-on and roll-off units, and con-tainers. These areas are in various states of devel-opment with earth or asphalt surfaces. All haveroad or rail access and are in close proximity to thetruck scale.

Located along the inner harbor are seven dock ar-eas. These facilities occupy a total of 66.8-acresand have concrete, asphalt, gravel, or earth sur-faces. Road and rail access is also available. A va-riety of cargoes are stored at these facilities in-cluding steel, dry bulk, pig iron, bulk scrap, andbulk grain.

Located along the outer harbor are fourdock areas. These facilities occupy a totalof 24.6 acres and have concrete or asphaltsurfaces. All these facilities have road orrail access. A variety of cargoes are storedat these facilities including general cargo,liquids, steel, roll-on and roll-off cargo,containers, and dry bulk.

Other Facilities: The Port is responsiblefor maintaining ten miles of dockwallalong Lake Michigan and the municipalmooring basin. In addition, the Portmaintains sewer and water distributionsystems on Jones Island. There are ap-

proximately ten miles of mains in each system.

Finally, the Port of Milwaukee has long ranked asone of the premier heavy-lift ports on the GreatLakes. To help maintain this status, the Port oper-ates ten cranes with various lifting capacities.

Inter-Modal Operations: The Port of Milwaukee isserved by two Class I railroads which provide pierdelivery and switching services. Over 15 miles ofPort owned and maintained track connect eachterminal to main line railroads.

The federal interstate highway system leads di-rectly into the Port of Milwaukee. The Port hasapproximately five miles of access roads on HarborIsland. Trucks entering and leaving the Port can beweighed at one of three truck scales. These scalesare not owned nor maintained by the Port.

Tonnage Summary: Maintenance of Port facilitiesis important because of the large volume of cargohandled at the Port of Milwaukee. Figure 23 showstonnage data from 1992-2000. In 2000, tonnagehandled at the Port of Milwaukee was 2.5 milliontons. The 2000 tonnage was down approximately17,587 tons (less than 1%) from the prior year.

Revenue Summary: Another measure of facilityusage is the amount of revenue received from Portcustomers. Port revenues are generated from landand building rentals, wharfage fees, throughputdockage fees, crane rent, and labor charges. Figure24 shows revenue generated from Port facilities

Figure 23

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Port of Milwaukee Tonnage Summary

General Cargo Total Liquid Cargo Dry Bulk Cargo Grain In Bulk



from 1992-2000. Since 1992, Port revenueshave been less than its operating expendi-tures. In 2000, Port revenues were ap-proximately $2 million while expenditureswere $3 million. However, in 2001 thePort will begin receiving an additional $1million in annual revenues for the lease ofits Summerfest property to World Festi-vals Inc. This additional revenue is an-ticipated to result in Port revenues meet-ing its operating expenditures.

While facility rent currently makes up themajority of Port revenues (60%), the larg-est potential for increasing revenue isthrough revenues such as wharfage,throughput, crane rent, and dockage thatrespond to higher use of Port facilities.

Economic Impact: A study was con-ducted to determine the economic impact the Portof Milwaukee has upon the region and to aid thePort in evaluating present and future business.The study, based on 2000 data, measured the im-pact of the Port on Milwaukee County in terms ofjobs, personal income, and tax revenues.

The study indicated that the Port was responsiblefor 1,119 direct jobs through dock and pier opera-tions, water transport services, and inter-modal

services. Approximately 909 jobs are indirectlyrelated through secondary spending on goods andservices in the local economy. Income generatedannually from personal wages and salaries relatedto these jobs equaled approximately $93.6 million,while business revenues were estimated to total$79.6 million. In addition, the study indicated thatthe amount of federal, state, and local taxes gener-ated totaled $35 million annually.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 31 (see page 83) shows the 2002-2007 CapitalImprovements Plan for the Port of Milwaukee. Thesix-year plan provides $19.3 million, of which $11.8million, or 60.9%, is grant and aid funding.

The 2002-2007 capital plan provides $715,000 tomaintain Port terminals and piers. This is an on-going maintenance program that is necessary inorder to ensure safe and efficient cargo transferoperations. The plan also provides a total of$375,000 to purchase cargo handling equipment in2005 and $1.5 million to buy a Manitowoc crane in2004. These projects enhance the Port’s ability toprovide uninterrupted service to customers.Revenues generated through lease of this equip-ment will offset the cost of purchasing this equip-ment.

The 2002-2007 plan provides a total of $850,000 fordockwall rehabilitation. The purpose of this pro-

gram is to rehabilitate portions of the dockwall thathave deteriorated or have been damaged due tostorm action. This is an on-going capital im-provements program.

The 2002 capital budget totals $2.8 million with $2million in grant funding and $785,000 in cityfunding. Capital projects for 2002 include $470,000for pier, berth, and channel improvements. TheWisconsin Harbor Assistance Program will cover80% of this project’s total cost of $2.4 million. Overthe six-year plan, $2.3 million of city funding and$9.1 million of grant and aid funding are dedicatedto pier, berth, and channel improvements.

To serve its customers, the Port must maintain itsinfrastructure in appropriate condition. The 2002Port capital plan includes $50,000 for resurfacingthe road to the Continental Grain Facility on thewestside mooring basin.

Figure 24

Port of Milwaukee Operating Revenues and Expenditures

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Revenues Expenses



Table 31

Project Title

Major Maintenance of Terminals and Piers $115,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $715,000Major Equipment Rehabilitation 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000Dockwall Rehabilitation 0 0 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 850,000Harbor Maintenance and Dredging 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000*******Grant and Aid******* 0 0 800,000 0 0 0 800,000Cargo Handling Equipment 0 0 50,000 375,000 0 150,000 575,000Resurface Road to Westside Mooring Basin 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000Analyze and Upgrade Sewer System 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000Pier Berth and Channel Improvements 470,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 600,000 400,000 2,270,000*******Grant and Aid******* 1,880,000 1,600,000 800,000 800,000 2,400,000 1,600,000 9,080,000New Crane/Heavy Lift Equipment 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000Rail Track and Service Improvements/Upgrades 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 300,000*******Grant and Aid******* 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 300,000Rehab Dockwall KK River Site 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 400,000*******Grant and Aid******* 0 0 800,000 0 800,000 0 1,600,000Demolish Facilities and Grade Site 0 0 75,000 75,000 0 0 150,000

TOTAL PORT PROJECTS $2,765,000 $2,150,000 $5,325,000 $1,850,000 $4,600,000 $2,650,000 $19,340,000

Less Grant and Aid Funding $1,980,000 $1,600,000 $2,500,000 $800,000 $3,300,000 $1,600,000 $11,780,000

TOTAL CITY FUNDING $785,000 $550,000 $2,825,000 $1,050,000 $1,300,000 $1,050,000 $7,560,000

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Port of Milwaukee

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006


CULTURE AND RECREATION

Culture and recreation capital improve-ment projects include public libraries, rec-reational facilities, the Pabst Theater, andthe Municipal Art Fund. In the 2002-2007capital plan, approximately $20.1 million,or 2% of total funding is provided for cul-ture and recreation projects. Figure 25shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for these projects.

The city invests in culture and recreationin order to strengthen the city’s neighbor-hoods and to build on the city’s role as the“cultural hub” of the metropolitan area.The Pabst Theater, along with the previ-ously funded Wisconsin Center (1998 rep-resented the last year of the city’s com-mitment to renovate the facility), bringsnot only city residents to the downtownarea but suburban residents into the city.Public libraries and recreational facilitiesprovide stability to the city’s neighborhoods bycreating places for residents to learn and play closeto home. By maintaining and upgrading its cul-tural and recreational facilities, Milwaukee is ableto enhance the quality of life of all city residents.

Libraries

Funding for public libraries in the plan totals$14.35 million, or 71% of total funding for cultureand recreation projects. Of this amount, approxi-mately $4.7 million is for Central Library projectsand $9.6 million is for neighborhood library proj-ects. The new Finney neighborhood library will beconstructed in 2002 at a total cost of $4.3 million($2.7 million provided in 2002). Annual fundingfor library capital projects ranges from $1.3 millionto $3.4 million in the six-year plan.

Pabst Theater and Art Fund

The 2002-2007 plan provides approximately $1.2million, or 6% of culture and recreation funding forthe Pabst Theater and the Municipal Art Fund.This amount includes $979,000 for projects at thePabst Theater. In addition, approximately $30,000is provided annually for the Municipal Art Fund.

Recreation

Recreational facilities include playgrounds andtotlots located in neighborhoods throughout thecity. In the 2002-2007 plan, $4.6 million, or 23% oftotal funding for culture and recreation projects isprovided for renovation and maintenance of ex-isting totlots. Funding for recreational facilities in-creases from $721,000 in 2002 to $791,000 in 2007.Funding in 2002 includes $350,000 in grants andaid. Also, beginning in 2002, fringe benefits associ-ated with recreational facilities projects are appro-priated directly in the project accounts.

Figure 25

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Culture and Recreation 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Libraries Recreation Art Fund/Pabst Theater



LIBRARIES


One of the city’s strategic goals is to create an envi-ronment that fosters life-long learning by city resi-dents. Although the city is not directly responsiblefor the public school system, some city depart-ments provide services that affect the opportunitiesthat city residents have to learn. One such de-partment is the Milwaukee Public Library System.The Milwaukee Public Library System, which con-sists of the Central Library and twelve neighbor-hood libraries (see Map 6), provides services forcity’s residents to encourage learning such as joband career centers, reading programs for pre-schoolers, children and young adults, computertraining centers, and tutoring opportunities. Mil-waukee’s library facilities need to be multi-functional in order to provide these diverse serv-ices and to accommodate the needs of city resi-dents.

Although many projects at the libraries consist ofmaintenance or upgrade efforts (such as improvingthe HVAC system or upgrading elevators to meetcurrent standards), major projects usually have abroader purpose. Faced with new technology thatmakes information more widely available, the li-braries did not possess the resources to take fulladvantage of these new opportunities. As a majorurban public library and the largest public librarysystem in the state, the Milwaukee Public Libraryneeded to modernize its facilities in order to serveits patrons appropriately. To provide city resi-dents with access to new technology like the Inter-net, information databases, and educational software, the library must first upgrade facilities re-

sources.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Milwaukee Public Library uses the followingcriteria to determine its capital needs: (1) conditionof facilities; (2) useful life of the asset; (3) informa-tional and technological needs of patrons and staff;and (4) safety and security needs of patrons andstaff. Each year library staff inspects all library fa-cilities to determine which items need repair or re-placement. The priority given to particular items

depends on the condition of the asset. The librarykeeps an internal plan for ten years. Some itemsare repaired or replaced at specified intervals. Forexample, the library will usually replace a roof on aneighborhood library every 20 years. Remodelingis scheduled based on the age and condition of thelibrary, the needs of library patrons and changingtechnology.

Map 6

Brown Deer Rd.

Silver Spring Dr.

Capitol Dr.

Good Hope Rd.

91st/92nd St.

Oklahoma Ave.

North Ave.

Greenfield Ave.

Layton Ave.

College Ave.

60th St.

27th St.

1st St.

Howell Ave.

Public LibrarySites

Central LibraryNeighborhood Libraries




The city’s neighborhood libraries, with the excep-tion of Bay View and Center Street (which wereconstructed in 1993 and 1989, respectively) werebuilt in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. Central Li-brary was constructed in 1898 with an additionbuilt in 1955. As a result of the age of the system,the libraries require continual maintenance andremodeling. Central Library is approximately454,000 square feet. It houses 1.5 million volumes,over 1 million government documents, 5,300 peri-odicals, and is the home of the city’s archives. Inaddition, the Central Library provides many re-gional services such as the Regional Library for theBlind and Physically Handicapped and the Inter-Library Loan Service.

Central Library has completed a major renovationto update its facilities in order to meet changingdemand and the stress of increased use. Remod-eling of the first floor was completed in 1996. Thisenabled Central Library to accommodate the newon-line catalog system as well as to enhance accessto computer terminals. In addition, many of themechanical systems were updated to improve effi-

ciency and decrease the amount needed to be allo-cated out of the library’s operating budget for mi-nor repairs and utility costs.

As stated earlier, with the exception of Bay Viewand Center Street Libraries, neighborhood librarieswere all constructed prior to 1980. Neighborhoodlibraries occupy, in total, almost 166,000 square feetand provide access to 826,000 volumes of readingand reference materials. They also offer an exten-sive audio and visual collection and provide a va-riety of educational programs.

The neighborhood libraries are also undergoingrenovations to update and modernize them andwill receive repair and replacement work on me-chanical systems to improve efficiency and save onutility costs. In 2002, a new facility will be built toreplace Finney Library. Five libraries have alreadybeen remodeled and the remainder are scheduledto be remodeled by the end of 2006. As neighbor-hood libraries become more multi-functional, it isimportant that facilities are capable of effectivelymeeting the needs of their patrons.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

Table 32 shows the 2002-2007 Capital Improve-ments Plan for the Milwaukee Public Library Sys-tem. The six-year plan provides over $4.7 millionfor Central Library projects and $9.6 million forneighborhood library projects. The following is asummary of these projects.

Central Library Improvements Program: The2002-2007 plan provides over $3.3 million for Cen-tral Library Improvements. These funds are di-vided between mechanical systems related im-provements ($2,055,000) interior and exterior pres-ervation and access changes ($1,270,000).

Mechanical systems improvements include instal-lation of energy-saving heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems; plumbing andductwork; and electrical controls to replace out-dated, under-capacity components. Also includedare elevator upgrades to comply with the Ameri-cans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a fire alarm sys-tem, and a paging system. These improvementswill make the physical environment more comfort-able for library patrons and staff and better pre-serve the library’s collection.

Preservation work will maintain the Central Li-brary’s historic architectural features and enhancebuilding integrity. An ongoing masonry repairprogram will correct structural cracking in exteriorwalls. Interior painting and repair preserves wallsand ceilings. Repairing damaged mosaic tiles, sca-gliola walls and columns will maintain the beautyof the library’s unique historic features.

Access improvements will be made to comply withADA requirements. The Eighth Street entrancedoors will be replaced and new automatic openersinstalled. An architect will be hired to review theWisconsin Avenue entrance to construct wheel-chair access while retaining the historic architec-tural features of the entrance.

Central Library Remodeling Projects: The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the CentralLibrary provides approximately $1.4 million forremodeling projects. A combined effort betweenthe Library Foundation and the city provided ap-proximately $5 million to renovate the first andsecond floors of Central Library from 1997-2001.The renovation included a new Children’s Science,Business, Technology and Art, Music and Recrea-



tion Rooms. Funding received from the Founda-tion was allocated for designing and engineering,also for finishes, furniture, equipment, and otherenhancements to the infrastructure.

The final phase of the project involves remodelingthe third floor of the Central Library, including theadministration offices, as well as the technicalprocessing area. In 2002-2007 the plan provides atotal of $1.2 million for this purpose. The library’sadministration offices relocated to the third floor in1984 after the Department of City Developmentvacated the area. Consequently, existing officeconfigurations result in operational inefficiencies.In addition, both administration and technicalprocessing areas have inadequate lighting, ventila-tion, sound control, and computer network access.A portion of the funding will also be used to up-date the Centennial Hall facility in 2004.

Neighborhood Library Remodeling Projects: Thesix-year plan provides $3.8 million to remodel fourneighborhood libraries beginning in 2004. Two li-braries, Atkinson and Zablocki were remodeled in1994, the Capitol Library was completed in 1995and the King Library was completed in 1997. Mostrecently, Forest Home was renovated in 2000. Theremaining libraries, Villard, East, Mill Road, andTippecanoe will be remodeled in 2004-2006.

A consultant was hired in 1988 to study the designneeds of ten neighborhood libraries. The studyanalyzed the staff and patron areas and identifiedfunctional problems. The design recommendationsform the basis for the neighborhood library renova-tion project. The intent of this project is to makethe interior of the libraries more attractive, userfriendly, compatible with changing technologiesand formats of library materials, and consistentwith the changing services demanded by librarypatrons.

Neighborhood Library Improvements Program:Approximately $1.1 million is provided for theMechanical Systems Program in neighborhood li-braries, including a technical study to evaluate theHVAC systems in neighborhood libraries and$514,000 to replace the chillers at nine neighbor-hood libraries. In 2006-2007, the electrical substa-tions will be upgraded for $581,000. The purposeof these projects is to reduce energy consumptionand to improve the physical environment for li-brary patrons and staff.

The windows at seven neighborhood libraries havesingle-pane glass windows, which contribute to ex-cessive heating and cooling costs. One mainte-nance project would replace these inefficient win-dows with thermal panes; anticipated savings inutility costs would be sufficient to offset the cost ofthis project. In 2005 and 2006, a total of $400,000 isprovided for this purpose. In 2002, the Mill Roadand Zablocki Libraries will be retrofitted for ADAcompliance at a cost of $30,000.

The 2002 plan provides $180,000 to replace themansard soffet panels at Villard Library withstucco-embossed aluminum panels and batten cov-ers. The 2002-2007 plan provides $300,000 for inte-rior painting and carpet replacement of neighbor-hood libraries, $300,000 for exterior painting,$160,000 for concrete repairs, and $150,000 for re-placement of security systems. Other projects inthe plan include $100,000 to upgrade the interiorlighting of public spaces at Forest Home Library,$290,000 to upgrade exterior parking lot lightingand signage, and $150,000 for a concealed irriga-tion and landscape repair program.

New Finney Library: The 2002-2007 plan includesapproximately $2.7 million to fund construction ofa new neighborhood library to replace the currentFinney Library. This project is discussed in moredetail below.

Table 32


Central Library Remodeling $175,000 $1,050,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $75,000 $1,400,000Central Library Improvements Program 320,000 725,000 470,000 395,000 795,000 620,000 3,325,000New Library 2,710,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,710,000Neighborhood Library Remodeling 0 0 1,100,000 1,710,000 950,000 0 3,760,000Neighborhood Library Improvements Program 210,000 443,000 221,000 770,000 931,000 580,000 3,155,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $3,415,000 $2,218,000 $1,891,000 $2,875,000 $2,676,000 $1,275,000 $14,350,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Milwaukee Public Library System




Replace Finney Library: A major capital project inthe 2002-2007 plan is replacement of the currentFinney Library, located at 4243 West North Ave-nue. In 2001, $1.6 million was provided for designand real estate acquisition for the new Finney Li-brary site. An additional $2.7 million is providedfor the building construction in 2002.

The initial planning and design of the new librarywas done throughout the Spring and Summer of2001. Groundbreaking is expected in early Springof 2002 and construction should be completed bythe end of the year. At that time, the existing Fin-ney Library will be given to the Milwaukee PublicSchool system for renovation and reuse under theirNeighborhood Schools Initiative.



RECREATIONAL FACILITIES


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for cul-ture and recreation projects includes funding forrecreational facilities. The Department of PublicWorks Operation Division Buildings and Fleet Sec-tion is responsible for constructing and maintain-ing playlots, totlots, and green areas throughoutthe city. In addition, the division is responsible forconstruction and reconstruction of the city’s play-grounds and playfields operated by the MilwaukeePublic School District. The district also shares re-sponsibility with the city for maintaining totlotsand playlots. Milwaukee County is responsible foroperating and maintaining parks and parkways.

One of the city’s strategic goals is to strengthen thequality and ensure the stability of Milwaukee’s

neighborhoods. The presence of recreation facili-ties such as totlots and playgrounds contributes tothis goal by providing a positive outlet for youthfulenergy and social interactions.

The Department of Public Works has the followingspecific goals related to public outdoor recreationalfacilities: (1) to ensure an adequate number ofpublic outdoor recreational facilities for all resi-dents; (2) to conserve natural resources and signifi-cant natural features; (3) to ensure that facilities areaccessible and available to people with disabilities;(4) to balance recreational development with thecity’s goals for other land uses; and (5) to ensurethe best and most efficient use of the city’s re-sources in meeting recreational needs of residents.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Department of Public Works utilizes the fol-lowing criteria to determine the capital needs ofrecreational facilities: (1) age and condition; (2)safety and liability concerns; (3) accessibility to allresidents including individuals with disabilities; (4)compliance with federal playground equipmentguidelines; and (5) present and future recreationalneeds of city residents.

The division uses an informal rating system tomeasure the condition of recreational facilities.Visual surveys are conducted on each facility everyfive years. These surveys provide condition in-formation at least three times over the 15 year es-timated useful life of recreational equipment. Inorder to develop the capital improvement plan for

recreational facilities, the division prioritizes rec-reational facilities based on condition. However,visual surveys, as well as the number of complaintsreceived on a particular facility, may change proj-ect priorities.

Each recreational facility is prioritized by deter-mining the age, equipment condition, populationdensity of children under 12 years, and renovationneeds determined jointly by the city and Milwau-kee Public Schools. In addition, the Americanswith Disabilities Act require that recreational facili-ties be accessible to all disabled persons. Togetherthese criteria are used to determine recreationalsites included in the annual capital budget and six-year plan.


The DPW-Operations Division Buildings and FleetSection operates and maintains 45 non-supervisedrecreational areas and 10 passive green spaces to-taling 69 acres. Many of the city sites were origi-nally constructed prior to 1975. The Buildings andFleet Section is also responsible for reconstructionof the city’s 37 playgrounds and playfields totaling296 acres.

There are 75 play areas on City of Milwaukee rec-reation facilities. The average design life of playareas is 15 to 20 years. As of January 1, 2001, sur-

veys conducted by the division indicate that almostthree-quarters (73%) of children’s play areas onCity of Milwaukee recreation facilities are in ex-cellent condition. A play area rated as excellentwill generally meet (or exceed) the following stan-dards: updated equipment on rubber or woodchip play surface; equipment at the beginning oflife cycle; equipment components in good condi-tion; and meets safety and ADA accessibility stan-dards.



SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002 budget includes $513,000 to reconstructfacilities at eight recreational areas. This funding iscomprised of $163,000 city capital funds and$350,000 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds. These improvements include re-constructing totlots, tennis courts and ball dia-monds, upgrading facilities to meet ADA require-ments, and replacing equipment. Funding will alsoprovide for miscellaneous engineering expensesand various totlot improvements. Table 33 listsspecific facilities scheduled for improvement in2002. As outlined in Table 34, $3.3 million is pro-vided in 2002-2007 for the improvement of recrea-tion facilities. This funding would be sufficient forreconstruction projects on approximately eight fa-cilities each year. Those facilities selected will bebased upon visual surveys, as well as commentsreceived by patrons.

Table 33

Project DescriptionEstimated

Cost

Children's Area Reconstruction (ADA) $195,000Green Bay PlayfieldOhio PlayfieldFranklin Square

Playground Reconstruction (Phase II) $65,000Columbia Playground

Wading Pool Filtration Replacement $40,000Merrill Park

Tennis Court Reconstruction $143,000Lincoln Playfield

Various Improvements/Engineering $70,000Ball Diamond RestorationNon-Programmed ImprovementsGeneral Engineering

Total $513,000

2002 Recreational Facilities Capital Improvements Budget

Table 34


Recreational Facilities $163,000 $526,000 $574,000 $554,000 $568,000 $583,000 $2,968,000Grant and Aid (CDBG) 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 350,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $513,000 $526,000 $574,000 $554,000 $568,000 $583,000 $3,318,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Recreational Facilities



PABST THEATER


The primary objective of the Pabst Theateris to provide a facility for the performingarts in order to enhance the quality of cul-tural life in the city. As a historic place ofexceptional beauty, it also serves as atourist attraction in downtown Milwau-kee. The eleven-member Pabst TheaterBoard governs the structure, maintenance,and operations of the Pabst Theater. It isresponsible for administering the operat-ing budget.

Because management of a theater is notclosely linked with the city’s strategicgoals, the Pabst Theater Board examinedoptions for combining the Pabst Theatermanagement with another organizationthat specializes in arts, theater, and eventplanning.

In April 2002, after careful consideration of threeproposals, the Pabst Theater Board approved anoffer from the Michael Cudahy Foundation, a non-profit organization, to buy the city-owned theaterfor $1. The Board was concerned about one bid-der’s request for an annual city operating subsidyapproximately three times larger than the current$150,000. An uncertain future revenue stream leda second entity to withdraw its bid.

The Cudahy Foundation will continue and enhancepromotional efforts to increase the number ofevents and attendance at the historic theater. Itwill make additional physical improvements to thetheater, including upgrading the Pabst’s sound sys-tem, furnishings, and backstage facilities. ThePabst’s historic appearance must be maintainedand the city must approve a change of name. Theagreement requires the building to be used as atheater in perpetuity.

According to the City Comptroller, the sale wouldsave the city approximately $4.9 million (not ad-justed for inflation) in operating subsidies, capitalimprovements, and debt service over the coming20 years.

The Common Council approved the Captain Fre-derick Pabst Theater Transfer Agreement at itsApril 23, 2002 meeting. The Mayor signed the

resolution shortly thereafter. The sale is expectedto be completed on or before November 1, 2002.

The Cudahy Foundation will build on a successfultheater enterprise. The Pabst Theater has strong at-tendance and stable operating revenues, as shownin Figure 26. (Construction of major improvementsdiscussed below decreased event days and oper-ating revenue in 2001.) However, event planningand promotion is not one of the city’s primary mis-sions. The city and the Foundation expect that theFoundation will be more successful in optimizingthe use of this beautiful theater and enhancing cul-tural life in Milwaukee.

Throughout the time of the transfer the City ofMilwaukee funds approximately one-sixth of thetheater’s operating budget. In the 2002 budget, thecity provided $150,000 towards the theater’s totaloperating budget and $10,000 to provide a rentsubsidy for local arts groups who cannot afford torent the Pabst Theater. Under the transfer agree-ment, the operating subsidy will continue in 2003.The theater also receives revenue from rentals, boxoffice fees, concession commissions, and other mis-cellaneous sources of income to fund its opera-tions.

The city is also responsible for maintaining thestructural integrity of the Pabst Theater. Thisfunding is provided through the capital budget.After 2002, the Cudahy Foundation is responsiblefor theater capital maintenance and improvements.

Figure 26

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Pabst Theater Operating Revenues (Without City Subsidies)



ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Pabst Theater uses the following criteria to de-termine its capital needs: (1) age and condition; (2)safety and security needs; (3) accessibility; (4) pro-duction capabilities; and (5) current and futureneeds of theater patrons and performing artsgroups.

The Pabst Theater, which was constructed in 1895and fully restored in 1976, occupies 11,840 squarefeet. In 2001, 156 events were held at the theater,which were attended by over 110,100 people. Thetheater was under construction for 141 days, re-ducing event days and attendance.

STATUS OF THE ASSET

The Pabst Theater has received many historic des-ignations, including Local Historic Landmark ofthe City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin State HistoricSite, listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces and, most recently, National HistoricLandmark.

Between 1976-1986, no funds were provided to thePabst Theater for capital improvement projects.However, since 1987 the City of Milwaukee has in-vested considerable financial resources to renovatethis historical theater and ensure that maintenanceis not deferred. Between 1989 and 1998, the cityprovided over $1.7 million in borrowing authorityfor capital improvement projects at the Pabst Thea-

ter. Changes have included improvements to thesound system, lobby, auditorium, stage and back-stage, exterior, physically disabled accessibility andsafety modifications, and general decoration im-provements.

Most notably, in 1997 the city provided $475,000for major renovations to the east wall, which wasshowing signs of settling. Underpinning of thatwall was completed that year and will provide along-term solution to stabilizing the wall. Recentevaluations of the structure by the city and countyhave demonstrated that the building is now ingood repair.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

As depicted by Table 35, the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan provides approximately $979,000for Pabst Theater improvements. In 2002 $600,000is provided to conclude the multi-year renovationproject at the theater.

From 2003 through 2007, approximately $75,000 isprovided each year for unspecified projects at thePabst Theater. This funding is to ensure an ade-quate level of financial support for future PabstTheater capital projects.


The 2002 capital budget includes $600,000 to com-plete major improvements at the Historic PabstTheater. Started in 2000, these renovations willimprove access and seating in the gallery, add ele-vators to the theater, provide additional restrooms, install modern ventilation systems, and ex-

pand the lobby area to form the Cudahy Irish Pub.Total project cost is estimated at approximately$8.9 million. The Pabst Theater Capital CampaignCommittee solicited private contributions totalingapproximately $6 million, while city contributionswill total $2.9 million for the project.

Table 35


Theater Modifications $600,000 $75,050 $75,000 $78,835 $75,000 $75,000 $978,885

TOTAL PROJECTS $600,000 $75,050 $75,000 $78,835 $75,000 $75,000 $978,885

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Pabst Theater



MUNICIPAL ART FUND


One of the city’s strategies under the strategic goalof strengthening the quality of neighborhoods is topromote the city as a cultural hub of the metropoli-tan area. The Municipal Art Fund provides a wayto encourage an appreciation of the visual arts andthe development of artists and craftsmen by plac-ing works of art in city facilities.

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for cul-ture and recreation includes funding for the Mu-nicipal Art Fund. This fund provides for visual

arts in newly constructed or remodeled city-ownedbuildings. This funding is in accordance with CityOrdinance 304-27 which states that a portion ofcapital expenditures, not to exceed 1% of the totalcost of any such construction project as estimatedin the capital budget, be set aside for the acquisi-tion of works of art to be used for city buildingsand public facilities. The Milwaukee Arts Boarddetermines the allocation of funds to be expendedon works of art for construction projects.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The criteria used to determine the allocation of theMunicipal Art Fund is based on the following: (1)the project must be a construction project paidwholly, or in part, by the city to construct or re-model any building, decorative, or commemorativestructure within the city limits; (2) the project mustbe publicly accessible; (3) works of art includesculptures, paintings, graphic arts, mosaics, pho-tography, crafts, calligraphy, and mixed media;and (4) the work of art must be completed by anartist who is a practitioner in the visual arts and isgenerally recognized by critics and peers as a pro-fessional who produces works of art.

In addition, the Milwaukee Arts Board is responsi-ble for the following: (1) determining the alloca-tion of funds; (2) determining the method(s) of se-lection and commissioning of artists; (3) requiringthat any proposed work of art needing operationalor maintenance expenses receive prior approval ofthe department involved; and (4) assuring that rea-sonable diversity is attained in the selection of artworks.

Condition Assessment: The Municipal Art Fundprovides funds to purchase visual art for newlyconstructed or remodeled city-owned buildings.The artwork is distributed based upon individualrequests.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

As shown in Table 36 the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan provides $180,000 for the Mu-nicipal Art Fund. Approximately $30,000 is pro-vided each year to purchase artwork for the city’s

art collection. This funding ensures an adequatelevel of financial support for future Municipal ArtFund projects.

Table 36


Municipal Art Fund $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Municipal Art Fund


GENERAL GOVERNMENT

General government capital improvementprojects consist of maintenance and re-modeling of city-owned buildings and fa-cilities and other special capital projects,as well as operation and maintenance ofthe city’s underground conduit and com-munication systems. In the six-year plan,approximately $157.9 million is providedfor these purposes, which accounts for16.5% of total funding. Figure 27 showsprojected funding levels for general gov-ernment capital improvement projects for2002-2007.

Maintenance, Remodeling, CapitalEquipment, and Other Projects

The six-year plan provides approximately$85.9 million for remodeling and mainte-nance of city facilities. These projects ac-count for 54.4% of total general government capitalimprovement projects.

Beginning in 2002, durable equipment items with aper unit cost of $50,000 or more are included in thecapital budget. Equipment used by several De-partment of Public Work divisions is included inthis section. DPW equipment funding is $23.8 mil-lion or 15.1% of general government funding dur-ing the plan. Fire equipment is classified in theFire Department capital plan.

The six-year plan provides approximately $34.9million, or 22.1% of total general government capi-tal funding for other projects. Unspecified capitalprojects at the time the plan was completed ac-count for $27 million of total funding for otherprojects. This funding is necessary to ensure anadequate level of financial support for future gen-eral government capital projects.

Communications and Control

In the six-year plan, approximately $8.7 million, or5.5% of total funding for general government capi-tal improvement projects is provided for the city’scommunication system which includes telecom-munications, voice, data and video service circuits,interconnecting phones, computers, alarms, andradios.

Underground Conduit and Electrical ManholePrograms

Funding totaling $4.6 million, or 2.9% of generalgovernment capital improvement projects is pro-vided for maintenance and expansion of the city’sunderground conduit system as well as for repairand replacement of various underground electricalmanholes throughout the city. Funding for thesepurposes is budgeted for $760,000 in 2002 and re-mains at this level throughout the six-year plan.

Figure 27

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

General Government2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan

Maintenance and Remodeling Underground Conduit and Manhole SystemCommunications and Control Capital EquipmentOther Projects

Fund

ing

(In M

illio

ns)

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


MAINTENANCE AND REMODELING


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for gen-eral government includes funding for maintenanceand remodeling of city-owned buildings and facili-ties and other special capital projects. The De-partment of Public Works Buildings and Fleet Di-vision is responsible for maintenance and repair ofapproximately 160 city buildings. In addition, thedivision provides architectural and mechanicalplanning and design services for most city remod-eling projects. Minor maintenance and repair proj-ects, such as painting, patching, caulking, andsealing are funded in departments operating budg-ets.

The goal of the city’s buildings and facilities main-tenance and remodeling plan is to extend the use-ful life of present facilities and to meet the chang-ing needs of city departments. The maintenanceand remodeling capital program helps to ensurethat various city facilities are kept in good operat-ing condition. Because this program addresses fa-cilities that house several city departments pro-viding a wide array of services, it contributes toseveral of the city’s strategic goals. City strategicgoals supported by this capital program includethose related to service delivery, public safety, andthe environment.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Buildings and Fleet Division uses the followingcriteria to determine maintenance and remodelingneeds: (1) age and condition; (2) safety and secu-rity needs; (3) accessibility; (4) space needs; (5) or-ganizational needs; (6) technological and commu-nication needs; (7) current and future needs of citydepartments, and (8) operational savings or servicedelivery improvements generated by a project.

The Buildings and Fleet Division uses a computer-ized Facilities Condition Index (FCI) to aid inevaluating building conditions and prioritizingmaintenance needs. The FCI is the current cost ofrepairing a building compared to the cost of re-placement. Index values directly identify facilitiesmost in need of immediate repair. The citywideFCI is used to develop an overall cyclical mainte-nance program and concentrate more resources onpreventative maintenance programs.


In 2001, the Department of Public Works con-ducted a comprehensive facility condition assess-ment. This effort updated a 1995 facility conditionstudy performed by consultants. DPW staff per-formed extensive on site inspections to determinethe physical condition of city 109 buildings andrecreational facilities. These included general gov-ernment buildings, such as City Hall and theZiedler Municipal Building, public parking struc-tures and specific use buildings, such as saltdomes, sanitation transfer facilities and forestrynursery buildings. The study did not include li-braries, fire stations, police stations, Port, or Waterfacilities. The respective departments are respon-sible for the maintenance and condition of those fa-cilities.

The Facility Condition Assessment focused on theactual physical condition of the buildings as theyare currently constructed. A thorough visual in-spection of all infrastructure, structural, electrical,mechanical, and roof components in each buildingwas performed. All maintenance, repair, equip-ment replacement, and safety needs were identi-fied and detailed. Cost estimates for needed main-tenance and improvements were based on stan-dard pricing for similar buildings. This informa-tion was compiled into a database using the Facili-ties Condition Information System.

This study and database furnished city staff andpolicymakers with a clear picture of the physicalcondition of facilities. It also detailed the estimatedcosts for repairs and improvements to these facili-

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


ties. This information will be useful to determinewhether a facility should be repaired, replaced, orconsolidated. Such information will be used toprioritize capital projects to most efficiently utilizemaintenance and capital funds.

Remodeling of the Zeidler Municipal Building isnearly complete. The result of a 1991 space utiliza-tion study and major reorganizations of depart-ments, projects were integrated into DPW’s sixyear capital improvements plans over the last dec-ade. Remodeling of the tenth floor for the De-partment of Neighborhood Services is funded in2002.

The 809 Broadway Building’s mechanical and elec-trical systems are over 15 years old. An equipmentupgrade and realignment is needed to meetchanges in space and staff needs.

Over the past decade, information technology hastransformed from a mainframe computer-based ac-

tivity to client/server technology. To efficientlyprovide services to city departments, portions ofthe Information Technology Management Divisionlocated in the 809 Building are planned for renova-tion in 2003. This space was last renovated in 1982.These renovations include a floor layout reconfigu-ration to more efficiently organize employees andequipment. Emergency egress and fire suppres-sion systems compliant with current federal re-quirements will also be addressed.

In addition to basic systems, several office areas inthe downtown complex do not meet presentbuilding code requirements for energy efficiency,life/safety design, and ADA accessibility. Alsomany areas and workstations do not meet or lackthe proper use of space due to the changing or-ganizational and functional needs of city depart-ments. These areas will be addressed through thevarious remodeling and reconstruction projectsfunded during the plan, see Table 37.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for gen-eral government maintenance and remodeling in-cludes funding for replacement or upgrade of ma-jor elements of the city’s 220 facilities. This in-cludes remodeling of office space, upgrade of inte-rior systems such as HVAC and building exteriorrepairs.

Maintenance and remodeling capital projectsfunded in the six-year plan include installation orupgrades of the following equipment; HVAC,plumbing, electrical, communications, fire protec-tion and suppression, chillers, boilers, computer-ized facilities management, and security. Fundingis also included for interior remodeling and up-grades for many city agencies. These projects in-

clude office remodeling for various city depart-ments in the downtown complex and remodelingprojects at outlying facilities.

The maintenance and remodeling capital programalso includes funding for building exterior repairs.Exterior repairs include projects such as roof andwindow replacement, masonry repairs, and paint-ing.

As indicated in Table 37, the six-year plan includesfunding for capital projects unspecified at the timethe plan was completed. This funding is necessaryto ensure an adequate level of financial support forfuture general government capital projects.


Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS)Remodeling: The 2002 capital budget includes ap-proximately $2.9 million in funding to remodel theAnderson Municipal Building (Sixth Street south ofHoward Avenue) and the tenth floor of the ZeidlerMunicipal Building. The Anderson Building reno-vation will enable DNS to consolidate the Nuisanceand Environmental Health Section staff. Also, 75

DNS employees will be moved from leased spacein the Hill’s Building at Ninth and Mitchell Streets.The Zeidler Municipal Building tenth floor willprovide space for Inspectors in the CommercialCode Enforcement and Construction Trades Divi-sions.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


Information Technology Management Division(ITMD) Remodeling: As previously mentioned,computer technology has transformed over the lastdecade, from mainframe-based systems to cli-ent/server technology. This has dramaticallychanged the equipment used and staffing of the In-formation Technology Management Division. Thecurrent Halon Fire Suppression System is now for-bidden by federal regulations due to its ozone de-pleting characteristics and must be replaced. Fur-ther, fire safety requirements, specifically ease ofexiting the area, must be addressed. In 2003, $1.7million is provided for ITMD renovation.

Municipal Garage and Outlying Facilities Devel-opment Program: Several DPW facilities includingthe Municipal Garage, are in need of repair, re-placement, or consolidation. Over $16 million isfunded in the 2002-2007 plan for this purpose.

City Hall Restoration Program: Milwaukee’s CityHall is an architecturally significant landmarkbuilding listed on the National Register of Historic

Places. The 2002-2007 plan includes funding of$22.5 for city hall restoration. The initial estimatemade by DPW staff, was based on their prelimi-nary visual analysis of the building’s exterior con-dition and records of work accomplished duringthe 1973-1974 renovation. Several substantialproblems were noted with the towers, exteriorwalls, and interior walls including deterioration,water damage, and substantial cracking. DPWstaff then decided that additional investigation wasneeded to determine the true extent of the repairsand renovation.

Two studies were conducted in 2000 and 2001. Theinitial consultant study consisted of a detailed,“hands-on” visual condition survey of the exteriorof the building. A close inspection occurred in-cluding rappelling down the sides of the building.

The information gathered by the initial studyformed the basis for the second, in-depth investiga-tion. The objective of this phase was to determinethe severity and causes of the distressed condi-

Table 37

Project Title

REMODELING/CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Record Retention Movable Shelving Units $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000Remodel 809 Bldg 4th Floor - Info Technology Mgmt Division 0 1,690,000 0 0 0 0 1,690,000City Attorney's Office - Five Additional Attorney Offices 352,000 0 0 0 0 0 352,000City Attorney's Office - General Office Alterations 0 153,000 0 0 0 0 153,000Dept of Neighborhood Services - ZMB 10th Fl and Anderson Bldg 2,949,990 0 0 0 0 0 2,949,990Municipal Court - Remodel Wisc Correctional Svc Offices 83,900 0 0 0 0 0 83,900Downtown Complex Remodeling 695,000 464,000 0 0 0 0 1,159,000ADA Compliance Program 408,000 484,000 510,000 544,000 550,000 570,000 3,066,000Municipal Garage/Outlying Facilities Development Program 0 1,200,000 4,250,000 3,500,000 3,700,000 3,500,000 16,150,000Fringe Benefits - Buildings 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 2,904,000Space Planning, Alterations and Engineering 150,000 155,000 155,000 160,000 160,000 170,000 950,000

TOTAL REMODELING/CONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS $5,322,890 $4,630,000 $5,399,000 $4,688,000 $4,894,000 $4,724,000 $29,657,890

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

Facility Systems Program $2,808,000 $4,399,000 $4,096,000 $4,158,000 $4,971,000 $5,911,500 $26,343,500Facility Exterior Program 1,108,000 1,900,000 934,000 1,381,000 1,089,000 1,000,000 7,412,000City Hall Restoration Program 2,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 22,500,000

TOTAL MAINTENANCE PROJECTS $6,416,000 $11,299,000 $10,030,000 $10,539,000 $11,060,000 $6,911,500 $56,255,500

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

Equipment Replacement Program $3,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300,000Major Capital Equipment DPW - Operations - Fleet 3,080,000 3,172,400 3,267,572 3,365,599 3,466,567 3,570,564 19,922,702Major Capital Equipment DPW - Infrastructure 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000

TOTAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $6,480,000 $3,272,400 $3,367,572 $3,465,599 $3,566,567 $3,670,564 $23,822,702

OTHER PROJECTS

Consolidated Municipal Garage-Fire Repair Facility Study $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000Technology Initiative 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,500,000FMIS eProcurement 0 390,000 0 0 0 0 390,000Optical Imaging System Software Upgrade 124,945 0 0 0 0 0 124,945Municipal Court Case Management System 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,750,000Unspecified Capital Projects 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 27,000,000

TOTAL OTHER PROJECTS $2,524,945 $1,390,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,500,000 $12,500,000 $34,914,945

GRAND TOTAL OF PROJECTS $20,743,835 $20,591,400 $21,796,572 $21,692,599 $32,020,567 $27,806,064 $144,651,037

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Maintenance and Remodeling

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


tions. Extensive work including disassembly ofparticular parts of the building was conducted andthe scope of the repairs required was determined.A cost estimate and construction plan was devisedand the project cost was estimated at approxi-mately $44 million over five to six years. The sec-ond phase study was critiqued by a peer reviewcommittee. A consensus developed regarding therepair approach and confirmed the cost estimate.

Department of Public Works staff and Budget andManagement Division staff are currently evaluat-ing this extensive, detailed restoration and repairsreport.

In addition, a Historic Structures Report will bewritten by consultants who are experts in historicpreservation to obtain Historic Landmark Statusfrom the National Park Service. This may allowthe city to seek federal funding for a portion of thisproject.

Equipment Replacement Program: This $3.3 mil-lion appropriation in 2002 will replace aged

equipment that is beyond economical repair. Re-tention of such equipment is costly to taxpayersand hampers provision of services. This appro-priation is the first part of a strategic plan to up-grade the city’s equipment fleet and ensure that noequipment is kept past its economic replacementpoint.

Major Capital Equipment: In the 2002-2007 plan$20.5 million is provided for major capital equip-ment. Major capital equipment is durable equip-ment with an original unit cost of $50,000 or more.It includes equipment ranging from dump trucksand garbage packers to a directional-boring ma-chine for conduit installation.

Technology Initiative: During the 2002-2007 plan,this $5.5 program is intended to provide city de-partments with an opportunity to invest in newtechnology. To qualify for funding, departmentsmust submit a business plan that both meets city-wide strategic goals and provides the ability to re-pay the investment in three years or less.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for gen-eral government includes funding to modernizeand expand the city’s existing communications andcontrol resources. These resources consist of tele-phone systems, cellular telephones, data communi-cations systems, Fire and Police communicationsystems including computer-aided dispatch, secu-rity and alarm systems, water and sewer controlsystems, street lighting and traffic signal controlsystems, two-way radio antenna connection sys-tems, and video communications systems. The ca-ble and equipment used to connect all of the abovesystems is a critical part of the city’s communica-tion and control resources. Modernization and ex-pansion of these resources are funded through thecapital budget, whereas operation, maintenance,and inspection are funded in the operating budget.

The primary objective of the communication andcontrol systems is to receive information quickly,reliably, and cost effectively to city offices thatneed it. Most importantly, these systems provide ameans for the city to respond quickly to publichealth and safety needs. Also important is theability to provide communications access to citygovernmental offices which allows them to com-municate with the world.

For the above reasons, the communication and con-trol capital program contributes to several citywidestrategic goals, including: protecting citizens fromcrime and fire hazards, strengthening the quality ofMilwaukee neighborhoods, and ensuring residentsand businesses obtain high value from and pay afair cost for services provided by the city.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The DPW Administrative Serivces Division utilizesthe following criteria to determine its capital needsfor the city’s communication and control system:(1) demands from city departments; (2) current ca-pacities compared to estimated present and futurecommunication needs of various city departments;

(3) age and condition of equipment or cables; (4)cost of maintenance or repairs compared to re-placement costs; (5) functionality of new equip-ment and cables versus old; (6) estimated needsbased on previous experience; and (7) require-ments of city’s paving program.


The Community Safety Wide Area Network(CSWAN) is a system of copper and fiber optic ca-bles, most of which reside in the city's 538.7 milesof underground conduit. The underground con-duit grids the city and protects copper and fiberoptic cables from inclement weather, accidents,vandalism, etc. A small portion of the network isdirect buried or run overhead. Approximately 12miles of cable is installed annually.

The city’s telephone system, including Fire and Po-lice, provides approximately 5,700 telephones for8,184 employees at over 150 site locations, includ-ing telephone lines for about 235 fax machines.The system also provides 1,319 callbox locations.Voice mail services are provided to approximately1,250 city employees, and approximately 750pagers and 800 cellular telephones are in use by

city employees. The Administrative Services Divi-sion completes approximately 1,200 moves andchanges on an annual basis.

The city’s wide area network includes about 80miles of fiber optic cable providing data communi-cation services to 55 sites. Multiple data communi-cations technologies are used. The CSWAN cur-rently has an eight node Nbase Wide Area Net-work (WAN) providing Fast Ethernet data connec-tivity for the Police Department. The city also hasa six switch Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)WAN which is transporting Ethernet and FastEthernet to Buildings and Fleet, DCD, Forestry,Health, Infrastructure Services, Police, Sanitation,Tow Lot, Fire Department, Library, MunicipalCourt, Port, and Water Works locations.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


The ATM network has the capabilities of easily ex-panding the bandwidth and providing multiplenetworks multiplexed into one physical transportlayer. ATM also has the future capability of pro-viding video and telephone communications on thesame network. A smaller portion of the datacommunications system is used for transporting T1circuits for interconnecting telephone switch nodesand Fast Ethernet for Neighborhood Services.

Both Nbase and ATM technologies have failuresurvivability features. The city’s Nbase Wide AreaNetwork has been designed with a spanning treealgorithm to reroute traffic around an open seg-ment should a failure or cable cut occur. Similarly,the ATM network design has a load sharing andload balancing feature that will also reroute trafficaround an open segment. These reroutes can occurso quickly that a user may never know that a cablefailure occurred.

There are several other important services pro-vided under the umbrella of communications and

control resources. Telemetering provides informa-tion and control for water distribution, which isrequired to provide adequate water volume andpressure throughout the city and outlying commu-nities. Telemetering also provides sewer monitor-ing and pump control to help prevent sewerbackup and backwater problems. Traffic signalcontrol helps the smooth and orderly flow of trafficthroughout the city. Street lighting control turnsstreetlights on and off at the appropriate times toprovide adequate lighting while minimizing ex-penses.

Two-way radio antenna connections providetransmission and monitoring of radio frequenciesimportant to fire, police, and municipal operations.Security alarm systems help provide quick re-sponse to theft and burglary attempts. Public ad-dress systems help alert employees of urgent mes-sages. Video communications systems help reduceprisoner transportation costs for the Police andMunicipal Court.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

As shown in Table 38, the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan provides $8.7 million for thecitywide communication and control system.

City Telephone Switch (System) Replacement:Funding of $5 million is provided in 2002-2007 planto replace the long obsolete Rolm system. Thecity’s current telephone system was installed in1984. It is no longer supported by its manufacturerand is very difficult to repair. Technician trainingclasses are no longer offered. Repair parts, in-cluding crucial circuit cards, are virtually unavail-able in the market. Even used parts dealers arediscarding these systems. The parts have to becannibalized from equipment purchased fromfirms that have long ago replaced this equipment.As an alternative, the cards themselves are sent outfor repair at considerable hourly repair expense.Many of the city’s telephones are over 15 years oldand are showing their age.

A new system would provide many advances.These include circuit cards that can directly inter-face into our primary telephone trunk lines. Thenew system will be more compact, allowingsmaller space requirements. Environmental andenergy requirements has dramatically changedover the last 18 years. Wisconsin Gas stated that itwill recover the cost of a new system by energysavings alone over the next several years. Finally,the new system would have the capability to trace911 emergency calls to the specific floor and roomof city buildings. This would be very helpful be-cause calls from over 150 buildings are routedthrough the 809 Building, which is the addressshown on the 911-system display terminals.

Communications and Control: The six-year planprovides funding of $8.7 million to enhance the

Table 38

Project Title

City Telephone Switch Replacement $5,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000Communication and Control System 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 3,726,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $5,621,000 $621,000 $621,000 $621,000 $621,000 $621,000 $8,726,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Communication and Control System

Plan2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


city’s existing cable plant by extending it to loca-tions in need of data interconnect services. Theplan focuses on the Fire Department, Department

of City Development Housing Authority, and pub-lic Libraries. Remaining buildings and networkredundancies will be installed, if possible.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND MANHOLE SYSTEM


The 2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for gen-eral government includes funding for the under-ground conduit and manhole system. The Infra-structure Services Division is responsible for engi-neering, construction, maintenance, and operationof the underground conduit and manhole system,which provides a public safety network for variouscity communication, traffic control, and streetlighting systems. Expansion of the system isfunded through the capital budget, whereas main-tenance and inspection services are fundedthrough the operating budget. Whenever possible,expansion and improvement to the network are di-rectly related to city, state, or county highwaypaving projects and development projects.

The Underground Conduit and Manhole Programsupports several of the city’s strategic goals, in-cluding strengthening the quality of Milwaukee’sneighborhoods, strengthening the local economy,and protecting citizens from crime and fire haz-ards, through its support of a range of city services.

These services include: (1) communication servicesfor all existing and future city facilities; (2) cableservices for the traffic control network, which in-cludes synchronization of citywide traffic controlsignalized intersections and continuous monitoringof remote controlled automatic vehicular trafficcounter stations; (3) cables for various street lightcircuits, special lighting systems, recreationallighting facilities, and the on/off citywide streetlight eye sensor systems; and (4) in those instanceswhere excess capacity exists, a source of revenuethrough rental to private enterprise.

The reliability of the underground conduit andmanhole system is vital to the city because it en-sures effective communication among city facilitiesas well as provision of timely emergency services,such as Police and Fire Department services,needed by the community. The system also en-sures the proper functioning of the street light andtraffic control systems.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The reliability of the underground conduit andmanhole system is vital to the city because it pro-vides communication links to over 200 sites, 76,000street lamps, and 700 traffic signalized intersec-tions. The Infrastructure Services Division uses thefollowing criteria to determine its capital needs forthe underground conduit and manhole system: (1)conduit cable capacity; (2) network capacities andcapabilities; (3) paving program; (4) expansion ofcity facilities; (5) present and future communica-tion needs of city departments; and (6) develop-ment projects.

Much of the network expansion coincides withpaving projects so that underground conduits canbe installed in conjunction with street construction.

This process is not only cost efficient but alsominimizes disruption to vehicular traffic. Most ofthe existing copper cables, which connect city fa-cilities, are housed in the underground conduitsystem and are protected from wind, lightning,and pole damage. If the cables were not housed inunderground conduits, unsightly wood poles andaerial cables would need to be installed for thenetwork systems. This would have an adverse im-pact on the division’s maintenance budget due toaerial cable exposure to the weather and wood poleknockdowns. These unnecessary interruptionswould disconnect vital emergency services neededby the community from the Police and Fire De-partments and other city departments.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT



The existing underground conduit andmanhole network consists of 540.4 milesof underground conduit and 7,348 activemanholes. Figure 28 illustrates the majorcomponents of the underground conduitand manhole system. As shown in Figure28, the vast majority of the system is forcommunications and traffic control withless than 5% of the system dedicated tostreet lighting.

Underground conduits are encased inconcrete and installed under roadways orin areas adjacent to the curb at a depth ofapproximately 30-36 inches. As Figure 28shows, conduit for the communicationsystem is the largest component of theunderground conduit system, at leastthree times as many miles as traffic con-trol conduits.

Between 1995 and 2000, an average of 1.7miles of underground conduit have beeninstalled or replaced annually. Figure 29illustrates underground conduit installa-tion and replacement activity from 1995-2000.

Manholes, which have an estimated usefullife of 75 years, are located along the con-duit line to allow safe and secure access tothe cable. Although manholes vary insize, they average four to six feet in depth.Like the underground conduit system,communication is the largest componentof the manhole system. Between 1995-2000, an average number of 14 new man-holes have been installed each year.

The Infrastructure Services Division performsmaintenance and inspection of the city’s conduitand manhole system. This activity is funded in the

operating budget. Maintenance is scheduled alongwith the annual paving program. The maintenanceprogram not only extends the useful life of the sys-tem but also provides information on the conditionof the system.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

As shown in Table 39, the 2002-2007 Capital Im-provements Plan for the underground conduit andmanhole system totals $4.6 million. Of this fund-ing, $3.2 million is provided for the Underground

Conduit and Manhole Program and $1.3 million isprovided for the Communication, Traffic andLighting Manhole Reconstruction Program.

Figure 28

Number of Manholes

Communication80.1%

StreetLighting

1.0%

TrafficControl18.9%

Miles of UndergroundConduit

Communication74.3%

TrafficControl21.8%

StreetLighting

3.9%

Figure 29

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mile

s of

Con

duit

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Underground ConduitMiles Replaced and Installed 1995 - 2000

Miles Replaced Miles Installed

GENERAL GOVERNMENT


In the 2002-2007 plan, $539,000 is provided annu-ally to install and replace approximately two milesof conduit, and to replace 10 to 15 manholes eachyear. This level is similar to the five-year averagelevel for new conduit installation and replacement.

In addition, the 2002-2007 plan provides $1.3 mil-lion to survey, clean, repair, and replace electricalmanholes. The division estimates that this fundingwill replace 250 manholes and repair 620 manholes.By supporting preventive maintenance of man-holes, the program will avoid more costly replace-ment of manholes resulting from neglect and dete-

rioration. Information from the survey of man-holes will be entered into a database for futuremanhole repair and cable route design.

As previously noted, much of the network expan-sion coincides with paving projects so that under-ground conduits can be installed in conjunctionwith street construction. The division estimatesthat if underground conduits and manholes wereinstalled outside of the paving program, installa-tion costs to the city would be approximately 46%higher each year. This coordination minimizes dis-ruption to vehicular traffic and is cost efficient.

Table 39

Project TitleUnderground Conduit and Manhole Program $539,000 $539,000 $539,000 $539,000 $539,000 $539,000 $3,234,000Communications, Traffic and Lighting, Manhole Reconstruction Program 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 1,326,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $4,560,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for the Underground Conduit and Manhole Program2002

Budget2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N105


SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS

Pabst Theatre Modifications $600,000 $75,050 $75,000 $78,835 $75,000 $75,000 $978,885Consolidated Municipal Garage - Fire Repair Facility Study 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 150,000Municipal Art Fund 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000Grant and Aid Fund 10,300,000 10,300,000 10,300,000 10,300,000 10,300,000 10,300,000 61,800,000Technology Initiative 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,500,000Equipment Replacement Program 3,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,300,000Unspecified 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 27,000,000

TOTAL SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $14,880,000 $11,405,050 $13,405,000 $13,408,835 $22,905,000 $22,905,000 $98,908,885

ADMINISTRATION

Record Retention Movable Shelving Units Vault A $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000FMIS eProcurement 0 390,000 0 0 0 0 390,000Optical Imaging System Software Upgrade 124,945 0 0 0 0 0 124,945Remodel ITMD 809 Building 4th Floor 0 1,690,000 0 0 0 0 1,690,000

TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $324,945 $2,080,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,404,945

CITY ATTORNEY

City Attorney - Five Additional Attorney Offices $352,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,000City Attorney - General Office Alterations 0 153,000 0 0 0 0 153,000

TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY $352,000 $153,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $505,000

DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES

Remodeling Project $2,949,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,949,990TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES $2,949,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,949,990

DEPARTMENT OF CITY DEVELOPMENT

Neighborhood Commercial District Street Improvement Fund $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000Business Improvement District 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000Tax Incremental Districts 14,500,000 11,000,000 9,000,000 9,500,000 9,700,000 9,700,000 63,400,000Development Fund 2,200,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 10,700,000Advance Planning Fund 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000

TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF CITY DEVELOPMENT $17,850,000 $13,850,000 $11,850,000 $12,350,000 $12,550,000 $12,550,000 $81,000,000

2002 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANTABLE 40

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N106


FIRE DEPARTMENT

Engine House #8 - Land Acquisition and New Building $0 $0 $100,000 $1,700,000 $0 $0 $1,800,000Engine House #9 - Floor Repairs 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000Engine House #1 - Alterations 0 0 1,180,000 0 0 0 1,180,000Engine House #2 - Alterations 0 85,000 0 0 0 0 85,000Engine House #6 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #7 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000Engine House #12 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #10 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000Engine House #22 - Alterations 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000Engine House #34 - Alterations 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 1,200,000Engine House #3 - Alterations 980,000 0 0 0 0 0 980,000Repair Shop Addition and Expansion 118 West Virginia 0 0 1,600,000 1,000,000 0 0 2,600,000Major Capital Equipment ($50,000 or more) 1,550,000 2,060,000 1,550,000 2,060,000 1,550,000 2,060,000 10,830,000Ventilation and Toilet Separation - Various Locations 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000Window Replacement - Various Locations 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000Computer Aided Dispatch System 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,000,000

TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,730,000 $3,395,000 $4,630,000 $6,160,000 $4,150,000 $5,860,000 $26,925,000

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Mechanical Systems Maintenance Program - Various Health Department Buildings $0 $176,400 $25,000 $208,500 $20,000 $50,000 $479,900Exterior Building Maintenance Program - Various Health Department Buildings 130,900 198,000 139,800 86,000 520,000 50,000 1,124,700Interior Building Maintenance Program - Various Health Department Buildings 0 112,000 257,100 129,000 27,200 409,100 934,400

TOTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT $130,900 $486,400 $421,900 $423,500 $567,200 $509,100 $2,539,000

LIBRARY

CENTRAL LIBRARY

Central Library Improvements Program $320,000 $725,000 $470,000 $395,000 $795,000 $620,000 $3,325,000Central Library Remodeling Program 175,000 1,050,000 100,000 0 0 75,000 1,400,000

NEIGHBORHOOD LIBRARIES

Neighborhood Library - New Library (Finney) 2,710,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,710,000Neighborhood Library Improvements Program 210,000 443,000 221,000 770,000 931,000 580,000 3,155,000Neighborhood Library Remodeling Program 0 0 1,100,000 1,710,000 950,000 0 3,760,000

TOTAL LIBRARY $3,415,000 $2,218,000 $1,891,000 $2,875,000 $2,676,000 $1,275,000 $14,350,000

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N107


MUNICIPAL COURT

Remodel Wisconsin Correctional Services $83,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $83,900Court Case Management System 1,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,750,000

TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT $1,833,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,833,900

POLICE DEPARTMENT

ADA Compliance Program - Various Dept Facilities $18,914 $19,293 $19,679 $20,072 $20,474 $20,883 $119,315Data Services and Communication Center Construction 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,000,000Interim Radio Replacements (Pending Trunked Radio) 244,000 71,000 71,000 0 0 0 386,000Renovate Police Administration Building 2,100,000 2,152,500 2,206,000 2,261,000 2,318,000 4,752,000 15,789,500Trunked Radio Communications 0 0 8,725,000 6,225,000 0 0 14,950,000District Needs Assessment 0 0 15,000 0 0 15,000 30,000District Station Renovation 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 4,000,000Automated Fingerprint Identification System 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000Additional Parking District Stations 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 450,000Safety Academy Parking Lot Expansion 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000

TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT $9,862,914 $2,542,793 $11,186,679 $10,656,072 $2,338,474 $4,787,883 $41,374,815

PORT OF MILWAUKEE

Major Maintenance - Terminals and Piers $115,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $715,000Major Rehabilitation and Upgrades - Equipment 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000Dockwall Rehabilitation 0 0 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 850,000Harbor Maintenance Dredging 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000***********Grant and Aid********** 0 0 800,000 0 0 0 800,000Cargo Handling Equipment 0 0 50,000 375,000 0 150,000 575,000Resurface Road to Westside of Mooring Basin 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000Analyze and Upgrade Sewer System 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000Pier, Berth and Channel Improvements 470,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 600,000 400,000 2,270,000***********Grant and Aid********** 1,880,000 1,600,000 800,000 800,000 2,400,000 1,600,000 9,080,000New Crane - Heavy Lift Equipment 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000KK River Site Acquisition and Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0***********Grant and Aid********** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rail Track and Service Improvements 75,000 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 225,000Rail Track and Service Upgrades 25,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 0 75,000***********Grant and Aid********** 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 300,000Rail/Water Transfer Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rehab Dockwall KK River Site 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 400,000***********Grant and Aid********** 0 0 800,000 0 800,000 0 1,600,000

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N108


Demolish Deteriorated Facilities and Grade Sites 0 0 75,000 75,000 0 0 150,000

Grant and Aid $1,980,000 $1,600,000 $2,500,000 $800,000 $3,300,000 $1,600,000 $11,780,000

Total City Funding $785,000 $550,000 $2,825,000 $1,050,000 $1,300,000 $1,050,000 $7,560,000

TOTAL PORT OF MILWAUKEE $2,765,000 $2,150,000 $5,325,000 $1,850,000 $4,600,000 $2,650,000 $19,340,000

DPW - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION

DPW Environmental Projects Fund $0 $50,000 $1,150,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000Public Safety Communications 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 621,000 3,726,000City Telephone Switch Replacement 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000

TOTAL DPW - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION $5,621,000 $671,000 $1,771,000 $621,000 $621,000 $621,000 $9,926,000

DPW - OPERATIONS DIVISION

Sanitation Projects

Sanitation Headquarter Modification - Various Sites $275,000 $1,354,000 $600,000 $430,000 $1,125,000 $896,000 $4,680,000

Sub-Total - Sanitation $275,000 $1,354,000 $600,000 $430,000 $1,125,000 $896,000 $4,680,000

Forestry Projects

Concealed Irrigation and General Landscaping - City Boulevards $372,062 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $2,522,062Planting Trees, Shrubs and Evergreens (Paving) Various 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 515,000 3,090,000

Sub-Total - Forestry $887,062 $925,000 $935,000 $945,000 $955,000 $965,000 $5,612,062

Buildings and Fleet Projects

Recreational Facilities - Citywide $163,000 $526,000 $574,000 $554,000 $568,000 $583,000 $2,968,000***********Grant and Aid (CDBG)********** 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 350,000Fringe Benefits - Recreational Facilities 208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000 1,248,000Space Planning, Alterations and Engineering 150,000 155,000 155,000 160,000 160,000 170,000 950,000Downtown Complex Remodeling 695,000 464,000 0 0 0 0 1,159,000City Hall Restoration Program 2,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 22,500,000Facility Systems Program 2,808,000 4,399,000 4,096,000 4,158,000 4,971,000 5,911,500 26,343,500Facilities Exterior Program 1,108,000 1,900,000 934,000 1,381,000 1,089,000 1,000,000 7,412,000ADA Compliance Program 408,000 484,000 510,000 544,000 550,000 570,000 3,066,000Environmental Program 634,000 784,000 680,000 688,000 699,200 712,000 4,197,200Municipal Garages/Outlying Facilities Development Program 0 1,200,000 4,250,000 3,500,000 3,700,000 3,500,000 16,150,000Major Capital Equipment ($50,000 or more) 3,080,000 3,172,400 3,267,572 3,365,599 3,466,567 3,570,564 19,922,702Fringe Benefits - Buildings 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 484,000 2,904,000

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N109


Grant and Aid $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000

Total City Funding $12,238,000 $18,776,400 $20,158,572 $20,042,599 $20,895,767 $16,709,064 $108,820,402

Sub-Total - Buildings and Fleet $12,588,000 $18,776,400 $20,158,572 $20,042,599 $20,895,767 $16,709,064 $109,170,402

TOTAL DPW - OPERATIONS DIVISION $13,750,062 $21,055,400 $21,693,572 $21,417,599 $22,975,767 $18,570,064 $119,462,464

DPW - INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DIVISION

Expansion of Capacity Sewers - Various Locations $3,159,000 $2,909,000 $2,909,000 $2,909,000 $2,909,000 $2,909,000 $17,704,000Development Out-Of-Program Agreement Sewer Program at Various Locations 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000Underground Conduit and Manholes Program Citywide 539,000 539,000 539,000 539,000 539,000 539,000 3,234,000Major Bridge Program 2,116,000 2,076,000 2,332,000 1,986,000 2,082,000 2,092,000 12,684,000***********Grant and Aid********** 5,566,000 4,180,000 2,059,000 2,844,000 1,893,000 6,658,000 23,200,000Street Improvements - City Portion of State and/or Federal Aided Projects 6,146,602 11,311,950 3,867,033 4,323,350 3,724,633 2,881,700 32,255,268***********Grant and Aid********** 17,573,373 23,145,050 10,163,633 15,501,150 9,504,033 10,811,300 86,698,539New Street Construction 851,000 451,000 451,000 451,000 451,000 451,000 3,106,000Street Reconstruction and Resurface 3,817,000 8,217,000 5,092,000 7,092,000 5,092,000 7,092,000 36,402,000***********Grant and Aid (CDBG)********** 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 150,000Alley Reconstruction and Resurface 1,479,000 3,879,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 2,679,000 16,074,000

Sidewalk Replacement Program (Contract and Scattered Sites) 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 11,100,000New Streets - Developer 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000Street Lighting Program - Citywide 6,704,000 6,284,000 6,534,000 6,734,000 6,884,000 6,609,000 39,749,000Emergency Response Management - Opticom Program 147,000 147,000 0 0 0 0 294,000Traffic Control Facilities - Citywide 677,000 682,000 697,000 707,000 707,000 707,000 4,177,000Underground Electrical Manholes (Communication, Traffic Control, Street Lighting) Reconstruction Program 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 221,000 1,326,000Major Capital Equipment ($50,000 or more) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000

Grant and Aid $23,289,373 $27,325,050 $12,222,633 $18,345,150 $11,397,033 $17,469,300 $110,048,539

Total City Funding $28,706,602 $39,566,950 $28,171,033 $30,491,350 $28,138,633 $29,030,700 $184,105,268

TOTAL DPW - INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES $51,995,975 $66,892,000 $40,393,666 $48,836,500 $39,535,666 $46,500,000 $294,153,807

BUDGETED GRANT AND AID $25,619,373 $28,925,050 $14,722,633 $19,145,150 $14,697,033 $19,069,300 $122,178,539

SUBTOTAL CITY - FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS $102,842,313 $97,973,593 $97,845,184 $99,453,356 $98,222,074 $97,158,747 $593,495,267

AP

PE

ND

IX

2002-2007 CA

PITA

L IMP

RO

VE

ME

NTS

PLA

N110


PARKING FUND

4th and Highland - Concrete Sealer and Caulk Joint Renovation $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000MacArthur Square I-43 Ramp Repair 422,000 0 0 0 0 0 422,000Second and Plankinton - Traffic Membrane 0 217,000 217,000 0 0 0 434,000Misc Mechanical Repairs and Upgrades 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 750,000Structural Repairs to Various Structures 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 750,000Replace Revenue Control Equipment - Four Structures 0 940,700 0 0 0 0 940,700MacArthur Square Remembrane Project 0 0 460,000 375,000 405,000 0 1,240,000Milwaukee/Michigan Remembrane Project 0 0 335,000 0 0 0 335,0001000 North Water Street - Membrane Replacement 0 0 193,000 0 0 0 193,0001000 North Water Street - Joint Replacement 0 0 0 225,000 0 0 225,000Fourth and Highland - Painting of Beams and Snow Chute 0 0 205,000 0 0 0 205,000Milwaukee/Michigan Repainting 0 0 0 0 950,000 950,000 1,900,000Fourth and Highland - Recaulking 0 0 0 0 0 475,000 475,000Consolidated Facility for Parking Enforcement 0 1,600,000 0 0 0 0 1,600,000

TOTAL PARKING FUND $822,000 $3,457,700 $1,610,000 $800,000 $1,555,000 $1,625,000 $9,869,700

DPW - WATER WORKS

Distribution Water Main Program $10,000,000 $11,000,000 $12,125,000 $13,310,000 $14,641,000 $16,105,100 $77,181,100Development Out-Of-Program Agreement at Various Locations Throughout the City 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 7,200,000Feeder Main Program 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,210,000 1,331,000 1,464,100 1,610,510 7,715,610Linwood Plant Building Improvements 650,000 200,000 450,000 700,000 0 0 2,000,000Linwood Plant Treatment Improvements 150,000 550,000 300,000 650,000 2,050,000 975,000 4,675,000Howard Plant Building Improvements 200,000 400,000 0 500,000 0 0 1,100,000Howard Plant Treatment Improvements 150,000 150,000 300,000 300,000 350,000 0 1,250,000Pump Facilities Improvements 1,700,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 600,000 850,000 7,100,000Storage Facilities Improvements 0 0 0 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 6,000,000Meter Shop Improvements 0 250,000 200,000 300,000 0 0 750,000

TOTAL DPW - WATER WORKS $15,050,000 $16,100,000 $17,285,000 $21,991,000 $22,805,100 $21,740,610 $114,971,710

DPW - SEWER MAINTENANCE FUND

Sewer Debris Dewatering Sites $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000Sewer Maintenance Relay Program 17,400,000 17,400,000 19,500,000 19,500,000 21,500,000 21,500,000 116,800,000

TOTAL DPW - SEWER MAINTENANCE FUND $17,400,000 $17,600,000 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 $21,500,000 $21,500,000 $117,000,000

TOTAL GRANT AND AID $25,619,373 $28,925,050 $14,722,633 $19,145,150 $14,697,033 $19,069,300 $122,178,539

TOTAL NON-GRANT $136,114,313 $135,131,293 $136,240,184 $141,744,356 $144,082,174 $142,024,357 $835,336,677

TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN $161,733,686 $164,056,343 $150,962,817 $160,889,506 $158,779,207 $161,093,657 $957,515,216


MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Milwaukee’s children are its future. Ensuring thatthe city’s children receive the education and skillsneeded to compete in the job marketplace is criticalto their survival as adults. Ensuring that Milwau-kee’s youth can keep the city economically com-petitive with other cities in the region, across thestate, and throughout the U.S. is vital to Milwau-kee’s economic survival.

Although the City of Milwaukee does not play adirect role in educating children, the city does pro-vide the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) with im-portant assistance in meeting the capital improve-ment needs of the city’s school district. Specifi-cally, the city is required under state law to issuedebt for Milwaukee Public Schools and make prin-cipal and interest payments on this debt. The debtissued by the city on behalf of the school districtgoes to help fund both building maintenance as

well as expansion of capacity projects. By fundingMPS’ capital program, the city plays an importantrole in helping the district provide students withefficient and safe school facilities.

The specific strategic goal which the city’s contri-bution to the MPS capital budget helps to achieveis the one which states: to foster an environmentthat will recognize the importance of lifelonglearning, focus on the educational needs of chil-dren, and provide Milwaukee’s youth with theskills needed to obtain a job, pursue additionaltraining, or go on to college. The mere fact thatone of the City of Milwaukee’s six strategic goals isdedicated to the issue of education, despite the factthat it is not the primary governmental entity en-trusted with running the city’s school system,shows the great importance placed on the issue bycity officials.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The primary assessment mechanism utilized byMilwaukee Public Schools and the City of Milwau-kee to determine the district’s capital needs is theCyclical Major Maintenance Program. This innova-tive program, most recently published in 1999, wasdeveloped in response to the need for a proactiveand long-range approach to major maintenanceprojects at MPS facilities.

The Cyclical Major Maintenance Program ad-dresses the replacement needs of 37 primary com-ponents over a 40 year period that began on Janu-ary 1, 1999. It encompasses 200 Milwaukee PublicSchools facilities including 155 school buildings, 8office buildings, and 37 recreational buildings. Theprogram does not, however, contain informationabout minor, seasonal, and/or as-needed-basismaintenance activities that are funded out of theschools’ operating budget.


As described above, the Cyclical Major Mainte-nance Program outlines replacement needs for 37primary components of MPS facilities. The docu-ment further breaks down the condition of theseassets into four specific rating categories: poor,fair, good, and excellent. A brief description ofwhat constitutes each of these ratings is providedbelow:

Poor Condition:

Over 50% of components are in substandardcondition and/or have failed.

At end of service life, fails to meet functional re-quirements.

Requires excessive and constant attention andmajor corrective repair.



Fair Condition:

25% to 50% of components are insubstandard condition and/orhave failed.

Between the middle and end ofservice life.

Requires some corrective repairand attention.

Good Condition:

Less than 25% of components arein substandard condition and/orhave failed.

Between the beginning and mid-dle of service life.

Requires only routine mainte-nance or minor repair.

Excellent Condition:

Components are new or easilyrestorable to “like new” condi-tion.

At beginning of service life.

Requires only minimal routinemaintenance.

Table 41 shows the rating breakdownof each component category as ofJune, 2001. The average component rating for theMPS Major Maintenance Program overall was 19%Poor; 39% Fair; 21% Good and 21% Excellent.Over the last two years, the overall componentratings have steadily improved.

In addition to utilizing the Cyclical Major Mainte-nance Program for capital planning direction, thecity and MPS are also currently in the final year

(2002) of a six-year capital plan which was adoptedby the Milwaukee Board of School Directors in1996. This plan outlined a series of major renova-tion/expansion projects as well as major mainte-nance activities which the city and school districttogether would fund. During 2002, constructionwill be completed on the Bradley Technical HighSchool.

SIX-YEAR PLAN

A total of $59.5 million will be allocated to MPScapital needs over the next six years (see Table 42).Of this aggregate amount, $2.5 million will go tothe private/public partnership that was formed to

fund the construction of the Bradley Trade andTechnical High School (formerly Milwaukee Tech).

Table 41

Building Component Poor Fair Good Excellent

Air Balancing 24% 20% 23% 33%Air Conditioner - Central 43% 38% 5% 14%Boilers 23% 37% 16% 24%Carpeting 10% 20% 68% 2%Chillers 30% 31% 13% 26%Chimneys - Masonry 12% 32% 42% 14%Coils/Univents 23% 48% 23% 6%Condensate Receivers 36% 20% 24% 20%Cooling Tower And Pumps 35% 15% 10% 40%Curtains - Stage/Gym 4% 53% 31% 12%Dampers/Actuator 10% 26% 25% 39%Door Hardware 13% 24% 7% 56%Doors - Exterior 21% 52% 20% 7%Elevator 8% 26% 52% 14%Emergency Generators 9% 76% 12% 3%Energy Management System 16% 51% 26% 7%Gym Floor - Resilient 40% 60% 0% 0%Lighting Panels - Stage 13% 41% 14% 32%Lockers - Corridor 22% 41% 24% 13%Lockers - Gym and Team 18% 46% 17% 19%Painting - Exterior 23% 16% 35% 26%Parapet Walls - Masonry 24% 26% 20% 30%Parking Lot - Asphalt 9% 74% 15% 2%Parking Lot - Concrete 4% 69% 12% 15%Playground - Asphalt 8% 58% 22% 12%Pool Bulkhead 0% 83% 17% 0%Pool Filtration System 4% 39% 22% 35%Pool Piping 19% 44% 31% 6%Roof 38% 17% 17% 28%Tank - Domestic Hot Water 7% 53% 20% 20%Tennis Court 29% 31% 20% 20%Tot Lot 12% 13% 39% 36%Track - Athletic 17% 41% 0% 42%Traps/Valves/Compressors 13% 43% 6% 38%Vacuum Pumps 21% 15% 13% 51%Vehicle 21% 24% 29% 26%Window Assemblies 27% 36% 13% 24%

Average Rating: 19% 39% 21% 21%Average Rating June 2000 21% 40% 21% 18%Average Rating January 1999 22% 42% 21% 15%

Note: Conditions are based on funding received through June 2001.

Cyclical Major Maintenance ProgramComponent Rating System (as of June, 2001)



During the plan, $2 million is provided annuallyfor ADA improvements at MPS facilities. MPS isresponsible for paying the debt service on thisamount.

The plan also calls for the city’s commitment tofund approximately $7.5 million per year in de-ferred maintenance and certain special remodelingprojects district wide.


As part of the 1999 biennial budget, the Wisconsinlegislature adopted legislation authorizing $170million in borrowing authority for MPS to buildclassroom space for the purpose of expanding thenumber of neighborhood school seats in the districtand reduce the number of MPS students that areinvoluntarily bused within the school district. Thecapital portion of the Neighborhood Schools Plantotals $98.4 million. The debt for this initiative is tobe issued through the Redevelopment Authority ofthe City of Milwaukee.

In September 2000, the Board of School Directorssubmitted a report on the Neighborhood SchoolsPlan to the Joint Committee on Finance and theSenate and Assembly Education Committees. Thereport included the following:

A strategy for achieving the reduction in in-voluntary busing as set forth in the act;

A facility plan specifying neighborhoodschools that are needed, the locations of spe-cialty schools, and the estimated cost of theplan;

Other means by which the pupil capacity ofneighborhood schools will be expanded, whichcould include remodeling and use of nontradi-tional facilities;

Specific plans for establishing neighborhoodschools and replicating or relocating specialtyschools in order to increase the number of pu-pils attending neighborhood schools; and

A description of alternative settings, which arein compliance, that will be used for educatingpupils.

Table 42

Project Title

Maintenance/Remodeling $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $45,000,000ADA Improvements 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000Bradley Tech 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000

TOTAL PROJECTS $12,000,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $9,500,000 $59,500,000

2002-2007 Capital Improvements Plan for Milwaukee Public Schools

2002Budget

2003Plan

2004Plan

2005Plan

2006Plan

2007Plan

Six-YearPlan


Miles of StreetFreeways 40.1 State Highways 25.7 State Maintained Roads 7.0 County Trunk Highways 25.7 County Park Roads 21.7 Harbor and Water Department Roads 1.5 Arterials 279.5 Collectors 72.2 Locals 943.3

Bridges (Number) 217.0 Miles of Alleys 415.0 Miles of Sewers

Storm 953.0 Sanitary 934.0 Combined 546.0

Miles of Sidewalk 2,200.0 Fire Stations (Number) 36.0 Police Stations (Number) 7.0 Public Libraries (Number) 13.0 Recreational Facilities (Number, Includes MPS) 277.0 Miles of Water Mains 1,953.4 Pumping Stations

Major 3.0 Booster 11.0

LightsStreet 66,419.0 Alley 8,790.0

Traffic ControlsSigns (Number) 100,904.0 Signals (Number) 720.0 Controllers (Number) 706.0 Pavement Markings (Miles) 311.0 Crosswalks (Number) 1,688.0

Tax Incremental Districts (Number) 42.0

Inventory of Capital AssetsAs of December 31, 2001

CITY OF MILWAUKEE

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF MILWAUKEE