Um good morning, everyone.

This is Vincent Bobbin.

I'm the chair of the Ministry of Review Board of Appeals.

Today's date is April twenty-eighth.

Uh we're gonna start our nine o'clock agenda.

Uh right now, number one, the appeal of Jonathan Apple is not present, so we're gonna wait.

Number two has already been resolved.

And number three, at this time I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, I moved a hold for the call of the chair.

Okay, do I have a second?

Liz, are you able to hear any discussion?

Hearing uh no objections, so order.

Uh so we before we go on to our uh nine thirty about nine twenty-five, I'm gonna call the appeal of Jonathan Apple.

But uh basically we will not be hearing any cases until nine thirty good morning, Mr.

Larison.

Uh I cannot hear you, Mr.

Larison.

Still can't hear you, so we'll have to check that out.

And good morning, Sydney from Smart Asset.

Uh Sydney, what time is your are you here for an appeal?

Yep, it says on the letter we received nine AM today eighth.

And which case are you here for?

We're here for me look real quick.

It's for an appeal for Matt Hermage.

Um it says it's under file two six zero three seven.

Um I'm trying to locate it on my agenda.

What time is it set for?

Nine, it says nine a.m.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Joanna.

This is um Sydney, this is for um for smoking mobile fees on fifty one oh one with Lincoln Avenue?

Yes.

Yeah, I received uh word from the department that that item was settled.

Okay.

Thank you.

No, thank you.

Okay, and thank you, uh Sydney.

Have a wonderful day.

Mr.

Bobbit, let's try this again.

Yes, and now you're working.

Good morning, and uh we'll come back in about 10 minutes and see if uh appeal of Jonathan Oppo is here.

And then uh we'll be commenced with our nine thirty agenda.

Uh we don't have any information on item eight in terms of settlement.

We're prepared either way, is cool.

Okay, because right now I thought that it was settled, but right now no.

I mean it it may be on your end if the appeal decide to drop his appeal, but I don't have any settlement on my end.

Oh thank you for the information.

Quick test.

Are we starting to hear me?

Are we starting here for the meeting?

I'm just making sure I'm here for my appeal.

This is Michael Royce for Poppy 2739, North Nine Street.

Okay, nine thirty, I'll be back on, right?

Joanne, are you there?

Do you know whether or not uh Jeffrey Jonathan Apple appeared?

It's number one for Bullhop.

I don't have any communication or any messages from the eye.

He's not present and he's not uh connected virtually either.

Okay, uh Kendrick, are you able to hear me and Liz?

Yep, I'm here.

And Liz, are you able to hear me?

Yes, I can.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna call number one the appeal of Jonathan Apple, huh?

Cool ventures LLC for vacant registration building fees for 1315 West Finn Place.

Six Alderman District.

This was set for 9 a.m.

It is now 929.

At this time, I'll entertain entertain a motion for denial based on non-appearance.

Do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair move to dismiss for non-appearance.

Okay, I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

Uh so ordered.

And very shortly.

We'll be doing our 9:30.

Okay, according to my watch, it's 9 30.

And the agenda is number four.

26032, the appeal of Felicia Mail for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3327 North 25th Street.

Uh Miss Mayo, are you with us?

Okay, I do not hear Miss Mail.

So we will pass this case briefly and we'll call number five, the appeal of Michael Rice for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 2739 North Ninth Street in the 15th Automatic District.

Mr.

Rice, would you um I'm present with the tenant, 2739 North Ninth Street?

And um, where are you on my screen?

Are you with Mr.

G?

Yes.

I'm on audio.

Uh respectfully, Commissioner.

Last last court date.

I reviewed the letter and I even talked to the receptionist about this.

You only you guys, you guys allow us to do audio or video.

The tenant is on video.

I'm on audio.

I uh so uh I'm we're I'm comp I'm complying with what you guys are requiring us to do.

So uh if people are gonna change things as they feel fit, that's not right.

So, but I'm here on audio just like I was last meeting, and we had a bad reception, and you guys made a continuance, but the the set the tenant is with me here as well as I am for this hearing for the second time.

Well, yeah, I understand that, but uh because of what happened with you last time on the new notice.

We informed people we have to have the video.

Did you receive that?

And Mr.

Chair, I want to clarify the hearing notice in both instances have had the wording that the appearance need to appear virtually and have their camera on at all times.

Well, well, I'm not I'm the person that's that's that um that's going virtual because I'm the one that's that's that's um talking about the complaint and whatever because it was at my house.

So basically I'm going to be the one that's testifying and everything about the whole ordeal.

So the landlord, he's just basically sitting in the background to hear the outcome of it.

Okay, is that acceptable to you, Mr.

Rice?

That just Mr.

G would be witness.

Well, he's the renter, he took care of the garbage that was reported, and uh I saw all the photos.

He complied with everything, and we're gonna talk about that right now.

So I'm just here as the kind of mentioned just to see what uh how does it gonna outcome?

Well, I guess you didn't answer my question though, Mr.

Rice.

What was the question, sir?

Is it acceptable that Mr.

G is the only witness in your appeal?

Yes, because he's the only one that that took care of the garbage with uh the to comply with the city, right?

Because I'll let you ask him questions and everything, but the problem we have for you testifying as a witness is we require visual and audio.

No, I I'm not I'm not a witness.

I I saw you want the owner as well on there.

If you don't if I'm I I okay, let's just be clear so we can get down with the hearing.

I didn't pick up the garbage.

I I uh I don't I don't live at the property, I'm simply the owner.

He did everything that he just mentioned to you.

I'm simply here as an observer, then I'll I'll I'll mute my phone right now.

No witness.

No, no, you can ask him questions, and he could be the witness, but I'm just saying that you can't testify.

No, I'm going to be only one that's testifying.

Right.

So at this time, uh, who's appearing for the city?

Mr.

Chairman, this is Peter Larrin with neighborhood services.

Okay, Miss Polacco, would you please swear in both witnesses?

You told me I promised that the face of penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Okay, Mr.

Mr.

G.

Yeah.

Okay, could you raise your right hand and Miss Polanco?

Could you uh give the walls to Mr.

G.

Penalties of perjury?

That the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes, and Mr.

G, what is your full name?

Galathian Hall.

Okay, how do you spell your first name?

G A L A T H E A N last name is H A L L.

Yes, sir.

Okay, uh Mr.

Lartson.

Uh, you may proceed, Mr.

Chairman.

So this is regarding a cleanup order.

Um, we received a complaint on October 15th of 2025.

The inspector verified and posted the property on 1028, 2025.

And the contractor cleanup was November 12th of 2025.

Um, you have the pictures of the before and after uh from the contractor cleanup.

I think they speak for themselves.

Um, I'm available to answer any questions.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Rice or and Mr.

Hall.

Have you seen the photographs?

Yes, I have.

Mr.

Rice, have you seen the photographs?

Yes, I have.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Hall, do you have any questions of Mr.

Laritza?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Um, one question I want to know is what do y'all have?

What is what is y'all's policy on the city going in people's yard?

Because I have a six-foot fence around my whole yard.

I have a privacy fence put up around my whole yard.

So, what gave them the right to come into my private property where the six-foot fence around my whole yard?

What gave them the right to come into my yard and take things out of my yard that wasn't even supposed to get taken out?

Another thing.

Hold on a second.

That's one question.

I'm gonna tell you right now, Mr.

Larron, you do not have to answer that question.

The issue we're here today for is uh what the appeal is, and that's for garbage and litter nuisance fees.

So you may start with your next question.

Okay, my next question is when they started this account, they showed a pile of trash that was in my a wood pile that was in my yard.

Okay, so if y'all show one wood pal that was in my yard, and I cleaned up that wood pal, as you can see in the pictures.

Well, Mr.

Mr.

Hall, this is your your time to ask questions of Mr.

Lartson.

Oh, okay.

My bad, my bad, my bad, my bad.

Okay.

Do you have any questions of Mr.

Larritzen?

Well, no, we can go ahead and get it on.

Okay, are there any questions from board members of Mr.

Hall?

Okay, Mr.

Hall or Mr.

Larrison.

One last second.

Uh Mr.

Iandel.

I'm sorry, I just want to clarify.

Are we asking questions of Mr.

Hall or Mr.

Laritzen at this point?

Uh you can ask uh Mr.

Larrin.

I'm sorry, I didn't spoke.

That's okay.

I don't have any.

Well, actually, um, I don't have any questions right now.

I'd like to hear the witness's testimony.

Okay, Mr.

Hall, you may proceed.

Okay, um a guy came to my house when I was back there, and he said that I had to clean up the trash that was in my backyard.

I said, okay, I would clean it up.

If y'all can see the pictures from the original date that he started it, he only shows one pile of trash that was in my backyard.

It shows three pictures.

The first when it started on October the 28th, or whatever, it shows three pictures of one pile of trash that was in my backyard.

Okay.

Now that's what started the initial case because I had that pile of trash in my yard.

Now I told him I was going to clean it up and everything.

After I got done cleaning that up, I called the city to talk to the supervisor so I could let them know that it was cleaned up and it is documented that's in the paperwork that I did call the city to try to let them know that it was cleaned up.

I didn't get in contact with nobody.

They said they'd have somebody call me back.

So I'm like, okay.

Next thing you know, I was at work.

If you guys look on the first three initial pictures, look at the last pictures.

The last pictures that they're showing you aren't even the pictures of the pal.

They're showing you three, four different other pictures of some other trash that they didn't even show those pictures in the first pictures.

Like those pallets that I had stacked up there, I was building a shed.

Three days before that, the storm came through and knocked half of the shed down.

So when they came, they just decided to take my palates and everything.

So the other stuff that they're showing there, what other pile was in my backyard?

Y'all initiated and show one pile of trash.

But when y'all come to clean up, y'all showing four other pictures of four areas that y'all cleaned up that was not in the initial paperwork.

And you guys can see that as you're looking at the pictures, one, two, and three, it just shows one big pile.

Now, when they came back the second time, they showing my fence that got knocked over by the storm.

Then they show my palette that got knocked down by the storm that a tree fell on, and then they're showing everything else that did not have nothing to do with the initial fine.

None of those pictures have they show where my outside chimney at on the first three initial pictures.

Where do y'all show that y'all cleaning up anything at my outside fire pit?

Why are y'all even showing my outside fire pit?

Because y'all didn't clean up nothing over there.

So why are y'all showing that picture like y'all cleaned that up?

The pile that they showed, the initial pile.

Do you guys see that pile in any of these pictures again?

Because I cleaned that pile up.

So when they came back the second time, because I cleaned the pile up, they decided to take other things out of my yard that did not have to do with anything that was in the initial I mean the initial write up.

Another thing, I have a six-foot fence around my whole yard.

I still have it a six-foot fence.

Half of my pallets that they took are still standing up.

So where should I be getting fined for something that y'all didn't have no business for one coming into my private yard?

That's a six-foot fence around my whole yard.

And then for two, y'all took other things that y'all wasn't supposed to take.

The picture shows a pile of wood and trash.

Why would y'all go take all my pallets?

Why would y'all take my concrete blocks that I was building with them?

Why would y'all take my other thing that didn't have nothing to do with the initial cleanup?

Okay, uh I got a several questions for Mr.

Hall.

I looked at the initial three pictures, and it is quite a bit of debris.

That's your testimony that you clean that up.

Yes, if you can look if you look at the picture, um when they came, if you look at picture when they came back, if you look at picture where the garbage can is that was the only little pile that was left when they came back.

You see the garbage can, then they got like a little piece of wood right there.

That was the only pile that was left from that big pile that they that they tried to um find me for.

That was it.

I cleaned up everything else.

Everything else was cleaned up.

That's why they cannot, they're not showing you a picture of where that uh pile was initially at anymore because they can't show you a picture of that pile being there anymore because I cleaned that pile up.

So when they came back, when they came back, they showed a picture of my pallets had failed from the storm.

They showed a picture of my blocked glass window and everything that did not have anything to do with the initial fine.

They showed a picture of my fireplace that I have in my backyard.

Where's the before pictures of that fireplace?

Do you guys see any any before picture of where that fireplace is in that dog kennel at?

Y'all don't see no before pictures of that.

So, how can y'all show a clean up picture if you didn't even show a before picture of that?

How can y'all show a before picture of my fence?

I mean, that y'all cleaned it up if it wasn't even a before picture to even that I had to clean that up.

And that happened afterwards when the tree fell, and it fell on my shed, and it fell on my back fence, but that didn't not have anything to do with the initial cleanup pal that y'all took the three pictures of.

So because I cleaned that up, they wanted to find me for something, so they went and picked up other things in my backyard that they had no business touching.

Well, Mr.

Hall, uh the before picture where shows the fences down.

Did they clean that up?

That was listen.

That happened afterwards.

This this is what I'm saying to you.

When they came the first day and they took the picture of the pile, that was it.

That was all they said I had to clean up.

That was they hold on a second.

The question I have before you is that the fence that is down, did they clean up that?

No, my fence is still down back there.

The fence is still down.

The only thing that they took from right there was my glass block window and those two tires that I had right there.

That's the only thing they took right there.

Because why I said it there because the fence failed.

So I I set something there to hold it back up, so it wouldn't fall back down for temporarily until I fix it.

But that was it that they grabbed from right there.

Another question I have for you is did you notice that in the original pile?

There was quite a bit of looks like uh you know, um either plywood or something along that nature.

Yes, I burnt all that plywood up in my outside fire pit.

I burnt it all up.

Because there was a picture that showed some of the uh before some of that uh I thought some of the plywood was there.

Yes, and then when they came back, wasn't none of the plywood there anymore, but that little pile that was by the garbage can.

Right.

So that little bit of the pile by the garbage can was from the original picture, correct?

That that little small little piece that yeah, that was from the original picture, yes, but nothing else was from no original pictures.

Yeah, because there is some other debris there, but I can't make out what it is on the before.

Uh, any further questions from board members?

Uh, for Mr.

Hall, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Young Dell.

So I have some questions, Mr.

Hall.

I'm looking at one of the pictures here, and I see uh it's kind of hard to tell.

It looks like a fence that blew over.

Is that what you're saying?

Is the fence not blown over?

That's okay.

I I was um I was doing a DIY project, and I was building like a shed out of pallets, and I had to like when they very first came the first day, the shed was up.

The everything was set up, the wood was up there and everything.

A storm came, a tree fell, and it fell onto my shed and it fell onto my fence.

Now they came two or three days later after that, and they just automatically just took my shed and everything.

That wasn't on the original, the original write up wasn't none of my palettes on the original write up, wasn't any of that on the original write up?

So, why would you try to come and take my palettes afterwards?

Knowing that I cleaned up the the pile that started the the write up was clean, so why would you try to clean up my take my pallets so y'all can so they can get paid for something when my pallets had nothing to do?

They shouldn't have never took my pallets out of my backyard.

My pallets in half of my shed is still up to this day.

I can show you half of the shed is still up.

Now I have to get more pallets and all of that stuff to even finish building.

I got it.

So I'm gonna ask you a couple questions.

They're probably just gonna be yes or no questions.

Just limit your answer to yes or no, please.

Okay, okay.

All right, thanks.

So did you receive the solid waste violation notice?

Yes, okay.

And then did you see on the solid waste violation notice it says you're directed to remove all and it's underlined, remove all solid waste garbage and debris, and then it it lists a bunch of things.

Did you see that?

Yes, okay, and then so I can clarify for you that you know, we have a lot of we've we've had hearings like this before where people see one picture and then the city comes and cleans up other stuff, and they and they don't think that that other stuff should have been cleaned up or that it's not part of the order.

But I can clarify for you that when the city comes and they see solid waste that it's gonna be it's gonna be considered you know stuff that they have to clean up, whether it was there the day that they took the picture or not.

I mean, I I'm just letting you know that you can argue about it if you want, but it you know, that's that's the process that happens.

So uh do I understand your testimony to be that there's a picture here with a fence blown over, and there's a tire and like I don't know, some lumber or something.

That is from the original.

I had to finish.

Hold on.

My question is that is material that was part of the original order.

Yes or no?

No.

The tire was not in the original order.

No.

Previously you testified that that was material for some of that was material from the prior order.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I the the um the um the glass black window and the tires that was at the back of the fence, that was not in the original order.

The only thing that was in the original order is the first three pictures that you guys see.

Okay, and so the tire let me just the glass black window was not in original order.

I appreciate it.

I know you got a lot to say, but I just want to kind of keep this moving here.

Um I do see a tire here, and I do see some lumber.

Is that in your yard?

On the first kitchen.

Uh I see a picture that's dated November 12th, 2025.

It has 2739 North Ninth Street.

It's stamped before with a picture of a fence, a chain-link fence on the ground with a tire and some lumber underneath it.

Is that your yard?

Yeah, that happened afterward when the tree fell on my fence.

Yes.

Okay.

That was still in my yard.

Okay, next question.

I see another picture with I think this is what you're saying is your your palette said DIY project is all uh blown on the ground, and then there's fell off, yes.

There's a bunch of pieces of like concrete block laying on the ground.

That's yeah, that was the block that you said that you were using to build something with.

Yeah, I would be I would build in a DIY shed.

Those blocks and stuff was going to be my foundation.

Like you can see my driveway, it's all con is all rocks on my concrete, because I was concrete my um my um driveway this summer and everything.

So those blocks were gonna get crumbled up and used for my foundation inside of my shed.

That was nothing on the original, the original.

Um actually, though those blocks wasn't even there the first day that they came.

I have brought them there afterwards because I was using them for my foundation.

Okay.

And then I see another picture here of some plywood and some other debris next to a garbage can.

Is that what you testified was part of the prior order?

That that that little pile right there, that was only that was the only pile that was left from the original three pictures that they that they said that I had to clean up.

That was the only little thing that was left.

Okay, I I get that you're trying to point to the original picture, but I I just want to clarify for you that when the city comes to do a cleanup, they're looking at all of the debris in the yard, and this is your yard, and this is debris.

So um I guess I'm confused as to why the city wouldn't clean it up from your perspective.

Okay, so what are your apologies on coming inside private yards?

Um, you'd have to address that to the city attorney.

We're just here to do address your appeal.

And I'm gonna step in here for a moment on that.

We're we're not gonna get into the discussion of what is the city's ability to go into a yard with refuse and um clean it up.

We're just not gonna go down that that path because for obvious reasons, the city does have a right.

Uh, you got rat harvert or whatever else types of uh prop uh debris accumulation to do what the ordinance says they can do.

I have no further questions, Mr.

Chair.

Any further questions of Mr.

Hall?

Mr.

Hall, uh, I'm just gonna make one comment.

It looks like you're just you're disputing basically how much debris was removed.

Our records is 23 yards of debris, and that's open a 653.99 contract.

Is that the basis of your appeal?

Um my appeal is I think this should get dismissed because they grabbed things out of my yard that should have never got grabbed out of my yard.

Okay.

Any further questions of uh Mr.

Hall?

Mr.

Ways, do you have any questions of Mr.

Hall?

Um and I called the city and let them know that I cleaned the pile up.

So why would they even come, you know?

I I just feel they should get dismissed and thrown out because um this is this they they had to clean up something else just to get some money because that that one right if I cleaned up what you guys told me to clean up, and then now you come back and clean up other stuff.

Right now, right now I turned it over to Mr.

Rice to see if anyone I have uh I have actually have a question for the city uh reservations, not Mr.

Okay.

Uh go ahead for Mr.

Larissa is still with us.

Okay, I are now are you the inspector that spoke with Mr.

Hall at the at that 2739 North Ninth Street residence or another inspector underneath you?

Yeah, the the inspector issuing the order.

Uh Flavian Stewart, he's a residential inspector.

So no, it was not me.

Okay, is he is he here right now?

So I could cross-examine him and to talk to him, or are you you're just reading off his notes?

I I made no testimony regarding communications.

Okay, what I'm asking is can I speak?

Is the inspector here today in this hearing?

The one that that was at the scene, is he here today?

No.

Why what I mean that's not that's not procedure, or where the inspector that gives the initial fine doesn't appear for the for the for the incident.

That's not how procedure works.

Uh not for clean not for this type of appeal.

All right.

I got another further questions.

Well, the deal is another way it goes.

Okay, Mr.

Weiss.

One thing I would say is that if you wanted that inspector, uh you could have subpoenaed him and he would have had to appear.

But Mr.

Lyonson is correct that in this type of hearing, uh, we basically have the supervisor that lays out the plan.

So we are in committee at this time.

I'll entertain a motion, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Yandel.

I move to deny the appeal.

Yeah, I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to deny the appeal.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Any further discussion?

Hearing answer order.

Mr.

Rice, you'll be receiving our decision that the uh did not authorize the appeal to go forward.

And you get in writing, and you will have the ability to appeal this to circuit court.

I want to think I think I think circuit court might be appropriate because if you said I could call a witnesses and a called inspector, and I think I could get a fair sum and uh no, we'll go from there.

I appreciate your time.

Okay, and I appreciate you coming, and same with you, Mr.

Hall.

Thanks for coming.

Okay, uh, I'm gonna recall the appeal of Felicia Mayo.

Are you with her?

This was set for 93, it is now 957.

I'll entertain a motion for denial based on non-appearance, Mr.

Chair moved to deny for non non-appearance.

Okay, I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Okay, any further discussion?

Hearing actual order.

I have a number six, the appeal of Mo SR for garbage and nuisance fees at 40 383 North 27th Street.

Are you with us?

It is now 957.

I will entertain a motion for denial based on non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Seven.

Second.

Any further discussion?

We uh know about number eight.

So perhaps a little nuisance fees.

That's uh 10 a.m.

So we have to wait a few minutes.

Mr.

Chair, I I just have to say that it's I don't know if there's some sound coming from somebody's speaker, but it's very hard to hear you.

Okay, yeah, I know I hear that as well.

Uh it sounds like it's coming from Joanna Blackle.

Well, it's not coming from mine.

It's not coming from mine.

No, it's coming from Joanna for something.

That was the source.

Perfect.

Thank you.

The first one was already cleared up.

I got an email.

The second one I sent Lori Galloway.

So the first one they cleared it up already.

Okay.

For the grass.

I got the email.

So then did you withdraw the first one with the grass on 32nd?

I got the email from the forestry yesterday.

That was settled.

That was settled.

And then Lori Galloway, I emailed her last month, but I also had pictures and an email saying that that sign was in my yard.

They moved it 30 feet on that.

So are you talking about 1626 or 38?

That one I'm appealing about this center everything, but the first one they approved on.

Okay, no, yeah.

I think we're gonna go right into eight.

But we just have to wait now, 10 o'clock, so that we can take your item.

I wasn't catching up at that time.

Okay, it is now 10 a.m.

Uh Miss Plock, are you having some conversation with Roby Sgt?

Yeah, Mr.

Surgeon is in the room, Mr.

Chair, and um he was just explaining to me that item seven um was settled, and then we're gonna go into number eight, correct?

That's correct.

Uh it's the appeal of him for garbage and litter nuisance fees for 1626 north 38th.

Correct.

And Mr.

Sgt.

You are still appealing that decision.

Correct.

Okay, who will be appearing on behalf of the city?

I will, Mr.

Chairman Peter Laird's and neighborhood services.

Okay, I am gonna call that appeal.

The appeal of Robby Surgeon for garbage and litter loosen's fees.

1626 North 38th Street.

Mr.

Larittson has already been previously sworn in.

We'll now administer the oath to Mr.

Surgent.

Just tell me, I remember that the paint and penalties are perfect that the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to hear.

Is it truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Laritson, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Uh this is an appeal of the fees for cleanup order.

Uh 1626, North 38th.

Uh, the department received a complaint on October 30th.

Inspection was done on October 31st uh and posted, and the contractor cleanup was November 6th.

You have the photos uh including this is a somewhat unusual L-shaped lot.

Um certainly uh there can be some confusion, uh, but it was double checked um as far as the where the uh solid waste was um back uh in the winter, those are the final pictures.

Um and we're ready to proceed with any questions.

Any questions?

Uh Mr.

Surgent.

Yes, I got an email from Susan.

She is stating that they uh for the city owned sign was put in the wrong place, and that they apologize that they are putting a complaint in because the property goes all the way down to the next house and makes the ale, and we cleaned up.

I had pictures that I sent Lori Gallupy last month, and the email stating that they had to move the sign that the city owned 30 more feet inward, so by that sign being on my property, they didn't notify me, and I do have an email trend of talking to people about this and opening up a complaint.

And then now they're saying in 2024 that they apologized, but they had to move that sign 30 feet more inward.

And that's why I never cleaned that up because they told me that was city owned.

And I do got emails proving that they did file a complaint, and I did email Lori Gallaby with the picture and the email last month as well as this morning.

And it was picked up because I did have the tenants and my partner clean up the trash all the way to the neighbor's house.

So I did provide pictures, stamp pictures to Lori Galloway.

And I even asked for a week extension to make sure because of the snow, and it was cleaned up.

And on the stamp picture, it does show that on Tuesday, November 4th, that everything was already cleaned up, and the leads were still there.

Mr.

Larrison, do you have that documentation from Mr.

Surgent?

No, I do not.

Um I he's referencing sounds like public works information with regard to the city owned lot or DCD, perhaps.

Um but uh we certainly acknowledge you know the uh that there was some cleanup.

Um unfortunately it wasn't complete, Mr.

Chair, that's where you uh go.

Um I have a question for the appellant.

Um, Mr.

Sergeant, you said that you had some communications, some emails showing that uh some communications you had with the city regarding the signage and other pictures.

I don't see it in your appeal package.

Did you file it with the city?

I emailed Lori Galloway uh a month ago, and I emailed it back again this morning.

Uh this was back on March 13th, and I did email her, and then the letter says you know that they moved the sign and they apologize and that they are going to file a complaint because of the walnut street is where that we're having that problem.

We're not having the problem behind the house.

It's going from walnut in and where they moved the sign two years ago, they did not notify me, and I was not aware of it, no letter or nothing, and it's all saved in the email that I sent from public works.

Okay, I can pour it to you if you like.

But I did pick up the trash behind the house to the neighbor's house.

Just on the left, we did not pick up because I pay the crews to pick up what needs to be done.

So is it your testimony?

I just want to make sure I understand it, it's a little bit confusing without any uh documentation to support it.

Is your testimony that you cleaned up your yard, but you didn't clean up a section that you did not believe was yours due to the city posting the sign in the wrong place.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So the the couch and the bed was laying right where the sign is where it says city owned property, and that's why we did not clean that up.

Which is because I own 30 feet from there, but apparently two years ago they moved the sign 30 more feet, and they're claiming I own that now as an L shape is what the email stating that I emailed Lori about we did pick up everything from the trees to the trash all the way back, and I provided pictures to the house, but on the left, the the drone shows that there was a mattress and a couch, and that's right where the sign is on city owned property, and I did ask for an extension a week and they granted it, so that I made sure it was cleaned up and it was cleaned up.

We did leave what was on the city lot because they continue dumping there.

So I'm gonna have to fence in that yard, the L shape to prevent the dumping from happening again.

But the tenants are aware if they see that to let me know before anybody calls it in.

So we have been watching the property lately since this incident.

Also, let me just confirm.

So I'm looking at this picture.

Uh there's an overhead view of 1626 North 38, 38, and some adjacent properties.

So just so I understand your property is L shaped, and that's depicted in orange.

And then I don't know what direction I'm looking, but to the top of that picture, is that just a lot there, or is that a house, or what am I looking at there?

If you look straight ahead all the way down, there's a house.

So I own all the way to the house.

And then to the left of that 30 feet is what I own.

But there was a sign on there that said city owned property.

So I assume I did not own to that house that I owned up the way and going down, so we cleaned 30 feet from that sign what we supposed to clean up because the forestry written me up or tree that was growing over the sidewalk on Walnut Avenue, and I cleaned it up, and that's when she said, Well, you do own that.

I see what happened is two years ago.

We had the people go out and they measured the property and they made a mistake.

And that she Susan did say she filed a complaint.

That's what it's taken the email because they did move it over without notarizing telling me anything about it, and that's why you know I filed a complaint because I'm not going to clean up city law if I don't own it.

And now I know that I own all the way down to the house and then all the way to the street is 30 feet, is what they told me.

And I have the email, I can email anybody that wants it.

They explain the situation.

But as far as the sign and the mattress and the couch, I did not, that's why the bill is high because it was heavy items.

Okay, thank you.

No further questions.

And it's your testimony that the debris that was removed was not on your property, it was actually on a city owned property.

Okay, any further questions?

Okay, we're in committee.

Yes, Mr.

Yando.

I would move to grant the appeal.

Okay, I have a question.

A little bit troubled.

I'm just troubled by the fact that the city changed the lot lines.

There's no testimony that counters that you know it seems like one of those situations where you construe the ambiguity against the drafter.

And in this case, I would say that would be the city without any testimony from the city to refute what Mr.

Sergeant is saying.

I think that we have uh credible testimony.

Do I have a second?

A second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Any further uh conversations here in that order.

Mr.

Surgeon, we granted your appeal.

You do not have to pay that amount.

All right, thank you.

I just want to go on a record that I agree with that motion as well.

Okay, we have number nine, the appeal of Ronald Mueller for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3015 West Chambers.

Is Mr.

Mueller with us?

Mr.

Mueller, you want to come up to the desk there.

Good morning.

How are you doing?

Good morning.

Um doing pretty good.

Yourself.

All right, who is gonna testify for the city?

Mr.

Chairman Peter Lairdson Neighborhood Services.

Okay, uh, Mr.

Larriton has been previously sworn in.

Uh Mr.

Miller, do you want to raise your right hand, please?

Be sworn in.

I do thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Larron, you may proceed.

Thank you.

The what's before you is a cleanup order uh in the amount of 1382 and 56 cents.

Um this is for 3015 West Chambers.

Uh the cleanup was done.

Um October, October 17th.

Uh, I will forgive me.

Uh I would like to offer to move this along uh to cut that in half to 691 28.

Uh, this is an instance where it looks like a public alley, but there's 10 feet or so of private property.

And uh certainly when the contractor got there, there was a dumping uh that spread across both.

Uh they cleaned everything up.

Uh, but uh uh certainly um the portions in the right of way uh will acknowledge um that that's uh uh ambiguous.

Uh I would also say uh for Mr.

Miller.

This has happened before frequently, that's part of his appeal as well.

It's going to happen frequently in the future.

This is a dead zone, uh, which is a prime dumping spot, and unfortunately, he has some private property here.

Um, so with that said, I can go into more details, but I wanted to start with that.

So 691 28.

Okay, Mr.

Mueller, the city is offered offered a compromise settlement to reduce the amount of money you owe to 691 28.

Is that acceptable?

Uh no, I don't think so.

Why don't you think so?

Well, I'm not even sure.

I've never got a notice of what dumping and what dumping got cleaned up or anything.

All I did was all of a sudden I got a citation from the city.

Umledge of this.

Well, do you recall uh getting the notice?

We have a copy of it on the appeal.

A notice, no, I got a citation from the city of Milwaukee.

Do you never receive the notice?

No, sir.

Okay, we'll proceed with the appeal.

Mr.

Larrin, you may proceed.

Certainly, so the department got a complaint on October 8th of 25 regarding scattered debris.

It was inspected on October 9th uh and verified.

Uh that it was posted and mailed.

Um, and uh the contractor abated as I mentioned before.

Uh November uh October, forgive me, October 17th of 25.

Um, so the photos are in the packet.

Um we've had um this issue before at this property, unfortunately.

Well, Mr.

Lairdson, I have a question for you.

We do have a picture of the notice, but unfortunately, it doesn't tell us where it was posted or what it was put on.

Can you clarify that at all for us?

Yeah, because I see it.

I think I might see it.

And the next following picture that's kind of yes, there is a picture, Mr.

Chairman, where it's uh stapled or taped to a portion of fence.

This is a this is a contractor yard.

There's no I don't believe there are any uh actual buildings.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that because any questions from Mr.

Larron.

Uh Mr.

Mueller, yeah.

Um I'm I'm trying to I I have been trying to get a grasp on the problems over there in general, and I'm not sure now what you're saying that what they went inside the fence area to get stuff out, Mr.

Lairdson.

Are you able to address that question?

No, Mr.

Miller.

The chairman was asking, was the property posted?

And that was I was affirming that.

Oh, I thought he asked if I had any further questions of you.

Sorry.

No, do you have any questions?

Do you have any questions of Mr.

Larittson?

Um, yeah, uh I'm not trying to understand where this was gotten from.

What they went on the other side of the fence to get this material.

No, so I have the alleyway is mine, also.

Approximately 10 feet.

I we can we can measure it together, but it is an unusual circumstance uh when you look at the parcel map that for whatever reason uh this is a very narrow alley.

We can measure it together, but it is an unusual circumstance when you look at the parcel map that for whatever reason this is a very narrow alley that is to the east of your lot, and you have a section of private property again, approximately 10 10 to 12 feet that is going to be east of your fence line.

So it feels like alley.

Okay, I was told every time I put anything there that I had to get it out that that was an alleyway.

So I'm sorry for my confusion there.

And still, with regard to anything out there, I mean, the neighbors, everybody pushes stuff out of their way that gets dumped in the alley.

I mean, we try to clean things up over there as best we can.

Uh things get pushed together because the uh city does have a I'm not sure exactly what, but the city has a crew that comes through there periodically and cleans alleys and things we try to push together so that we can utilize the alley.

Um I didn't put it there, I didn't know about it being there.

I will watch out for whatever this is in the future and make sure that people aren't pushing it from the alley onto what is from what you're saying my property now, and I would appreciate uh getting more precise direction as to where that line is that you're saying I have, so that I can watch it, but I don't see where it should fall on me when I could hardly be expected to.

I bought the property, I assumed it was a fenced in property because that's what I was told.

Okay, any questions of Mr.

Laritzon by board members?

Uh one question, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Mr.

Laritzon, are you aware whether or not uh the property owner can relocate his fence so that his property is entirely enclosed, or are there setback requirements?

So it's my knowledge, there's no setback requirements.

I don't know if there's any easements.

He could explore that with our permit center.

Okay.

And also uh, Mr.

Laritzon, I was just trying to look this place up on Google Maps.

It looks like there's like some sort of uh um lot or something next to it with some trucks and and that.

What what are we looking at exactly?

It's hard to tell from Google Maps.

Uh are you talking to the it's kind of hard to get a visualization of even what we're looking at, it's not very clear on okay.

As far as as far as 3015 West Chambers, yes, and you had mentioned something about a contractor's lot or something, yeah.

This is uh uh either a uh outdoor storage yard or a contractor yard.

I forget the occupancy.

He does have an occupancy at this location.

Um so he I would imagine this is these are his materials, his trucks, etc.

Okay, I see.

Thank you.

Any further questions of Mr.

Larron?

Okay, Mr.

Mueller, I know it's your turn now to testify, but you have done a little bit of that in the interim period of time.

What would you like to tell us regarding your appeal?

Um I'm doing everything I can over there to take care of the property, as I already said.

Um I don't understand how I can be kept liable for what gets dumped in the alley and pushed over to what apparently is my space.

Um, but I'm willing to work with the city and anybody on cleaning this up because the dumping there does me no good.

I have put up cameras in the alley.

I have worked with the city numerous times on testifying against dumpers.

Um I have I've given a number of uh bits of information into the city with uh pictures and such that uh even with a picture and a license plate number and you know the person dumping it uh without a name, they say they cannot uh prosecute the guy.

Uh I've had a guy across the street who carries his garbage over to dump it, and uh the police won't issue him a ticket.

They say you got to go to neighborhood services, neighborhood services says that uh they can't do anything without the name of the person.

Um I've been advised not to approach the any of the people there dumping because I've been attacked once.

Um it as it was already stated, I believe, by Mr.

Libson.

It it's it's a problem area, and for me to have to pay for the entire or even part of this problem.

Uh I think is unfair because I have been going out of my way, and with a number of times I've cleaned the alleyway there and taking it in at my cost.

And I don't think I should be liable for this or even the half of it.

Okay, any questions by board members of Mr.

Mueller, Mr.

Chair?

Mr.

Yenda, Mr.

Mueller, are you aware whether or not there are any easements from the alley onto your property?

Uh to my knowledge, I don't know of any, but I didn't know that this part that they're saying is mine wasn't part of the alley.

Otherwise, I would have probably done something different there towards working so that nobody could accidentally push garbage there, even when we clean the alley.

Further questions.

Thank you.

Okay, any further questions?

At this time, I'd like to turn the gavel over to Mr.

Yandell.

Yes, taking the gavel.

Uh, Mr.

Uh Attorney Bobbett, go ahead.

Okay, I'm gonna make a motion that we go along with the city's recommendation of 69128 for being the amount that we levy against Mr.

Mueller.

So I'm gonna granting this appeal in part and deny it in part.

The reason for my motion is when I look at the evidence and the pictures that are presented, uh quite a bit of the debris is in actually the LE.

And when whoever went over to pick it up, they put the total cost of picking it up, even though some of it was not on Mr.

Mueller's property.

So my granted part and denying part and 691 28.

All right, we have a motion to uh grant in part and deny in part the uh the appeal, uh basically cutting this amount in half from 1,382.56 cents to I believe 691 dollars and 28 cents.

Uh, do we have a second?

I'm in a second.

We have a second.

Any uh objections?

Bring none, so ordered.

I will now pass the gavel back to miss uh to attorney Bobbitt.

Okay, uh Mr.

Mueller, now we're gonna call your next appeal, which is the appeal of garbage and litter nuisance fees for 3015 West Chambers.

Um Mr.

Larrison, you are going to be the witness.

Yes, Peter Laird's in neighborhood services.

Is there any possibility for compromise on this one before we go to testimony?

Well, Chairman Bob, but we've uh been in this position before.

Uh orders that are on monthly reinspection.

I'll be happy to waive the uh all of the reinspection fees of 2026 if we can come into compliance.

Um the the short version of this, and I can give a longer version.

There is no valid occupancy permit for this property.

It was cited for outdoor storage, and uh again, you have a narrative from me, um, but it's now in the monthly reinspection cycle.

Uh the property is zoned industrial heavy.

Um outdoor storage is a permitted use.

Again, uh, if the Mr.

Miller would like to work with the permit center, there may be uh some screening requirements that have to come uh that have to be in place.

Uh but uh again, it's a permitted use.

So, in a sense, this is somewhat of a matter of paperwork.

The other option is just simply to clear the materials off the lot, and that'll be compliance as well.

So I wanted to sort of lead with that.

Um what's before you is uh at this point, uh probably 3,000 in reinspection fees since the last writing of my narrative.

Uh 3,000 change, but again, I'm I'm happy to uh this is a standard procedure with monthlies.

If we can get into compliance, um I can I can do better.

Okay, Mr.

Mueller.

What I understand is that the city is willing to waive the 2026 reinspection fees, and you say that those fees are around three thousand dollars.

Yeah, it's Bob and I did uh I can get a specific number here for you.

I it depends if the April inspection has been done or not.

Um excuse me.

Um I I I'm sorry to interrupt.

Um I I have heard three addresses here, and I just want to make sure we're on the 2047, not a 2026, and not a 3031.

Uh I I well, I thought we were at 3015 West Chambers.

Am I wrong?

No, sir.

Now we're at 2947 North 30th.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I I apologize.

We're at 2947 North 30th.

I apologize, Mr.

Miller.

Because you had settled, you had settled number.

I I apologize.

I had the wrong address.

It is 2947 North 30th.

Um, Mr.

Lartson, do we have a figure?

One moment, yeah, three thousand dollars three thousand forty-eight dollars.

Okay, my understanding, Mr.

Mueller is they're willing to forgive the three thousand forty-eight dollars in reinspection fees if you do certain things, and could you read and just reinforce what those are, Mr.

Larrington?

Yes, every property in Milwaukee has to have an occupancy permit, which reflects how the property is being used.

This property is being used for outdoor storage, and it needs an occupancy permit for that.

The last occupancy permit valid permit for this property was for a contractor shop that was raised in 2022.

At that point, the property becomes a vacant lot, and there is no occupancy permit for it.

It it I shouldn't say it becomes a vacant lot, it can be a vacant lot without an occupancy permit.

Any other use has to have a permit.

So they he was cited for uh failure to get an outdoor storage facility occupancy permit.

Um it went through the court system, and then it goes into our monthly reinspection cycle, and this brings us to here today.

Uh I'll reiterate for Mr.

Miller, it's uh zoned industrial heavy, an outdoor storage facility is a permitted use.

He can work with the permit center, get his permit.

Uh there may be some landscaping requirements uh in terms of for an outdoor storage facility, uh, but uh it's certainly doable.

Option B is simply remove everything off the lot.

He has a contractor yard across the street that we just heard at 3015 West Chambers.

He can move it all over there, and the city will go away.

Is that acceptable to you, Mr.

Mueller, to resolve this appeal?

Um partially, I guess.

I'd like to point out that we do have an occupancy permit there, and it's for a shop and yard, not just a shop.

We've that is stuff that we've had there for nearly 20 years in that yard.

Well, let me interject this.

Then we're on we're on plan B.

If you agree to remove everything, uh, then they will waive the reinspection fees.

Would you agree to that?

Well, we're using it as a yard, so I don't want to remove it.

I believe there was something about the fencing or whatever, also screening for as far as making it acceptable, but still the issue is there that we do have an occupancy there that's been there.

According to their testimony, you do not.

So we're at a point now where we're gonna go to hear the appeal if you agree to remove everything, or in the alternative, you get an occupancy permit uh for outdoor storage.

She says you do not have that's up to you.

Otherwise, we're going into the the testimony.

It seems like a very fair offer to me, but that's up to you.

Can I get time to bring you the occupancy permit?

Well, we're gonna give you time to comply to come back, and then we would this we would uh not require you to pay the reinspection fees.

How much time would you give him, Mr.

Laritzon?

Uh the fiscal year is September 1 to September 1.

So August 31st is the magic day.

You would have till August 31st to do one or two, but if you don't do one or two, you're gonna be liable for the entire amount of reinspection fees for 2026.

I just want you to be clear on that.

So get the occupancy permit or get the stuff removed.

That is correct.

Okay.

Is that acceptable?

If you're asking me yes, I said okay.

Okay.

Well, I'm just asking you to say yes.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

So okay, what we're gonna do is we're gonna hold this matter for the call to the chair.

It's my understanding that we now have agreement that he will not have to pay the 2026 reinspection fees if he obtains an outdoor storage occupancy permit, or the alternative removes all the debris on that lot.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Miller.

Okay, we are now going to move to our 1030 agenda.

The appeal of Lonnie Slocum.

Lonnie Slocum, are you with us?

Yes.

Are you in the audience there?

Yes, he is, sir.

Okay.

Uh Lonnie, uh, you want to come up to the table.

Good morning, Lonnie Slocum.

How are you doing today?

I'm good.

How are you?

Who's gonna appear on behalf of the city?

David Cagle.

Good morning, Mr.

Cagle.

Okay, uh, would you please swear in both witnesses?

Would you please raise your right hand?

Do you certainly affirm it that the main time penalties are perjury in the state of Wisconsin?

That the testimony you're about to give is a truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do I do.

Okay, uh, Mr.

Cagle, you may proceed.

All right, we are here for uh reinspection fee that was charged for a court reinspection on the March 19th of 2026 for an order that was issued on September 4th of 2025 by Inspector Zhong.

Um pieces of information that I provided.

One are the court summons, another one is some screenshots of our computer system stating that the uh uh registered agent, Mr.

Slocum was provided uh my contact information and directions to contact me 10 days prior to his uh court date in order to provide me access to the dwelling uh to do this inspection.

If I do not hear from the owner, I still have to report findings to the court, whether it's passed or fail.

I don't have an option to do a to mark an order as a reinspect or something like that to kick it down the road.

Um, again, I heard I have received no contact from uh Mr.

Slocum, and um, so I usually typically go out about a week ahead of time because I have to have my work done by the end of the week.

Try to get in, try to get tenant access, and if that fails, I fail the inspection.

And uh Mr.

Kegel, what were you going to inspect at that property?

There were some items on the inside, which were in the basement, repair plaster and water damaged walls, restore the basement to a clean and sanitary condition, and defective uh baseboards in the basement bathroom.

And how much are you seeking for reinspection fees?

I believe that one was it's a second tier one, 500 and I think with the fees, it's what eight five hundred and eight dollars and a little bit of change.

Here we go.

Uh 508 508 even okay.

Um Lonnie Slocum, do you have any questions of Mr.

Cagle?

Uh no, I just um I I just he wasn't able to get access, and I never got a phone quality that was coming uh to give him access to the uh building that the the work has been done.

Um I have a court date, May 28th, uh, to modify it.

So it seems like we double dipping here.

I'm having a 500 eight dollar reinspection fee, and on top of that, um, uh, fines from from the uh uh from the work that's already done.

Okay, so I understand your question is Mr.

Cagle.

What exactly what did you exactly try to do to contact Mr.

Slocum?

I'll again I am a court inspector.

The court stressed both the assistant city attorney and the judge, and they were provided my uh the piece of information that I provided you was uh basically exhibit number seven.

Clearly at the top it says to be present for the court inspection and provide the required property access for interior violations.

Please contact the court inspector at least 10 days prior.

I have a potential of 60 court inspects every week.

I don't have the time to chase, I don't have the time to contact you, call you.

That's why the uh Odinus is put on the owner of the property to contact me and arrange a uh access for the building.

I I can't sit there on a Monday morning or Tuesday morning and try to make arrangements with everybody.

It's their responsibility, and it's stressed by the court to contact me.

However, I did contact Mr.

Sean.

Um, I guess I was contacting the wrong uh inspector.

Um I and I contacted uh Mr.

Sean several times uh to um come and inspect that the work was done and and uh I couldn't get in touch with him.

Uh through email and uh voicemails.

Well, I guess I should have made contact in Mr.

Kagel, but um I Mr.

Sean wrote the order, so I thought it was I was supposed to contact Mr.

Sean.

Okay, and and I do have a court date May 20 May 28th, where um I will be contacting Mr.

Kagel now that I know so he can come out and inspect that the work is done um to reduce the fine to a minimum level, but to pay the fine and also being charged a reinspection fee, which the work was done.

Um I can either have access if he would have called me, I could have gave him access, or if I knew which inspector to call um I could have got him in the property.

Okay, uh I have a question for you for uh Mr.

Slocum.

Do you remember when you went to court that they told you the onus was on you to contact Mr.

Kegel for the reinspections?

Not necessarily Mr.

Kegel.

Um it was uh I do remember them saying contact the inspector, which I did, and um I couldn't get in contact with him.

Okay, because I'm aware of the process, and the process does state Mr.

Kegel, and usually the person in court would give you the phone number for Mr.

Kegel.

Do you recall that at all?

Yes.

Okay, is there any questions of board members of Mr.

Slocum?

Yes, uh Mr.

Chair, just one question I want to confirm.

Uh Mr.

Slocum, you are acknowledging that you did receive the the yellow notice.

I think it's marked with a number seven.

That it uh it tells you to contact the let's see.

It says you have to be present for a court reinspection to provide the required property access for interior violations and to contact the court inspector 10 days before the scheduled appearance.

Did you receive that?

But but um I remember the commission or the judge saying when I need uh when the work is done, I'll contact an inspector.

If I knew it was Mr.

Kegel or specifically, then I would have contacted Mr.

Kegel instead of Mr.

Sean, who originally wrote the violations.

Okay.

I can schedule.

I mean, if we want to read journey, I can um have Mr.

Kagel come out today or tomorrow and see that the work is done.

Um I guess I'll just ask uh Inspector Kagel, uh Inspector Kagel, is there any opportunity here for Mr.

Slocum to reschedule the work?

Well, he has uh filed a motion to reopen this court case.

It does have a looks like a May 26th court date, which was granted on April 6th, and I have yet to hear from him.

Uh that was three weeks ago.

This was granted 22 days ago.

I have yet to hear from him to uh provide me the required access.

I wouldn't be able to do anything today or tomorrow.

Both of those days are booked, it would have to be something next week.

But if you look at again exhibits, what is it, six, seven, and eight?

Uh number six is my inspect the inspector.

That's the uh city's assistant city attorney's information that the ROA was provided the inspector's contact number.

Then number seven is the actual sheet that's handed to the individual because Mr.

Slocum did appear in person, and then if you look at number eight, that are that is the court clerk's hearing notes after the uh case was heard stating uh no contest when a slogan appears in person for BNZ for sentencing and has inspector info and understands the stipulation process.

Okay, uh thanks for clarifying that, uh Inspector Kegel.

So I guess my question is um the reinspection fees are 508 dollars.

Is there any offer by uh by you to Mr.

Slocum to arrange for a reinspection?

And would are you offering any sort of uh agreement to waive or or um bring down the cost of the reinspection fees?

If I'm willing to waive it if Mr.

Slocum can get me in.

I I've got no skin in this game.

I to me it's irrelevant one way or the other, uh to be honest with you.

But uh again, I I uh with my caseload, I don't have the time to chase property owners.

That's why the owners is put on them.

Okay, and so uh I understand that you're offering that he can call you for a reinspection.

When would he have to call you by and when would you need to have the reinspection completed by?

I would want to hear from him by probably he can reach out to me tomorrow morning.

I'm gonna be heading out of the office about 9 a.m.

If you can get a hold of me prior to that, we'll try to arrange something for next week.

Can we schedule it now?

That's uh in front of me, no.

Okay, and um, Mr.

Kagel, uh just one last question.

Which uh phone number are we looking at here?

We have a South Court inspector and a North Court inspector.

The 3132, 2863132, and that would have been circled by the court administrator or the city attorney when he spoke at the window.

Mr.

Slocum, did you hear Inspector Kagel?

He's clarified that if you give him a call by tomorrow morning and get this rescheduled for a reinspection by for next week, and you call him at the number 414 286 3132 that he will agree to waive this reinspection fee.

Did you hear that offer?

Yes, okay.

And are you willing to accept that offer?

Yes.

All right, I I actually have no more questions, I'll just turn it back over to uh the chair.

Okay, uh, Mr.

Slocum, I want you to listen very carefully to me.

My understanding is that you will have to pay the 508 dollar reinspection fee, but that would not be required of you if you do a certain thing.

Now you have to contact Mr.

David Kagel, K A G E L.

You must contact him before 9 a.m.

tomorrow.

What are what time do you get in your office, Mr.

Kagel?

7 a.m.

So he's there from 7 a.m.

to just before 9 a.m.

His phone number is 286132.

Have you written that down?

Yes, I have it.

Okay, well, if you contact them tomorrow and you successfully schedule a reinspection fee, I mean re-inspection of the property, they'll waive the fee.

Is that acceptable to you?

Yes.

Okay, well, I'm gonna tell you if you do not do it, we're gonna schedule for next month, and you're gonna have to pay the 508 dollars.

Do you understand that if you don't do this?

I understand, thank you.

Okay, well, just so you know, there's no leeway.

So if you don't do it, you're gonna have to pay the 508 dollars.

Period.

Well, I'm gonna do it.

Okay, well, thank you so much.

Uh and now entertain a motion for exactly what I just stated.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Kegel.

Mr.

Chair, I would uh I would move that we uh allow uh actually I'm not sure exactly what the motion is that we allow Inspector Kegel's offer, uh, which has been stated on the record for uh the appellant to schedule a reinspection by tomorrow morning, April 29th, and uh to have the reinspection within a week, uh uh according to Inspector Kegel's schedule, and if he does so and completes the rein the inspection that Inspector Kegel will waive the 508 dollar fee.

So I believe is my motion.

Uh Mr.

Kegel, do you have some clarification?

If he meets those terms, contacts me tomorrow morning, we set something up.

I go in, say next Tuesday or Wednesday, or he possibly even Monday, but I'm already working on Monday, and I fail that inspection.

There will be another 508 fee if this one is being for uh removed.

If he fails the inspection, if I can't approve the repairs, then either that one scans or or I hit him with a new one.

Do you hear that, Mr.

Slocum?

Oh yeah, you understand why he's doing that right?

Is that if it doesn't inspection, it's still not done.

There's a reinspection fee.

So you'll have to pay $508, but it'll only be for that one that Mr.

Cagel went to that you failed.

I understand.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second purpose hammer.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

So if I understand correctly, this item is being held until next month until this item is a compliance.

If it's in compliance, we don't have to schedule it at all.

It's a decision that's done.

Mr.

Cagle.

If he meets this, should I just uh email Joanna that we're good?

Yes.

Okay.

So then our motion is not to hold it, it's to grant it with the specific um criteria, correct?

Well, we're just holding it to make sure he complies.

If he complies, Mr.

Kegel let you know, and that's the end of the matter.

Uh, then the motion of Mr.

uh the appeal of Mr.

Slocum has been agreed to.

If he doesn't, then we would schedule it and uh we're going to find 508 dollars.

You understand what I'm saying?

Okay, I got it.

Yeah, because we have a little twist here because what's going to be is that there's going to be new reinspection fee that he's going to have to pay.

Um Mr.

Cherrick, I guess procedurally, I just want to make sure uh I understand that I want to make sure we're all in understanding here procedurally.

If um if he calls the inspector, the inspector is what I understood is the inspector is waiving the $508 reinspection fee.

But if during that inspection, the inspector determines that it has not passed, then he will issue a new $508 reinspection fee, which then my understanding would be that this appeal would not with this appeal would be moot because this would be a new fee, he'd have to file a second appeal.

That's correct, but I want to make it clear to Mr.

Slocum.

If he files a new appeal fee, his chances of uh uh of succeeding are slim to none.

Because then he would then have to argue that how he did it was acceptable, and that would probably be in court versus here.

So when you say acceptable, so like on on the honesty, they say replace drywall.

The drywall is replaced.

Well, I'm not gonna go into it.

I'm relying on you and Mr.

Kegel to clearly understand what remediation must be done.

That's what I want to clarify now.

When he comes to inspect, what is that is he looking for?

Well, you have the work order, so you can question him tomorrow, and we're moving on.

So you can when you call him tomorrow, you can clarify what exactly had to be done and how.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, we're now moving to 1030.

Oscar Halejandro Gaeta, reinspection fees for 3263 South Third Street.

Is Mr.

Geta was with us?

He's in the room.

Okay, good morning, Mr.

Geta.

Uh good morning.

Could you have could you position him to the uh maybe when he starts talking the camera, we'll move around and prank him up.

Okay, because I I could I can't see it now at all.

Want to meet a move?

Speak up loud.

Uh, you want to meet a move?

I'd like him to move so we can see him when the testimony to at least see what he wanna mean to move his way?

Sure.

Okay.

See the camera's got you right now.

You can stay there.

The camera is a 360 camera.

The minute that person starts speaking, okay, it'll move to the person that's speaking.

Okay.

Yeah, but I want to be able to see him when a person is speaking, other than him.

Some of the people are right in front of us.

The minute that he starts talking, the camera will pick him up.

No, I I'm not interested in just him talking.

I'm interested in the witness uh for the city talking to see him while he's there.

Okay, all the other people.

Isn't he able to position himself where we can see him all the time, other than when he's not talking?

Okay, not really, not really, because this is a setup of this room.

Oh, yes, we see all the other people.

I wonder oh, there he is.

That's all I want.

That'd be a little better.

All right, sounds good.

Okay, uh, who is gonna be a witness for the city?

Uh Mr.

Larry, you're muted.

It's been a morning.

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

This is Peter Lairdson with neighborhood services.

Mr.

Larrison is previously been sworn in.

Mr.

Gaeta, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in?

It's only a firm of the defense and penalties are perjury under the state of Wisconsin.

And the testimony you're about to give is a true tell truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

Okay, this is the appeal of Mr.

Gator for reinspection fees for 3263 South Third in the 14th Automatic District.

Mr.

Lartson, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So what's before you is a $508 reinspection fee.

This is from an order that was issued regarding a fence.

March 13th of and you have the brief narrative.

March 13th of 2025, department received a complaint regarding fence erected on county grounds north of 3263 South Third.

On March 19th of 25, the complaint was verified.

Fence is both is on both private property and county land.

Order issued to obtain fence permit and to comply with fence height regulations.

April 16th of 25 contact made with owner, owner call issuing inspector and discuss order.

Extension given August 1st was the first reinspection.

The violations remained, a reinspection fee of 254 was charged.

That was on the 2025 taxes.

Discussion regarding order and possible extension, extension granted to October 7th.

Excuse me, uh the next waypoint October 7th.

An additional extension was granted to January 9 of 2026.

February 9 of 26 re-inspection, uh the violation remains, the charge reinspection fee of 508 dollars, and the order was forwarded to municipal court.

Uh in this instance, um certainly happy to waive the 508 if we can come into compliance.

Uh the uh the snag I see, and I hope I'm wrong.

I don't see this happening by August 31st of 2026.

So we run into the problem of the tax bill.

Uh but the owner is pursuing, and I'm sure he'll he can talk um in much more detail about this.

He's pursuing compliance.

Uh, it's just a very long road.

Um, in addition to purchasing land from the county, he will need to and just this gets lost in the shuffle.

I think he will need to get a variance from the board of zoning appeals, which is not a guarantee.

But regardless, with the 508, if we can come into compliance, uh happy to wave it.

Uh were you able to hear that?

Uh Mr.

Gaeta.

Yes.

Okay, is that acceptable to you?

So, question when he say uh to be in compliance, it's uh to get the permits for the fence.

Well, it's it sounds like a little bit more than that.

It looks like I see the fence.

Is that the one that's all brick and everything around the property?

Uh correct.

But uh, according to uh Jennifer Club, um she told me to do to get a permit of the fence that it's already in my property.

Well, yeah, but it sounds like from the testimony of Mr.

Larittson, you have to get a variance from Boza to allow that fence to remain on the property.

If you're unsuccessful, or possibly a purchase of another property that might assist you in getting that variance, you have to take it down.

And you have to take it down, you have to take it down before September 1st.

So, in other words, you have to do one or two things.

You have to either get a variance that allows you to let the fence remain, or you have to take it down.

If that's acceptable, they'll waive the reinspection fee.

Is that acceptable to you?

Okay, let me try to explain a little.

So I went to court and then uh uh Jennifer Cloud, she's the one that helping me to try to resolve these because pretty much I'm tied up my hands.

I mean, trying and going from one place to another to try to resolve this situation.

Unfortunately, they just keep giving me days and postpone it, and um, it's been over and over.

Uh, and it's been like that for several months.

It's been laid up for over and a year.

Um, she's the one that sent me back again to get a permit, which is which I did already.

I already paid for the permit, and uh they say uh lower side compliance with the with the fence it's already and my property.

They shouldn't have any problems.

Um they they already look at the fence, they say the fence locus is uh uh four feet on the front, which is I'm fine.

Uh on the back side, it's gonna have to be six feet tall, which it is, and on the side, it should be the six feet with an exception of one panel that I'm gonna have to either trim it out, like cut it two feet because it's supposed to be either four um feet tall, or it's gonna have to be uh panel with an opening on the on the top.

So that's the only thing uh I'm gonna have to uh uh change.

Uh I had the permit with me.

Uh the same permit that I tried to apply several months ago, and they don't grant it grant it to me.

Um, and to uh Jennifer uh tell me out.

Well, Mr.

Gator, that's a matter for people other than the people on the board.

Right now I'm asking you, do you want to accept the city's offer to wave the 508 dollar reinspection fee?

If you do get a permit with a variance or whatever else you have to do, or remove the fence.

Forgive me, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, city's gonna waive the fee.

We're done.

Okay, we granted your appeal.

Apologize for the delay.

Hold on a second.

Uh, I'm gonna entertain a motion.

It's my understanding the city is gonna wave the reinspection fee.

So I have a motion to grant the appeal of Mr.

Geta.

Uh you're muted, Mr.

Young.

About that.

Uh, I would move to grant the appeal of Mr.

Geta.

I have a second.

A second.

Okay, any further discussion?

Okay, Mr.

Geta, we granted your appeal.

You do not have to pay that reinspection fee.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Some new information just came in yesterday.

Uh that I just discovered now.

So uh we will take it from here.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And then uh we are now gonna call on 11 o'clock and about uh it's 11 o'clock.

Is Mr.

Henry with us?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, good morning, Mr.

Henry.

Uh, who is gonna appear for the city?

Ben Brandon, City Markey Porestry.

Uh, good morning, Mr.

Brandon.

Morning.

Okay, Miss Polanco, will you please swear in both witnesses?

Would you raise your right hands?

Do you still need to remember the pain some penalties or perjury?

The said it was gonna say that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, you may proceed, Mr.

Brandon.

Okay.

Uh this address was uh 2937 North Murray Street Murray Avenue.

Uh the record was uh PwCF uh dash 26-00837.

Uh, this is in regards to a snow event that uh ended on January 5th.

Uh there was two inches of snow that uh accumulated at that time on January 27th, two days later.

Uh there was a uh complaint that was made to our department um regarding uh snow on the sidewalk, and on January 27th, the property was inspected and cited on January 27th.

Uh later that day it was sent to contractor for abatement, and in the evening or on January 27th, it was cleared by city contractor.

And then uh fees and charges associated with this are $50 posting fee, uh $70 contractor fee, $75 admin fee, ten dollars and fifteen cents for tax and a total of $205.15.

The inspection photos or inspection photo uh was also submitted, uh showing the violation and contractor before and after photos as well.

Mr.

Henry, do you have any questions of Mr.

Brandon?

No questions.

Okay, any questions of board members of Mr.

Brandon?

Okay, uh Mr.

Henry.

Mr.

Chair, I I have some questions.

I'm kind of confused here.

So I'm a little too on the photograph.

So Mr.

Brandon, uh, you testified that the property was inspected and cited on January 27th, sent to the contractor and cleared by the contractor on January 27th.

Right.

That's correct.

And the photo that I see says looks like they're the wrong photos.

I see.

Okay, or the or it's possibly the wrong timeline.

If you give me a moment, I could just um pull up.

I think I might have put the wrong dates on those.

Um can I also ask a question?

Sorry, I'm the person who lives at the property and who is in the case.

No, actually, you haven't been you haven't been asked to give testimony yet.

And you have not been sworn in.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yeah, it looks like I got the wrong dates on these when I posted it in the timeline summary.

It must have been uh from a previous record and wasn't changed.

Okay, this time I'll entertain a motion.

I'm I'm happy to waive this.

Uh it looks like there might be a lot more going on with this one anyways.

Okay, at this time I'm going to uh entertain a motion to grant the appeal based upon the city recommendation and the evidence that's presented.

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair, I move to the appeal.

I have a motion with Mr.

Yeah, Dell to grant the appeal of Scott Henry.

Do I have a second?

Okay, any further discussion?

Hearing none so ordered.

Mr.

Henry, we granted your appeal.

Thank you so much.

Uh as far as logistics, uh, how does that appear?

Does that is that a check that's sent within a month, or how does that how will that be?

What do you mean a check?

Uh I paid uh uh let's see.

Did I pay that?

Uh the only thing you would have paid paid is the appeal the appeal fee.

We don't send that back.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

And thank you for showing up, Miss Sherman.

Have a good rest of your day.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Um at this time I think we'll schedule our next meeting.

And I think we're gonna have to schedule it on Thursdays and Fridays so we don't interfere with the with the alderman who is assigned to this committee.

Uh Ms.

Polanco, how many do we have penning?

Do you know?

I would have to get back to you on an email, sir.

My apologies for that.

No, that's okay.

How many do you know how many?

Do you know how many we have penning by any chance?

Um, I want to say about less than twenty eleven to twenty.

Less than twenty, but I have to confirm that number to you.

What is eleven twenty though?

I guess I'm confused.

Less than twenty.

Oh, less than twenty.

Because I'm not a final number, that's why I have to get back to you.

Okay.

Um we send it for early July, like July 2nd or 3rd.

July 2nd, I mean.

Uh do you want us to do it in June?

How about June 26th, which is a Friday?

Um, Alvin and Jackson would be in licenses.

Uh how about is it 12 in action?

June 12.

Uh I'll be at the uh state bar annual convention on the 12th and the 11th.

Um about Monday, uh June 29th.

Uh senior student rules is happening that morning that date.

Okay.

Looks open.

I I am not available that day.

Okay.

Um about uh how about Wednesday June twenty-fourth?

Works for me.

Ms.

Hammer, how's that work for you?

I'm good, Marks.

Joanna and Joanna.

I have to find a substitute, but I'll I'll put it down.

Okay, it'll be Wednesday, June 24th.

Okay, uh welcome ACA Dobbs.

How are you doing today?

I'm doing well, Chair.

How are you?

Hanging in there.

Glad to hear it.

Anything else that we need to do this morning?

I had requested that we do a closed session at the last meeting, you may recall, and we didn't do it then because of a lack of time, if that's possible.

If everyone's schedules permit, I would like to get that done today to discuss uh litigation that Arba's currently involved in.

Okay, would you mind if we just did a uh five-minute recess so I can use the facilities here?

Fine by me.

Okay, we're gonna adjourn for five minutes and then we're gonna go on to closed session.

Mr.

Mueller, we're gonna have to uh ask you to be excuse.

Oh my god, it's from this or do I go?

Um discussion?

Yeah.

Uh I wouldn't want to know you can just keep it like you said.

That's my house we're trying to make this.

Um teleport, and then what's the channel?

Okay, I think you know.

Oh, okay, okay.

But but that's what I can do.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, you have a great thank you, you too.

We'll just wait till Mr.

Andell comes back.

I'm back.

Okay.

Are we in closed session?

Not quite.

Okay.

But this time I'm gonna entertain a motion to go into closed session.

Uh at the urging of ACA Joseph Dobbs, do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair, I move to go into closed session.

I motion by Mr.

Yendel to go in closed session.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Make a roll call.

I I didn't hear what that one said.

Yeah, once the motion is made, then I need to um you were calling me to make a roll call to account for the individuals that are in closed session.

You want a roll call done?

Uh yes.

Okay, I'm gonna do a roll call.

Uh Mr.

Yandell.

Sure.

Ms.

Hammer.

Yeah.

Um Chair Bobbit.

Yes.

And Mr.

Busan?

Sure.

Give me two seconds here to pause this and lock it.

And