Milwaukee County committee recommends rejecting ground-lease term sheet for mixed-use senior center and affordable housing at McGovern Park

Milwaukee County supervisors rejected a proposal June 12 that would have authorized a ground-lease term sheet with Jewish Family Services Inc. (JFS) to build a mixed-use development at McGovern Park that would include a new senior center and affordable housing.

County departments presented the project as a solution to an aging McGovern Senior Center and a way to leverage outside funding — including a $2,000,000 congressional earmark and low-income housing tax credits — to deliver a modern senior center while adding affordable units targeted toward older adults. After more than two hours of presentations, public comment and three committee motions, the Health Equity, Human Needs and Strategic Planning Committee voted 3–2 to recommend rejection of the term sheet; the matter will appear on the County Board agenda with that committee recommendation.

County officials said the McGovern building — roughly 50 years old — faces significant deferred maintenance and that a standalone replacement would be unaffordable under the county’s current capital constraints. “There is not another stop on the road for the McGovern Senior Center. This is the end of the road,” Isaac Rowlett, Milwaukee County strategy director, told the committee, arguing that pairing a senior center with affordable housing opens financing options that would not otherwise exist.

The proposal, negotiated by Milwaukee County Parks with JFS, would keep the land in county ownership and establish a long-term ground lease for the southeast corner of McGovern Park, an area the presenters said is about 5.5 acres. Parks Director Guy Smith said the county would not sell parkland and that the agreement uses a lease rather than a conveyance. County staff described three contract phases captured in the term sheet: a ground lease for the land, a development agreement governing design and construction, and a future building lease for the senior-center space inside the finished building.

County budget staff and the Department of Administrative Services outlined the financial context motivating the proposal. The county’s five‑year capital needs are roughly $1.1 billion versus roughly $375 million of capacity under the county’s bonding cap, producing an estimated shortfall of about $743 million in the capital program. Joe Lamers, Office of Strategy, Budget and Performance director, said senior-center maintenance needs across the county total more than $20 million in the five-year plan and that the county cannot finance all slated building projects through traditional bonding. He described the McGovern proposal as “a creative solution” that uses external financing to provide a new community facility the county could not otherwise afford.

Housing staff explained how low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) would be integral to the financing. James Manthi, Administrator of Housing Services at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), told the committee, “We do have a $2,000,000 appropriation. This was a congressional earmark meant for affordable housing,” and said that the earmark needed a project identified quickly to meet HUD timing requirements. Manthi and other staff explained that LIHTC proceeds can be used to finance “community service” portions of a building — meaning some capital for the senior-center component could be included in a tax-credit financing that primarily funds the apartments.

JFS representatives described their organization as a mission-driven affordable-housing developer with experience integrating community space into housing projects. Dan Fleishman, vice president of housing at JFS, told the committee JFS embeds supportive services in its developments and manages properties on-site daily. County staff said JFS was selected through a request-for-qualifications process and pointed to JFS-managed projects, including a Brown Deer building that contains the Brown Deer Community Center, as evidence of its experience.

County staff and JFS presented a conceptual site plan showing the new building moved slightly toward Sherman Boulevard to open access to the park’s lagoon once the current building is removed. Parks staff emphasized that mature trees would be preserved where feasible, that the development would be governed by contractual obligations in the lease and development agreement and that maintenance responsibility for the new building would shift to the developer/owner.

Public comments split roughly along familiar lines. The County Commission on Aging and several residents urged approval, arguing that the existing McGovern building is too small and too deteriorated and that seniors need modern facilities. Jan Wilberg, chair of the County Commission on Aging, told the committee the commission “enthusiastically supports the proposed McGovern Senior Center Senior Housing Project” and said the concept tracks recommendations in the MKE Hubs report on redesigning senior centers.

Opponents — including neighborhood residents and grassroots groups — said the county should not allow housing on parkland and said the community engagement process had not been adequate. Speakers raised concerns about precedent (leasing parkland for development), public access, parking, safety and possible gentrification or tax impacts on long-term homeowners near McGovern Park.

Committee deliberations produced three formal motions in sequence. A motion by Supervisor Vincent to lay the item over for one meeting failed 4–1. A subsequent motion to recommend adoption of the term sheet (mover: Supervisor Gomez Tom) failed 3–2. Finally, Supervisor Alexander moved that the committee recommend rejection; that motion passed 3–2. The committee’s recommendation for rejection will be reported to the full County Board, which will consider the matter on the board floor and in subsequent committee reviews (Finance was already listed as a referral). County staff said if the committee does not approve the term sheet, the county would need to identify another “shovel-ready” project for the $2 million earmark or risk losing the funds.

What’s next: staff said JFS would begin zoning work and prepare a LIHTC application if the term sheet is approved; the LIHTC application window referenced in the presentation opens late in the year and awards are typically announced the following spring. Staff cautioned that missing the current LIHTC cycle would likely delay any tax-credit-dependent schedule by two years. County officials also said they will continue community engagement and would return to the County Board for design approvals, development agreements, and any appropriation of funds.

Votes at a glance - Motion to lay Item 1 over for one meeting (Supervisor Vincent): Failed, 1–4 (Vincent yes; Gomez Tom no; Alexander no; Martin no; Chairman no). The motion was recorded as failing on a roll call. - Motion to recommend adoption of Item 1 (move by Supervisor Gomez Tom): Failed, 2–3 (Gomez Tom aye; Chairman aye; Alexander no; Martin no; Vincent no). The committee did not forward a recommendation of adoption. - Motion to recommend rejection of Item 1 (move by Supervisor Alexander): Approved/recommend rejection to County Board, 3–2 (Alexander aye; Martin aye; Vincent aye; Gomez Tom no; Chairman no). The committee’s prevailing vote was to recommend rejection; the item remains on the County Board agenda with that committee recommendation.

Key clarifying details - Funding: County staff identified a $2,000,000 federal earmark currently available for an affordable-housing project; DHHS said this earmark must be allocated to a project in HUD’s system to preserve the funding. Staff described additional financing through low-income housing tax credits plus developer equity, philanthropy and other grants; a developer financing line item was discussed during the presentation but final totals and the project capital stack were “estimates” and would be refined in later development agreements. - County capital context: The county’s five‑year capital plan showed roughly $1.1 billion in identified capital needs vs. $375 million of bonding capacity, leaving an estimated $743 million shortfall. Staff said senior-center maintenance alone accounts for more than $20 million in near-term capital needs. - Site: The concept plan focuses development on an already developed portion of the southeast corner of McGovern Park (approximately 5.5 acres). Parks staff said no parkland would be sold and the county would retain ownership via a long-term ground lease. - Agreements: The term sheet contemplates a 60-year ground lease with options to extend (county staff noted extensions could reach 99 years in some scenarios), a development agreement setting design/construction obligations and a building lease guaranteeing senior-center space inside the project. Parks staff emphasized milestones, county oversight on design, and long-term maintenance responsibilities shifting to the developer/owner.

Speakers (attribution whitelist) - Guy Smith, Executive Director, Milwaukee County Parks (government) - Isaac Rowlett, Strategy Director, Milwaukee County (government) - Joe Lamers, Director, Office of Strategy, Budget and Performance (government) - Aaron Hertzberg, Director, Department of Administrative Services (government) - Shaquita LaGrant McLean, (presented; identified with senior services / outreach roles; government) - James (Jim) Manthi, Administrator, Housing Services, Department of Health and Human Services (government) - Dan Fleishman, Vice President, Housing, Jewish Family Services (nonprofit) - Jan Wilberg, Chair, Milwaukee County Commission on Aging (citizen/board) - Gene Gaskowski, Commission on Aging, chair of the Senior Center Committee (citizen) - Crocker Stevenson, Commission on Aging vice chair (citizen) - Supervisor LaKeisha Vincent (District 11), Supervisor Sean Rolland (chair), Supervisor Alexander, Supervisor Gomez Tom, Supervisor Martin (elected members present)

Authorities cited in the record - {"type":"grant","name":"$2,000,000 congressional earmark (HUD) allocated to Milwaukee County for affordable housing","referenced_by":["James Manthi","presentation"]} - {"type":"other","name":"Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)","referenced_by":["James Manthi","presentation"]} - {"type":"other","name":"MKE Hubs report / Commission on Aging recommendations (Milwaukee County)","referenced_by":["Shaquita LaGrant McLean","Jan Wilberg"]} - {"type":"contract","name":"Ground lease agreement term sheet (Milwaukee County Parks and Jewish Family Services)","referenced_by":["Guy Smith","presentation"]} - {"type":"policy","name":"Milwaukee County five-year capital plan and county bonding cap","referenced_by":["Joe Lamers","presentation"]}

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Departments presented fiscal context, site concepts, partner qualifications and community engagement findings. Supporters argued the existing building is obsolete and the combined financing is the only practical path to a new senior center. Opponents argued parkland should not be leased for housing and asked for broader public hearings and safeguards against precedent-setting uses of parkland. - Direction/assignments: Staff described next procedural steps if approved: finalize a development agreement, JFS begin zoning and LIHTC application work, and county approvals for appropriations and development milestones to return to the board. Staff also stated they would continue community outreach regardless of the committee action. - Formal committee decision: The committee voted to recommend rejection of the term sheet to the County Board (see “Votes at a glance” above). That recommendation will be transmitted to the full board; the administration retained authority to continue working with JFS but stated additional county approvals would be required before construction or appropriation of funds.

Community relevance - Geographies: McGovern Park and surrounding Sherman Boulevard / 53218 neighborhood; city of Milwaukee; Milwaukee County - Impact groups: older adults who use McGovern Senior Center (current patrons), low-income older adults who could occupy affordable units, park users and nearby homeowners

Implementation risk and timeline - Implementation risk: high (project depends on LIHTC awards and other outside fundraising, plus zoning and design approvals). Staff repeatedly noted time sensitivity tied to the LIHTC application cycle; missing this cycle could delay the project two years. - Next deadlines described by staff: zoning work to be completed by December 2025 to meet the LIHTC application timeline; if LIHTC awarded, awards announced around May 2026 and design/construction phasing could follow; staff said construction might start in 2027 under an accelerated timeline but emphasized many discretionary approvals would be required.

Proper names (extracted) [{"name":"Jewish Family Services","type":"organization"},{"name":"Milwaukee County Parks","type":"agency"},{"name":"Department of Health and Human Services","type":"agency"},{"name":"Department of Administrative Services","type":"agency"},{"name":"Office of Strategy, Budget and Performance","type":"agency"},{"name":"Commission on Aging","type":"organization"},{"name":"MKE Hubs","type":"other"},{"name":"McGovern Park Senior Center","type":"facility"},{"name":"McGovern Park","type":"location"}]

Provenance (transcript evidence) - topicintro: {"block_id":"s=135.905","local_start":0,"local_end":186,"evidence_excerpt":"Item 1, a report from the Executive Director, Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS, executive director, Department of Parks, and executive director, Department of Administrative Services, authorizing Milwaukee County to approve a ground lease agreement term sheet with Jewish Family Services Inc and its assigns and affiliates for development of a mixed use senior slash community center and affordable housing project at McGovern Park and to take related actions to support the feasibility and advancement of the project."} - topfinish: {"block_id":"s=11134.94","local_start":0,"local_end":192,"evidence_excerpt":"On the motion by supervisor Alexander that item number 1 be recommended for rejection. Supervisor Gomez Tom? No. Alexander? Aye. Martin? Aye. Vincent? Aye. Mr. Chairman? No. 3 ayes, 2 no's. The motion prevails."}

Searchable tags:["McGovern Park","Jewish Family Services","senior center","affordable housing","low income housing tax credit","parks lease","Milwaukee County","Commission on Aging"]

Salience and engagement forecast {"salience":{"overall":0.85,"overall_justification":"Large local policy decision combining parkland use, affordable housing policy and capital funding choices; committee vote forwarded a recommendation to reject; LIHTC timing adds urgency."},"engagement_forecast":{"newsworthiness":{"national":0.10,"regional":0.45,"local":0.95,"justification":"Local civic conflict over parkland, housing, and senior services with an upcoming County Board vote and a federal earmark at stake."},"notify_recommendation":{"audience":"city","reason":"High local interest; committee action will be considered by full County Board; timely due to LIHTC cycle.","justification":"Recommend notifying local city and county policy reporters, parks and housing advocacy groups."}}}],