Council hearing exposes split over using TIF for workforce housing; DCD warns files premature, developers press for clearer, faster guidance

Committee members and city staff debated how and whether to expand Milwaukee’s use of tax-increment financing (TIF) to support “workforce” or “attainable” housing after two resolutions directing DCD to finalize TIF amendments were introduced by the sponsor.

Sponsor Alderman Michael Perez said developers and community advocates had asked for clearer, predictable city guidance and more active aldermanic involvement in TIF decisions. “No one disputes that the city lacks affordable workforce housing,” Perez said, calling for a regularized TIF approach to unlock projects outside the downtown core.

Department of City Development staff urged caution, telling the committee the resolutions asked DCD to finalize amendments that do not yet exist and that the TIF‑creation process is governed by state statutes with 15 required procedural steps, including public notices, redevelopment‑authority reviews and coordination with taxing jurisdictions. A DCD representative told the committee the resolutions were “incredibly premature” and noted that DCD had shared draft workforce-guideline ideas with council members earlier in the year and received varied feedback.

Developers testifying, including Tim Gockman of Newland Enterprises, said market conditions — notably a roughly 40% rise in construction costs since 2020 and higher interest rates — had made many workforce-scale projects unfinanceable without city assistances. “Construction costs are up more than 40% since 2020,” Gockman said, arguing that quicker, predictable local assistance would keep projects in Milwaukee rather than have developers move to suburbs that are perceived as faster and easier to work with.

Gockman and others also argued that workforce‑oriented TIFs (targeting households between roughly 60–100% of area median income) are financially different from subsidized affordable housing and can be advanced with properly structured city incentives in some cases; DCD staff and developers agreed that affordable housing serving 60% AMI and below typically requires larger subsidy sources beyond municipal TIF.

After extended exchange about statutory steps, policy tradeoffs, and the need for aldermanic input, sponsors asked the committee to hold the two TIF files (File 241,960 and File 241,961) to the call of the chair so staff, sponsors and developers could continue negotiations and draft necessary TID project plans and public-notice materials. The committee agreed to hold the items.