Milwaukee County committee deadlocks over McGovern Park redevelopment with senior center and affordable housing

Milwaukee County supervisors and department leaders presented and debated a proposal on June 18 to redevelop McGovern Park’s senior center site with a mixed-use building that would house a new, modern senior center and affordable senior apartments developed by Jewish Family Services (JFS). The Finance Committee vote on the proposal ended in a 3–3 tie, meaning the file will go to the full County Board without a committee recommendation.

Why it matters: County leaders said the existing McGovern Senior Center is deteriorating and that rebuilding it without outside capital is not feasible. Supporters said the project leverages federal tax-credit financing and a congressional earmark to deliver a new senior center and dozens of affordable apartments for older adults with minimal direct county construction cost; opponents said the proposal would inappropriately put housing inside parkland and urged alternatives.

County executive and department case: County Executive David Crowley and officials from Milwaukee County Parks, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) framed the plan as a response to a long-running capital backlog and to urgent housing needs for aging residents. Crowley said the project “really reflects the hearts of our strategic plan for Milwaukee County,” arguing it would advance equity, public health, and long-term fiscal sustainability by combining a publicly controlled ground lease with outside capital. County staff showed planning data that the senior center needs at least $1.75 million just to keep the existing building usable and said countywide deferred capital needs exceed $1.1 billion.

Project design and partnership: Milwaukee County officials said they ran a request-for-qualifications process and unanimously selected Jewish Family Services as the preferred nonprofit developer. Under the term sheet presented to supervisors, the county would keep ownership of the land and grant a long-term ground lease (initial 60-year term with potential extensions up to 99 years) to JFS; JFS would finance, build, operate, and maintain the building. County staff described a conceptual plan placing a single building within a 5.5-acre corner of McGovern Park, preserving most park open space and opening up access to a lagoon blocked by the current building. Staff said the existing senior center occupies roughly 13,000 square feet with about 9,000 square feet of usable interior space and that the proposed plan would expand available senior-center programming space.

Financing and schedule: Officials told the committee they plan to leverage Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other outside sources. The administration identified a potential $2 million congressional appropriation that could be used on the project and said JFS would bring additional fundraising and private investment. Staff said the LIHTC application cycle requires a project application by December 2025, with potential tax-credit awards in May 2026, design and zoning to follow, a construction start in 2027, and an anticipated opening in 2028 if all approvals and financing align. County staff also said the county may need to commit $4–$5 million by December 2025 to make the financing viable for the LIHTC round.

Community engagement and objections: County staff and the Office of Equity described multiple rounds of listening sessions and door-to-door outreach. Staff reported that early engagement involved hundreds of people, with mixed results: some outreach respondents supported a new center, others opposed any housing in the park. More than 20 public commenters spoke during the committee meeting; several longtime park users and neighborhood residents said they opposed placing housing in parkland or said they had not been adequately informed. Advocates and some members of the County’s Commission on Aging spoke in favor, saying the existing building cannot meet contemporary needs and that combining a new center with affordable senior housing is the only financially viable option at scale.

Design, park protections and operations: Parks officials said the ground lease term sheet would require JFS to replace any impacted trees, preserve park amenities outside the development footprint, and provide county oversight of building design and maintenance. A future building lease would specify the senior-center space, and Parks said the project would not involve sale of parkland. The term sheet calls for performance standards and maintenance responsibilities to shift largely to the developer/owner.

Outstanding issues: Supervisors and public commenters repeatedly asked for clearer details on (1) the project’s final financing plan and exact gap amounts; (2) security, parking and enforcement for overnight resident parking; (3) who qualifies for the affordable units and the visitor/overnight rules; (4) a timeline showing when county officials first learned of project milestone changes; and (5) whether alternatives outside parkland had been fully exhausted. County staff acknowledged outstanding gaps: they said additional local approvals, municipal zoning actions, a county financial commitment late in 2025, and state/local coordination would be needed before construction.

Committee action and next steps: A motion to recommend adoption of the term sheet failed in a 3–3 tie in the Finance Committee. The committee’s chair announced the resulting no-recommendation will send the file to the full County Board for consideration. County staff said they will continue outreach, share project timelines and financing details with supervisors, and return with zoning, fundraising, and design updates if the Board approves the term sheet.

Ending: The proposal exposed a central trade-off for supervisors: a path to build a larger, modern senior center at near-zero county construction cost versus the political and preservation costs of placing affordable housing within park boundaries. The County Board will take the final vote on the redevelopment plan at a later meeting.