Welcome to Judiciary and Legislation Committee.

I am Artoman DeAndre Jackson, the chair.

To my right, Otterman Westmoreland.

To his right, Otterman Bob Bauman.

And to my left from the first district, Andrea Pratt.

Audible man Andrea Pratt.

And we'll be joined shortly by Otterman Perez.

And none of this is possible.

Well out Joanna Ortiz.

City Attorney, how you doing?

Good.

How about you?

All right, here we go.

Item one two five one four zero four resolution related to the appeal of Derek Brown for property damage.

Hearing no objections, so ordered pick it up.

Or never did it.

Item two, two five zero two seven six.

Resolution related to the appeal of Britney Hudson for property damage.

Brittany Hudson.

All right.

This first time?

First time not appearance.

Artman Westmoreland moves to hold.

This will be noted and they will be tallied.

Item 3, 251749.

Resolution related to the appeal of Matt Marlett for manufacturing LLC for property damage.

Good morning.

Good morning.

All right, City Attorney.

Yes.

Matt Marlett on behalf of Tarment Manufacturing LLC brings this claim for property damage to a fence of the business located at 326 East Keith Avenue.

Alleging from a police pursuit by the Milwaukee Police Department that occurred on September 27, 2024.

Claims damages in the amount of 9,456 and 81 cents for uh fence repairs.

Um in this case, the notice of claim was filed on October 11th, 2025, over a year after the date of the incident.

So the city attorney's office has recommended denial because the notice of claim was filed well beyond the 120-day requirements of 89380.

All right.

Don't disagree with what the city attorney said in this case.

Um if the council wants additional facts beyond that, I'm happy to provide that.

Um just real quick.

Was it the car they were chasing the hit the fence or the police car itself they had the fence?

It was not the police car.

Okay.

All right.

Introduce yourself and uh start it.

Yes, good morning.

Happy Friday.

Uh name is Matthew Marlett, last name spelled M-A-R L E T T, representative for uh trademark manufacturing LLC, located at 326 East Keefe Avenue.

Uh we request reconsideration for payment on city damages occurred at 927 2024.

Uh likewise we don't disagree with the city attorney's statement as well.

Uh when police chase and crash damage trademark manufacturing LC property off of Holton Avenue on the south side, uh considering of landscaping grass, fence posts, uh, concrete footings, uh, etc.

Damage smiddle was done in late 2025.

Semidal was sent internally to Tremont managers to verify contained information and delays occurred in the submission due within two uh 120 days.

Uh Tremom is a manufacturing company with limited expertise in processing and oversight of claims such as this.

Uh in summary, Tremont is a supporter of the Milwaukee Police Department, its officers, and we respectfully request reconsideration of the damage and the repair of 9,450, uh excuse me, 9,456 and 81 cents.

Uh regardless of late submittal, which uh we do not deny uh the damages did still occur and did exist.

Uh and and again, uh uh we asked for the reconsideration of uh of that payment.

The process is um if it was not the police car, um aren't you supposed to pursue the person?

I mean, yeah, that would be our position is that no Milwaukee Police Department member caused any damage in this case.

Um this vehicle was being pursued as a arm robbery carjacking.

It went through an intersection, collided with another civilian vehicle.

That collusion caused this vehicle to go off the roadway and flip over.

Major crash, medical responded.

Um, but no squads were damaged in the process.

No member caused any of the damage.

Any questions from committee?

Anything?

Move denial.

Motion on the floor, move a denial by Ottoman Bauman.

Any questions?

No.

All right, hearing no objections, so ordered.

All right.

So uh the decision of this committee will be referred to the full city council at the next council meeting on March 24th, 2026.

If the full council adopts this committee's recommendation of denial, uh you receive a formal notice of that denial by mail.

Upon receiving the formal notice of denial, you have satisfied the statutory prerexists to file suit in circuit court if you so wish to pursue with that.

All right, thank you.

All right, appreciate your time.

Item four, two five one two nine one resolution related to the claim of Amader LLP on behalf of the estate of L Motar Sedilia.

Attorney is on the floor.

It's attorney Jeff Gerard for the turn.

All right.

Uh the estates uh by its attorneys, Amad and Garard LLP uh brings us claim alleging that uh Mr.

Sid Sidia uh suffered fatal injuries from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 29th, 2025 at East Brady Street and North Humboldt Avenue.

Um MPD officers were pursuing uh Sierra Wilkerson uh in a vehicle pursuit.

Uh Miss Wilkerson refused to stop, disregarded a traffic light, and struck Mr.

Sidia's vehicle at a high rate of speed, causing severe injuries that led to his death.

Um the city attorney's office has recommended denial because it is Miss Wilkerson's uh actions that are the proximate cause of the fatal injuries suffered by Mr.

Sidia, and therefore the city is not liable for damages.

Alright, so real quick, two times in a row.

What is the what is that called when you have to pursue the person?

Uh it would be the cause of the damages.

Uh in this case, the police were pursuing the the person.

Um, but the our view is that the approximate cause of the damages is the the actual cause of the damages was the person fleeing and not the police.

Okay.

Agreed.

That's pretty much the exact same thing I would say in this case.

Uh I also want to mention that the the damages requested in this claim are such that it would likely be um facts and testimony are gonna come out in a uh civil case.

Uh spoken with the city attorney's office about this.

Uh so our position is to adopt the city attorney's um presentation of the facts is ours, uh, unless the council has specific questions that we could aid in making your decision on this case.

Now you say the mountain is to the site 350.

350,000 is the claim I see here.

Okay.

Move denial.

Only her from the attorney at all.

Well, there's no way we we're not equipped to deal with claims of this kind.

A B, there's a question of liability, and C, they want they want a denial, so they can go to court.

Absolutely.

So move oh motion on the floor is by Ottawa Bowman.

Move denial.

Hearing no objection, no questions, so order.

Thank you.

So uh attorney Gerard, uh, the decision of this committee will be referred to the full common council at the next council meeting on March 24th, 2026.

If the full council adopt oh, he's already gone.

Oh, yeah, we've got he already left.

Oh no, he got us denied.

I understand.

Yeah, he got us denial.

All right.

Item five, two five one three four six resolution related to the claim of Ebony Kimbra and Samarian Johnson.

Okay.

Well, this is another one of two hundred all right.

Well so uh in this case, Ms.

Kimbrough and Mr.

Johnson, uh, who is a minor uh by their attorneys, Philip George's PLC, uh bring uh these claims for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident with Milwaukee Police Department vehicle on September 23rd, 2024 at the intersection of North 37th and West North Avenue.

Uh they submitted demands of 250,000 uh for both individuals.

Um our investigation revealed that on September 23rd, uh MPD vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle in which the claimants were passengers.

Uh the MPD vehicle was pursuing a fleeing suspects with its lights and sirens activated when the collision occurred.

Uh the city attorney's office has recommended denial because it is our view that MPD was not negligent and acted within the scope of their duties and in accordance with statutory requirements and privileges for authorized emergency vehicles, and because the uh there is substantial claims for uh pain and suffering, which is better determined in the litigation context.

Absolutely move denial.

Motion on the floor by autumn and bombing to move denial, hearing objections, so order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh decision of the committee will be referred to the full common council on the 24th of this month.

If the full committee adopts this, if the full council adopts this committee's recommendation of denial, you receive the formal notice of denial by mail, and then you have satisfied the statute of two years last court.

All right, sure.

All right.

Item six, two five one two nine three resolution relating to the claim of precious make tree.

McIntyre.

Good morning.

While it was parked at 4675 North 19th place on July 31st, 2025.

Uh Miss McIntyre submitted re repair estimates of 11,983.28 cents and 19,994 and 84 cents for repairs.

Um investigation revealed that the forestry department received a request for emergency service regarding the down tree branch on that vehicle.

Uh forestry crew arrived and removed the tree branch.

Um there was no external signs of decay at the point of failure.

Uh on July 31st, 2025.

Uh the city had peak winds of 31 miles an hour, and forestry received 71 calls for service that day.

Uh the city attorney's office has recommended denial because the forestry department filed standard operating procedures, and there's no evidence that they were negligent in this manner.

Can I sidebar with him for a second?

Okay.

Slight uh slight addendum.

Uh there was uh decay at the point of failure, and the branch was not alive.

However, the city had no notice of the decay.

Um it had and therefore uh without notice in the city cannot be viable for the broken branch.

All right.

Introduce yourself and uh what?

Uh my name is Precious McIntyre.

My car was parked on 19th Street.

There was somebody sitting inside the car.

Um the tree did break off.

Oh, yeah, again.

You could adjust it.

My name is Precious McIntyre.

Um, my car was parked on 19th Street.

There was somebody sitting in the car, the tree branch just broke and crushed the entire front end of the car.

Um, I did call the correct people.

They did have to cut the tree off, and when they did they did tell me that the tree was dead.

They didn't taped everything off.

I did file a claim with the city.

Um, it was denied because they said it was due to a storm, and I should look for other avenues.

I did contact FEMA, they said it was a city issue because it was a city tree.

Um my assurance was uh my car was they dropped me because of the type of car that I do have.

Um so I'm just looking to get some help with repairing the car because it was a lot of damage, and that's not something that I can afford, and I was not negligent for the accident.

You had no insurance.

They dropped me a few months prior because I have a Honda in the car key getting stolen.

So you had no you had no insurance.

No.

You know it's a state law to have insurance.

The car was parked, it was not driving.

It needed a motor as well.

What was the last time the tree was?

Um, well, the last time forestry was on site to prune this tree was when we did the whole quarter section in December of 2014.

It was scheduled at that point.

We were at almost a 15-year pruning cycle.

I mean, when this accident occurred and damage occurred.

Um we were scheduled to be in there of fall of 25, uh, but due to the early snowstorms in November, we still haven't gotten to that quarter section to prune it.

Okay.

So it's it's scheduled right now to be done, but we weren't there uh until prior to the incident and since 2014.

Okay, and we had no service requests uh asking for an inspection or pruning of that tree uh prior to the incident.

Uh the crew leader did identify the tree.

Uh the one branch was dead.

Uh the remainder remainder of the crown was thinning.

Uh there was some decay near the base of the tree, so we decided to take it down after the incident.

Okay.

Which has been done.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

Arnold Westmore.

Um what is typical?

Like, what's the typical cycle?

I know where it's 15 years now, but what's typical?

In a perfect world.

Perfect world.

When the world was perfect.

It was uh we called it a three and six cycle.

Right.

So tree diameter, so at breast height is 12 inches and under, we would prune every three years.

Anything over 12 inches was six years.

Staffing.

We had uh about 130 arborists.

We're down to 83.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Any more questions for committee?

Motion on the floors by Otterman Bauman for denial.

Any questions?

Well object.

All right.

So that's 3-1 with uh Autumn Woman Pratt objecting.

Motion passes.

City attorney.

Yes.

Uh so this isn't the last step.

Uh the decision of the committee referred to the full common council at the next council meeting on March 24th.

Uh if the full council adopts this committee's recommendation of denial, you receive a formal notice of denial by mail.

Once you receive that formal notice of denial, uh, you are free to file in circuit court if you wish to pursue this claim through litigation.

Okay.

Is there a address?

I'm sorry.

I've moved since this.

Um I would call uh the claims department.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you, Chair.

Item seven, two five one three eight three resolution related to the claim of Ken Guest House.

Okay.

This first time out of there kind of slick.

Otherwise Pratt moves the whole.

I I don't think we need to hold these.

They just want to go to court.

Okay.

These are big numbers.

This is an 80,000 dollar claim.

All right.

You making a motion?

I'll move to deny.

Move to deny.

Hearing objections.

We'll apply for the next one too when you call it.

This one actually was a property right next door to each other.

Ah, okay.

Item 8, 25136 resolution related to claim of Donald Arrison.

Uh 116 pages.

So that's another motion by denial.

Move denial.

On the floor, motion by Otterman Bauman, hearing objections.

So ordered.

I thought Mr.

Ernson asked for the his hearing to be postponed.

Did he?

Yeah, if we'll hold.

That was my understanding.

He was unable to attend this hearing.

Yeah.

He's having a medical procedure done today.

Alright, if that's what he wants.

I mean, if I move, uh uh I'll withdraw the motion to deny and move the whole.

Motion was withdraw, move to hold us on the floor before us.

Hearing no objections, or item nine, two five one three eight seven.

Resolution relates to the claim of ATT.

American two five two zero two four one one-five zero-zero zero seven one.

Bob.

Move denial.

Hearing no objections, so order.

Okay, that's only item ten, two five one three eight four resolution related to the claim of medallion uh search bag.

Mr.

Chair, they also called in requested that they're unable to attend today's meeting.

Arnold Westmoreland moves the whole item 10.

Hearing objections, so ordered.

I got where we at for coming in.

Thanks.

We gotta call that.

All right.

Five minute recess as we wait for our colleagues.

251 945 substitute resolution amending the city of Milwaukee state legislative package to express support for state legislation, making illegal tire dumping and misdemeanor, crime, and providing penalty enhancements.

Sponsored by Otterman Pratt and Ottoman Jackson.

Good morning, Calvin Lee from the legislative affairs division.

Um this was something that recently was introduced by Senator Hutton in Senate Bill 1059.

And considering how the City of Milwaukee has been moving forward, I know that several council members have been really passionate about trying to curtail this behavior in our city.

I brought it to Auto Woman Pratt as well as yourself, Chairman Jackson.

And this particular bill did go before a committee yesterday.

It was a five-three vote.

Unfortunately, uh three of the Dems on that committee, Senator Royce, Senator uh Drake, and I know I have it somewhere.

Uh they voted in opposition.

Some of the concerns were that one, it's a penalty enhancer.

However, what I would just remind the committee on the ordinance that was passed subsequently last year, that enhanced the penalty as well if you were caught illegally dumping.

There was an amendment to Senate Bill 1059 that changed some of the language from primarily it was uh private property.

They changed it from private property to public property as well.

Well that's the current state of the bill.

Yes.

Public and private.

Oh.

I mean, this is fine, but I you would think you'd want to include public.

Public and private, yeah.

Like alleys.

Yes.

Yeah.

Making lots.

Next to the train tracks.

Yes.

And again, because this has been introduced so late in session, I think it's just uh a framework for how we can build on that for next session.

Um it's very unlikely that it's it's going to proceed any further considering that it hasn't uh fully passed the assembly who have adjourned for the session.

Cool.

So overlapping the two, what's different from ours last year in this current bill?

This current bill, uh the penalty enhancer that I mentioned went up to 10,000 versus uh uh City of Milwaukee currently has a five thousand dollar fine.

And it also uh makes it a class A misdemeanor that is correct for a woman where it now currently doesn't have criminal charges attached to it.

I uh it'll have a criminal charge attached to it, which is what the lowest vandalism charge.

That is correct.

All right, Mr.

Did you say somebody in the legislature objected to this?

Uh Democrats at the three committee three democrats.

Uh because of the penalty enhancement.

So they go in at 10.

I I do have that information for you right now, Alderman Bauman.

That was Senator Drake, Senator Royce, and Senator Johnson.

So they didn't want it to be a crime.

The conversation I had, uh primarily they were more concerned.

This is creating a new criminal penalty.

Yeah, correct.

Which is so that was their concern.

Mine as well.

I was their concern the um enhancement to the penalty.

Yeah.

I think we uh Otterman Jackson and I were aligned with this because both of our districts are constantly inundated with uh tire dumping specifically.

Um thousands of tires have been dumped in certain areas in my district, and public areas private as well.

Um and when you look at it, um one of the gentlemen who did it, he got 65 littering tickets.

Yeah.

Um, but continue to do so, continue to dump tires all throughout um the city after doing that because the penalty was not enough for him to stop, but the the money he was making from doing it was more.

Um so I think it's if the with the enhancer and with um the criminal attachment to it, the misdemeanor attachment, that it will definitely be a deterrent for people who are engaging in this behavior.

And again, this is something I think we could put as a top priority, and I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off.

But um next session, I I would add as well to that um Alderman Stamper had originally touch base uh with us regarding um perhaps seeking out uh either changes in the state legislature to to coincide with uh ordinance that he was working on that would uh allow for dumping uh based on license plate um as opposed to finding the person directly involved.

So um uh perhaps there's a way they can we can cobble these two in the future, or if you would reach out to you because right now, in order to find someone for dumping, you have to to find a direct culprit involved.

However, oftentimes cameras catch a license plate and um the the owner of the vehicle is not susceptible to a fine and state law prohibits doing that.

However, um there's other cases where um those two coincide, so that might be something that um collectively uh we can all work on over the next few months.

Yeah, that's definitely a huge issue.

I have uh recently went to an event with a a lot of with landlords as a breakfast for landlords, and they said most of them have cameras on their buildings, they catch illegal dumpers constantly, they but they capture the license plates, and you don't know who's driving a car, so there's no way for us to find those people or penalize those people.

Um so yeah, going forward that's definitely something that needs to be in place.

Anything?

Um yeah, Katie Eager with IRD.

Um I also will just note um we shared with the legislative uh bill authors that the city does have um free sites to drop off up to four tires only per um vehicle dropping off.

And um the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also has a program for tire recycling.

So um as we discuss initiatives for next session and um you know, maybe instead of sticks, some carrots uh to encourage the proper disposal of tires in our community going forward.

Um we plan on reaching out to various state agencies um as they are crafting their budget requests for the next state budget um and potentially seeing if there are ways to have the state support the city's current operations of you know free recycling for you know, maybe it's up to eight tires, or maybe we can get some more funding so that we can broaden that program that currently exists um and then in and then also um try to broaden the DNR program that that exists.

So um we'll keep you apprised of of those conversations certainly going forward as this is a topic of interest.

So okay, is this around the state problem, or does it just us?

I mean, I think that it's uh uniquely severe in in the city of Milwaukee, unfortunately.

Um, which is why we do have uh some of these um programs going on right now um to try to curtail some of it, but um I think it would be more effective if we're able to offer those types of things on a larger scale basis.

Yeah, so thank you.

And uh thanks for your um pointing out the leadership on this, Kevin.

So I pointed out and we got right to it.

And I said talk to Pratt first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So Altman Pratt moves adoption of this resolution, hearing no objections.

So order item 12, 241 692 communication from intergovernmental relations division and legislative affairs division related to legislative updates.

So I'll start uh just going back.

Uh, we we will register in favor of this bill that's moving through the process then just to put a marker down um uh in place and obviously we can we can talk how it it may evolve over uh next session.

Um I wanted to come to a committee today to talk about uh the DACA legislation that uh we discussed last time we were here.

Uh very uh positive in nature and it has seen um significant movement.

It passed last week out of uh Senate committee five to zero with some of the most conservative uh senators voting in favor for it.

So I was uh very cautiously optimistic and wanted to say that there's a good eighty or ninety percent chance that it will pass on Tuesday.

However, late last night we have some word that um a member of the Senate is uh actively working to see that not happen.

So um we can go in details, you know, individually um after the meeting if you'd like to know, but um I I'm less optimistic that what even though it's passed the assembly unanimously, it passed the the Senate committee unanimously um getting it scheduled on the floor um is less than 5050 right now.

So one of the the the great frustrations of of lobbying is the uh the Senate and some of their arcane rules make that um significantly challenging.

Anything else?

I don't I don't have anything else, Chairman.

Any kid All right.

Alterman Westmoreland moves the holds of the call of the chair on 12.

13 25 1825.

I like this resolution related to legislative bills.

So uh uh this was also brought to our attention.

Um this was the very last bill on the floor of the assembly.

Um and uh for whatever particular reason uh uh attempt an amendment was attached last minute, um, which was not germane to the bill at all.

However, what it does is create uh a new board and a new license that should Act 10 be overturned.

Um all heavy machine operators, uh heavy vehicle operators would require a special license.

Um we don't know where it came from.

It was very, very last minute.

Like I said, it's uh there was a very last bill on the assembly floor.

Um this was flayed to us.

Um we have reached out to the league who's opposing this, and I believe Katie has spoken with DPW what the impact would be, but I I do think this is something that we should oppose on and be on record opposing just uh should the Senate uh just concur this in and it moves on to the governor.

Um in the in the past and yesterday ironically was the 15th anniversary of Act 10.

Um I would say that the the chances of that being on overturned is unlikely.

However, given the uh state of the Supreme Court, um there is a significant chance that that could happen.

So there were a few uh um stakeholders which um happy to discuss an individual meetings um that it seemed were probably pushing for this bill.

It's also um uh uh one of the practices of late in session, um people wanting to push different things through, they tack it on to an almost irrelevant and unrelated bill.

Um so this is one of those things.

Um and uh because it could significantly impact the city, um we are recommending to uh follow what the league has done, where we aren't taking an actual position on the original Senate Bill 179.

Rather, we would likely want to oppose um the amendment, the assembly substitute amendment one that has been tacked on.

The amendment um is a mandate for increased training um and apprenticeship style like requirements for local government employees who uh may be operating heavy machinery or equipment um for certain types of road work.

Um based on DPW's interpretation, it might not actually impact us that drastically because for a lot of this big these big projects, we do contract that work out already.

Um and um our our big flag would be that you know, should I mean depending on how this is interpreted by other entities, um these requirements could cause issues for the city in the future if DPW wanted to pursue a certain project without contractors.

Um like I said, the League of Municipalities has registered an opposition to the amendment um based on their concerns related to the local government requirements.

Um and because this is so it's tacked on so late in the game, um certain attorneys believe that this was drafted in somewhat of a sloppy way, um, which leads to um the classification of what constitutes heavy equipment being somewhat unclear.

Um it's also unclear whether certain routine municipal work like pothole repair, depending on how bad it is and what type of machines need to be used for it.

Um if that type of work could be performed by existing municipal staff without having to meet those new requirements.

Um the other thing that uh it it the the amendment does is that it creates a heavy equipment council um which would have the authority to regulate local governments and their workers, um, but it actually uh does not include any local government representation.

Um so yeah, I see as your reaction to that.

So um yeah, we would also view that as problematic.

Um so yeah, given the lack of um clarity, um also like Justin mentioned, it's somewhat tying this to whether Act 10 is overturned.

Um so the timeline for um when this bill would go into effect and um exactly how it would go into effect is also very unclear.

So it's just kind of a mess of an amendment.

Um so wanting to discuss it with this body here today.

Um I think that this type of legislation would make contracting with uh operating engineer more desirable for a municipality.

The operating year union I'm talking about.

U Um I think that it would make the employees their employees more attractive for municipalities and create an incentive to potentially contract with them.

Although is your question are the operating engineers or like are they lobbying for this?

Yeah, we know that or not.

Um registr.

Yeah, I have the registrations here, so um I will note that the construction business group is in favor of this legislation.

Um I'm trying to see who the late um a U.S.

Venture Inc.

is in favor.

Um manufacturers in commerce in favor.

Um it's a little bit challenging just because you had the original bill, which was related to like uh they might be in favor of that part of it.

Um it's a little bit challenging just because you had the original bill, which was related to like uh they might be in favor of that part of the exactly and um I I I would say that there um rumors of various different um labor groups have a difference of opinion on here, so without having um specific, you know, um we would prefer not to talk on their behalf.

Um and again, I think it's just in our best interest just to to see that uh we oppose this for now and um hopefully the if it should get to the governor that the governor veto this um because there's all types of uh red flags with that as it is.

All right.

So position is the vote against it to oppose it.

Any objections?

All right, it is adopted.

Thank you.

All right, and that's it.

Thank you.

All right, all right, Audible Westmoreland moves this into closed session.

The judiciary and legislation committee may convene into closed session on Friday, March 13, 2026, in room 301B, City Hall 200 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, pursuing to section 19.81G, Wisconsin statute for the purpose of conferring with the city attorney who will render verbal or written advice with respects to litigation in which the city is or is likely to become involved, and then may go into close going to open session for regular agenda items.

Roll call, please.

Alderman Pennis?

Otherwoman prank.

Aye.

Alderman Bauman.

Alderman with Mormon.

Mr.

Chairman Jackson.

All right.

Item 14 251 829 resolution authorizing payment to the claim of Jeffrey Dinkins.

Yes, for the reasons discussed uh in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends uh approving this resolution.

All right.

Audible Perez moves adoption, hearing objections to order.

Item 15, 251844.

Resolution authorizing payment of the claim of Fred Miller.

Uh for the reasons discussed in closed session, the city attorney's office uh recommends approval.

All right.

Audible in Pratt moves adoption of this resolution, hearing no objections, so order.

Item 16, 251848, resolution authorizing the payment of the claim of Mary Lau Civic.

For the reasons discussed uh in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

Audible Westmoreland moves adoption of this file, hearing no objections.

So order item 17, 251849.

Resolution authorizing the payment of the claim of Robert and Catherine Damus.

Uh for the reasons discussed uh in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

Artoman Bauman moves adoption here, no objections, so order item 18, 251850 resolution authorizing the payment of the claim of Harold Janus.

Uh for the reasons discussed in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

Artman Perez moves adoption of 18, hearing no objections, so order.

I can see resolution authorizing the denial of claims for alleged unlawful and alleged excessive tax assessments filed with the city of Milwaukee.

Yes, for the reasons discussed in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

Yes.

Um my apologies.

I was a little tardy this morning.

Can you um mark me in the affirmative for items one through twelve?

Absolutely.

Um accept all of Perez's affirming uh affirmation for all items one to 12 before he attended 113.

Hear no objections, so order um 20 is the one we discussed.

Oh, you didn't closer 19 closed.

We are 19.

Okay.

Audible Perez moves in uh moves adoption for item 19.

No objection, so order.

Uh I'm going out of turn.

I will go to 21.

251885 resolution authorizes settlement of the lawsuit entitled Robert Marcatus versus City of Milwaukee.

Uh for the reasons discussed on the record, or uh sorry, in closed session, uh, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

Item or wait a minute.

Oh, yeah, he stepped up.

Audible and prett moves approval for moves adoption of item 21, hearing no objections, so ordered.

Item 22.

251 909 resolution resolution reserve reserving and appropriating up to 125,000 from the 2026 Common Council Contingency Fund to the 2026 damages and claims fund special purpose account and authorize the settlement of the lawsuit entitled Barry Beverly versus City of Milwaukee.

For the reasons discussed in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

No objections, so ordered.

Item 23.

Resolution or item 23, 251931.

Resolution authorizing payment of the claim of Kevin Dudley.

Yes, for the reasons discussed uh in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

Artman Westmoreland moves adoption of this file, hearing objections, so order item 24, 251935.

Resolution authorizing payment of the claim of paying tail and Westbidden Mutual Insurance Company.

That's for the reasons discussed uh in closed session.

The city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right.

Alterman Bauman moves the moves adoption, hearing no objections.

So order item 25, 251938.

Resolution authorizing payment of the claim of Vincent and Pauletta Warler.

Yes, for the reasons discussed uh in closed session, the city attorney's office recommends approval.

All right, Audible Pratt moves adoption of the file, hearing no objections, so order.

Item 20, 251883.

Resolution approving a contract between the city of Milwaukee and Gratshire Law Group for legal services relating to the securing and employment-based non-immigrant visa for a department of emergency communication employees.

Well this one we'll take a vote on.

This one we have to take a vote on.

Oh, vote for adoption approval.

Um we have to any more discussion on this one?

You guys come back up.

Yeah.

Well, I think the proper motion, if there's a desire to kill this, it would be a motion to place no file.

Well, it's by move to place it on file.

I'll object to that.

All right.

Explain it to me.

Well, I think we killed the file.

Okay.

So the motion on the floor is for Alderman Bauman has moved it to place it on file.

Hearing any objections?

I do.

I just had some questions about it.

Oh, we hold it.

All right.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Alderman Peters?

No.

Otherwoman Pratt?

No.

Alderman Bauman.

I'll do it with Morland.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair Alderman Jackson.

No.

Motion fails.

Motion fails.

32.

Can we um can we either hold it and get some of the questions we had we wanted answered on retention and other things?

Potential callback for future.

Just to have some of that answered.

Would there be anything now that I could answer from that?

I'm Anna Zizzo for uh human resources administrator from the Department of Emergency Communications.

Should be in closed session, shouldn't it?

Yeah, we'll move the whole or call it a chair.

Yeah, okay.

Well we'll do that just because we had so much of the discussion in closed session.

So our moves to hold us to call it a chair.

Hearing no hearing no objections, so order.

That concludes judiciary and legislation.

Thank you.