Milwaukee Community Land Trust outlines countywide expansion, homeownership model for Shorewood

At a Shorewood Community Development Authority meeting, Lamont Davis, executive director of the Milwaukee Community Land Trust, described the trust’s countywide homeownership model and what it would mean for a village pilot program. Davis said the land trust now operates with nine board members and two staff and has expanded from city limits to serve Milwaukee County.

The presentation mattered because the land‑trust model preserves long‑term affordability by separating land ownership from home ownership and capping resale appreciation. Davis said the countywide approach is intended to create scale, deepen affordability and reduce administrative overhead compared with multiple small local trusts.

Davis described the organization and its staffing: “We are a very small organization. We have 9 board members. We have 2 staff. I’m the executive director,” and said the trust’s homeownership work also relies on a homeownership manager on staff. He said the trust began work in earnest after a Freddie Mac technical‑assistance grant and hired an executive director in October 2021.

On how the model works, Davis summarized the dual‑ownership structure: the trust typically acquires or partners on the land, conveys the home and improvements to the buyer, and retains title to the land under a long ground lease. He said, “The goal with the countywide land trust is really simple. It’s economy of scale. We wanna be more efficient.” He added: “For every unit that we create, it’s gonna permanently be available for a low‑income buyer.”

Key program mechanics Davis discussed include a 99‑year renewable ground lease, a resale formula that caps appreciation at 1.25% simple interest annually on the subsidized sale price, and a monthly lease fee the trust collects for stewardship. He gave specific examples from Milwaukee: one early sale was priced at about $80,000 after subsidies; the homeowner received roughly $22,000 in down‑payment assistance, and the MCLT subsidy reduced the mortgage principal. Davis said typical mortgage payments in their examples have been in the $400–$700 range depending on subsidy and that the trust charges a $100 monthly fee (about $50 for a maintenance escrow and $50 as the land lease fee).

Davis said the trust has secured philanthropy and some city support — citing a $200,000 grant repurposed from an expired TIF district in Milwaukee — but that philanthropy remains the largest funding source. He identified partner organizations and approaches the trust uses to find and produce units, including working with nonprofit and for‑profit developers, existing home‑buyer counseling agencies and local developers; Davis named Via CDC (a neighborhood nonprofit partner), a for‑profit developer group called 15 Olive and said the trust is starting a pilot with Habitat for Humanity.

The trust’s current and near‑term scale figures mentioned in the meeting: the portfolio contains 10 units now, with about eight more expected in 2025; long‑term growth goals discussed included targeting roughly 300 units in the service area to achieve program scale. Davis said income targeting differs by community: Milwaukee targets around 45% of area median income (AMI) in practice and uses 80% AMI as an upper eligibility cap; for Shorewood he suggested a higher target, roughly 65% AMI, which affects the subsidy needed.

Davis addressed taxes and assessor practices using the Milwaukee example: because the land is owned by the nonprofit trust, the land is taxed (or exempt) separately and, in Milwaukee, the assessor has split the parcel so homeowners pay taxes only on the house and improvements. Davis said the city has agreed to monitor the approach and that the trust is seeking assessor acceptance of the 1.25% resale methodology. He cautioned that each assessor’s office will require local agreements.

Davis emphasized stewardship and foreclosure prevention as program strengths. He said land‑trust homeowners were far less likely to enter foreclosure in past downturns because the trust provides counseling, early outreach and, when needed, short‑term financial help or intercession with lenders.

Board members and staff asked detailed operational questions about duplexes, landlord support, utilities and assessments. Davis said duplex owners would generally own the structure and could rent one unit but the trust would limit rents (for example, not to exceed about 75% of market rent for a unit) and increase maintenance reserves for multiunit ownership. He said the trust will encourage landlords to complete landlord‑tenant training programs and provide stewardship support, but would not itself be a day‑to‑day property manager for every owner.

No formal action was taken; several committee members asked the trust to provide a more concrete, local feasibility example. The CDA requested that MCLT return with a basic framework and a broker price opinion or sample transaction to illustrate how a Shorewood deal would work and what subsidy level would be required. Meeting participants also discussed possible next steps such as a targeted market‑feasibility exercise or consultant engagement to test a specific Shorewood listing against the land‑trust model.

Several members voiced operational concerns about village staff capacity and the village’s budget constraints and emphasized the need for any pilot to minimize staff burden. Participants also raised questions about the village’s loss of tax revenue on the land parcel (homeowners still pay taxes on homes and improvements) and asked for clearer cost estimates for subsidies and ongoing program operations.

Davis and the authority agreed to follow up: MCLT will provide a basic framework and, if available, a broker opinion or example closing; the CDA will consider a feasibility exercise and identify whether consultant support or a technical adviser would be needed to complete a transaction model. No vote or commitment of funds was made at the meeting.