Court Opinion

ID: 9686073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:25:31.213966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:14.352681
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority's view that in determining whether a project is a "project of public works" under § 66.293(3), Stats., we must look at the particular characteristics of the project and evaluate the "pertinent factors" including those the majority discusses. Majority op. at 265. Here, when I do so, I conclude that the Riverwalk is a "project of public works."
As the majority acknowledges, the City of Milwaukee has provided the overwhelming portion of the funding for the Riverwalk — a total of $9,296,000, while special assessments on private property account for $1,945,000 and Midwest Express has contributed $100,000. In addition, the City, through the BID and the MRD it established, has maintained virtually complete control over the creation, potential termination, design, and implementation of the project. Thus, clearly, the BID and the MRD have served as the City's "alter-egos" and have provided the apparatus through which the City has been able to exert such control. Finally and simply, the Riverwalk, in form and function, is so apparently a "project of public works" that swimming through the statutes and case law to conclude otherwise seems a strenuous upstream effort to defy common sense.
The flaw in the majority's reasoning is reflected by its emphasis on the distinction between the City owned *267and non-City owned segments of the Riverwalk. Granted, if such a distinction facilitates a realistic determination of whether a project is one "of public works," it should be embraced. Here, however, where the project is a sidewalk linking private and public properties and providing a walkway for all citizens using both private and public facilities, I believe the segmented analysis renders an unrealistic result. Indeed, without the cooperative linkage of the private and public segments, I suspect the City would not have been inclined to provide millions of dollars and, certainly, the Riverwalk would not have been possible.
Thus, I believe that the majority's segment-based analysis has undermined what should have been a commonsense evaluation of whether the Riverwalk is a "project of public works." Attempting to apply that commonsense evaluation, I conclude that the Riverwalk is a "project of public works" subject to the prevailing wage requirements of § 66.293(3), Stats. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.