Okay, uh good morning, everyone.

My name is uh Vincent Bobbett.

I'm the chair of the administrative review board of appeals.

This is the hearing set for March 19th of 2026.

Uh, as is our procedure, I'll just briefly go over it.

The city uh always starts out the um hearing, give us an explanation of why those charges that are filing against the appellant are reasonable and according to the city ordinance.

The appellant then will have an opportunity to question city witnesses as well as board members will question them.

Then the appellant gets an opportunity to explain your case to the board.

At this time, I'm going to welcome other board members that are with me.

Uh and uh let's call case number two six zero zero five, the appeal of Charlie Clark, Prairie Park LLC for tall grass and weeds listen fees for 84 North 99 Street.

Is Mr.

Clark with us?

Is Mr.

Clark are you with us?

Is uh Mr.

Clark in the audience?

No, sir.

Okay.

We'll pass this one slightly to see if Mr.

Clark does come back at a later time.

We always wait about 15-20 minutes.

At this time, I'll call case number number two, the appeal of Mildred Ortiz for overhanging branches.

Nuisance fees at 316 camera.

Okay.

At this time, I'm gonna recall number two.

The appeal of Mildred Ortiz for overhanging branches nuisance fees.

3016 with St.

Paul.

Uh they're coming to the table, sir.

Well, thank you so much.

Good morning, Miss Ortiz.

Can you hear me?

Uh yes, my name is Python.

Mildred Ortiz is my mother.

I'm here on her behalf.

So your mother is not here.

Uh no, uh uh, she's 87 years old, and uh she's a heart patient, and she can't hardly hear, so I came on her behalf.

Normally our procedure is that um you wouldn't be able to hear.

Yeah, we're we normally do not uh she would have to hire an attorney.

She would have to hire an attorney.

Yes, it's not her tree.

She's been charged for a tree that's not even her property.

So she's being charged for something not hers, and now she's supposed to pay more for something that shouldn't have been done in the first place because somebody didn't recognize a tree didn't belong to the property that was overhanging.

This tree is hanging across two properties.

It's hanging across her property over to the property.

Oh I have a video of the tree.

Okay, hold on.

Hold on a minute, sir.

Who's representing the city on this case?

I am Ben Brennan, City Markey Forestry.

Uh Mr.

Brennan, um, could you give your telephone number to the appellant's daughter?

Yes, sir.

And then we're gonna we're gonna pass the case and set it for a future date if it can't be resolved, because it is our policy that we always require uh some an attorney or somebody other than that to represent uh miss uh Ortiz.

Do you have a pencil and paper handy, sir?

Yeah, uh yeah, we yeah, what's the number?

Um I don't know if this makes more sense, but I could give um I I have their contact information.

I can reach out to them as well.

Um you want the number, sure.

Um 414286-3042.

4286.

3042.

What was that?

And is this Mr.

Branham?

This is for what is I mean.

So we can't go in and talk to this guy because this is crazy.

It's not her tree.

Okay, well, Mr.

Brandon's gonna get to the bottom of this, okay, sir.

Yeah, because uh it is impossible for someone not to recognize that this doesn't belong to 36.

Is it's from 3010 3012?

It goes across her yard, across her yard to the next yard and across her yard to the piss out into the alley.

They cut the tree branch in the alley, and they're trying to charge this woman while she's in the house being 87.

Now get an attorney to cover the action of somebody who's in competent.

They can't recognize all the tree.

Okay, well, at this time, sir.

I'm gonna entertain a motion of hold the whole this matter for call of the chair.

Do I have that motion?

I don't know what that means.

This part time I've got no.

This is this is uh a parliamentary procedure by our board.

I'm asking one of our board members to give me a motion to hold us for the call of the chair so we can reset it at a later date if necessary.

Mr.

Chair, we know it's good.

Yes, I would I would I would move that we hold this case uh for the call of the chair to be uh resolved either outside of these proceedings or at another date.

You have a motion by Mr.

Yandell.

Do I have a second?

Second, a second by Miss Hammer.

Any opposition hearing none so ordered?

Uh, we are now gonna go to number three, the appeal uh Vic Bart Kar Kotra and Jagdish Kumar Patel, tall grass and nuisance fees at 61 54 south 13th.

Who is here for that case on behalf of the the appellant?

I'm showing him.

Oh, just like when you this is when you talk to you talk to Mr.

Let's you please look at it.

This is the tree in the neighborhood, and I go over this is it should be pretty easy.

It is telling the audience.

So when you show them that, it should make a lot of sense.

No, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna entertain a motion uh to deny for not appearance.

Do I have that motion?

It'll be all right.

Not the one that's a boy.

Mr.

Chair, I move to deny.

I have a motion by uh Miss Hammer to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Chair, I second second by Mr.

Yandell.

Any objection any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

Thank you.

Why do you want to call?

At this time we're gonna go to number four, the appeal of Joseph A.

Rice, shaggy dog LLC for snow removal fees at 1547 North Aster.

Is Joseph Race here for Shaggy Dog?

Okay, at this time I'm gonna entertain a motion to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh Mr.

Rice should be on the board.

Hey, Mr.

Rice, are you there?

We have a pretty full board, so I I don't see Rice on the board.

Joseph Rice, are you with us?

Which which number would he be on the board?

I couldn't tell you because I yeah.

I think you were looking at a Michael Rice.

He had come on before.

Okay, my apologies, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Ms.

Hammer.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna entertain Did you call Michael Rice?

I'm calling Joseph Rice.

Okay, no, I heard the lady say Michael Rice.

Okay, I'm number 25.

The queue.

Okay.

Uh at this time I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

Do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to deny.

Motion to deny by uh board member hammer.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by Mr.

Yandell.

Any any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

We're going to number five to appeal to Brill Jorgensen for snow removal fees at 9625 Westcalf place.

As Brunell Joe Jorgensen with us.

Okay, at this time I'll entertain a motion for denial for non-appearance.

Do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Yandel.

I would move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections to that motion?

Hearing non so ordered.

We're going to number six, the appeal of James Raymond.

Personal removal fees at 90 2904 West South Mavot.

Is James Raymond and Marissa Raymond with us?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, do you want to activate activate your visual?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Is it just you that are with us uh this morning, Mr.

Ramens?

Yes, my wife's working.

Okay, who is appearing for the city?

And Brandon, City Markey Forestry.

Okay, at this time, Mr.

Ramons, I'm gonna ask you, Mr.

Brandon.

Brandon, to raise your right hand so we can swear you in.

So only a comment of the pain penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, uh, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

Uh file number 26014 for the address at 2904 South Mabbot Avenue.

Uh, this was a city violation record PWCF-25-1096.

Um, the property was inspected and cited for a snow sidewalk snow violation on December 15th, 2025.

Um snow violations are sent same day to contractor.

So on 1215, uh contractors were alerted.

Um, and on 1215, 2025, the sidewalk was cleared by a city contractor.

Fees associated with this are a $50 posting fee, 140 contract fee, uh contractor fee, uh, admin fee of $75.15 and five cents for tax for a total of $20.86 or $280.05.

Um, included in the file are the inspection photos as well as the contractor's before and after photos.

Mr.

Ramonds, had you had an opportunity to see the photos that were presented to the board regarding the violation.

Yep, I reviewed them.

Okay.

Do you have any questions from Mr.

Brandon?

Um, maybe not Mr.

Brandon, but I've got some clarification questions in general around this.

Well, right now it's the time for you to question Mr.

Brandon.

Sure.

I mean, I um I was under the impression that for any type of like first-time offense like this, there would be some type of a warning or notice given in advance.

Uh uh, we did you know, shovel these sidewalks we do regularly, and all of a sudden we just got a bill in the mail for 280 bucks from uh a previous date.

Um there's no advanced warning or any notice given around this.

Um a second, Mr.

Ramons.

Uh are you are you able to answer his question about notice?

Yes, um, when it comes to sidewalk snow violations, um, everybody in the city, uh, this is all per ordinance.

Um, everyone in the city, all residents have 24 hours after their the snow stops to clear their sidewalks uh to bare pavement.

Um if uh complaint comes in after that 24 hours that the sidewalk is not clear.

Uh an inspection will be conducted by my forestry staff.

Um, and if there's a violation, it gets sent immediately to contractor since the 24-hour abatement window has already passed.

Do you have any other questions of Mr.

Brandon, Mr.

Ramens?

I I mean it this just feels unnecessary.

Like that there is there's no hold on a second.

Hold on a second, Mr.

Remens.

You'll get an opportunity to testify.

Okay, this is your opportunity, not a question the city's witness.

Nope.

Okay, any questions from board members from Mr.

Brandon?

Okay, Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

Oh I'm sorry.

I apologize.

I have one question.

You said that this Mr.

Brandon you said that this was posted.

Where was it posted?

There's a orange piece of paper um basically that just get if there's a structure there it'll get um posted to either um the front door a railing something like that um but that's the only notice we can give uh considering that it's um it's it's deemed to be a a public uh hazard and so there's no letters that get mailed out to we wouldn't we won't be able to allow five days for example to send out a letter so the only posting that could be is just uh the written uh there was no posting physical oh so what I I know that Mr.

Raymond hasn't had an opportunity to testify yet but what we've gotten a preview of is that he's claiming that there was no posting and I believe that's what his appeal says we have any photo of the posting let's see I didn't look closely at the the door itself but um once again we don't like that's uh that's a notification that your property was in violation and it's going to contractor um I would make the case that the property was correctly in violation or posted um or correctly cited for a violation and the ordinance wasn't followed regardless what is I guess my next question would be what is the purpose of the posting it's the only it's the like the only thing we are able to give uh to basically say that your property has been cited for a violation so again I I haven't seen the posting so I'm I want to know what it says can you tell me what it should have said um it'll just say that it'll have your address on it um it's an orange small piece of paper um that says this property at this address was inspected at this day and it's in violation of this ordinance and then it has language of the ordinance at the point at which the notice is given is that when the property is deemed to have uh incurred the fees or after the contractor has a shown up at the property and actually performed the work um if the contractor shows up and the work is complete there will still be a citation fee that's what's considered to be the posting fee of $50 um and if there's no work that's completed then the only fine the only fee that stays is the $50 posting fee if the property was not completed then it'll incur all the other additional fines the admin fee as well as the contract fee.

Okay thank you I have a question for Mr.

Brandon this is Chair Bobbitt.

You know our past policy has been pretty strict pretty much strict adherence to the posting and I as well as um board member yandel cannot see the posting on the photographs that were given to us um and then also I'm a little troubled by the fact that we're charging a $50 posting fee and I can't see the posting um do you have any explanation considering that history I would say that it's um to in my view that's a bit of semantics just with the the posting fee it's we call it a posting fee really it's an inspection fee obviously there was an inspection completed with the uh inspection photos so that and what that does is um recoupes the the the the inspection work that's done okay any other further questions for board members are you mr raiments regarding questions to Mr.

Brannon okay Mr.

Ramons what would you like to tell us about your appeal yeah I think it's just kind of echoing what I was saying before that there's kind of no notice there was no posting um I'm looking at the photos right now as well this just kind of feels out of the blue but also one thing I want to point out if you look at the photos closely the after photos uh it does not show bare sidewalk it is very slightly maybe better than than what I had already shoveled and removed snow and ice for so it it doesn't it doesn't feel like the correction was even appropriate but uh again this was like no no actual notice given we keep up maintaining our property um and even after the work was done um there's clearly not just bear sidewalk so it's a bit counterintuitive to to charge for that when you could pretty much did the same thing oh any questions for board members of Mr.

Ramens hearing none we're in committee do I at this time I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of James and Marissa Ramens regarding uh this matter Mr.

I would move to grant the appeal.

The city hasn't met its burden of proof.

There is no showing that there's a posting, and I think that uh he should have had a fair opportunity to see that there was uh that he was going to have work done, and perhaps that would have given him the opportunity to have cleared the sidewalk ahead of time.

So I would move to uh grant the appeal.

I have a motion by board member Yandel that granted appeal.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair, I would second that.

Okay, we have a second.

Any objections?

Hearing on so order.

Mr.

Remus, we granted your appeal.

You will not have to pay that money to the city.

Thank you very much.

Have a good day.

Okay, at this time we're gonna call number seven.

The appeal of Jared Triplett, Triplet Flag LLC, 9507 West Fonalic Avenue.

Personal removal fees is uh James is Jared Triplett with us.

Yes.

Good morning, Mr.

Triplett.

How are you doing?

Good, how you doing?

Are you able to hear me?

Yes.

Who will be appearing for the city?

I Brandon, City Markey Foresty.

Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in.

Mr.

Triplett, could you please raise your right hand?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

Uh for file number two six zero one five.

The property uh at the address ninety-five zero five seven.

I'm sorry, ninety-five zero seven West Fond du Lac.

Uh this record was uh number PWCF dash 25-0138.

Um December 4th, 2025, there was a complaint regarding this property.

Uh an inspection was conducted, and uh a violation was uh found to be present.

So the property was cited and sent to contractor on the same day on December 5th, 2025, property was cleared by city contractor.

Um associated with this uh are the fees of $50 posting fee, uh $420 contractor fee, a $75 admin fee, and $34 and 65 cents for tax, bring the total to $579.65.

Included our inspection photos as well as the contractor before and after photos.

Okay, Mr.

Triplett, here have you had an opportunity to view the photographs submitted to the board by the city?

No, I've uh I never received any photos.

Okay.

Do you have any questions of Mr.

Brandon?

No.

Uh the board members have any questions of Mr.

Brandon.

Mr.

Triplett, what would you like to excuse Mr.

Chair?

I have a question.

Mr.

Yandel.

What kind of a property are we looking at here, Mr.

Brandon?

Is this just land or is there a house?

Appears to be a lot.

And where would the posting have been made uh at this kind of a property?

I think it would be a good time to clarify that there is no or uh to the ordinance there is no posting required.

We do this as a uh it's something that we do as a um like just to alert the property owner, but we don't require a posting of any sort to the the the notice to all city property uh owners is the ordinance itself.

The ordinance says 24 hours to clear your property, and if you don't, you will get cited.

And that is that's the warning to the the property owners.

So when there's no vacant lot and no place to post, there's nothing we can do.

We we you you have to adhere to the ordinance.

Can you tell us what what ordinance number we're looking at?

Absolutely.

I'm pulling it up right now.

It would be um one sixteen-eight sidewalks to be kept clean.

The first section is all about snow and ice.

Okay, can you bear with me while I just pull that up to that?

So Mr.

Brennan, uh I want to just make sure that I'm looking at the right um edition of the ordinances.

The date that I have on here is May 7, 2019.

Is that the most current version of the ordinance?

That's the one I'm that's the one I see as well.

Um I do see that um sidewalk snow was specifically exempted in act three seventeen which is why uh notification isn't required.

Said it was exempted where in act three seventeen and where would I find that that is a good question.

Um so this what that information was given to me um because we've gone down this road before about the the posting for um sidewalk snow um and that was a legislation that was passed I I can try to find a year I I don't necessarily want to hold up all of the proceedings here uh for this so Mr.

Chair I I I'll leave it to your call how you think we should proceed on this well how we'll start right now is there are any further questions with the city's witness board members are Mr.

Triplett Yeah see if I have questions or do you have any questions of the city Mr.

Triplett um just more about the notification deal here on like uh well mr brand is there fire away um like in the past I've gotten um emails or e notification um that the city offers and um in this situation right here like you said that you know it's vacant land um the place where um that I need to shovel is high high flip traffic there so it's like trying to get it down to bare concrete is you know very difficult then um with the you know 24 hours to do it you know that's just the difficult part and I feel like the uh fees are excessive in it when it comes to the amount of um that's charged Mr.

Brandon I I kind of put this in the question on behalf of Mr.

Triplett is there e notify with this uh procedure all properties that are cited would get e notified if the property owner has signed up to receive them and that's not something that we I don't physically send something it's just the if your property is cited it automatically would alert you mr triplet are you part of eNotify um to my knowledge I am um I'm not a hundred percent sure when it comes to like I just attained this obtained this property uh roughly October of last year so um you know what any other property that I have it's um a part of it but I'm not sure if that's something extra I'd have to do or is that uh automatic since it you know the city knows that I'm the owner mr brandon could you for the benefit of Mr.

Triplett and the audience that's listening in uh just a brief description of our e notify system yes sir um so if you go to if you if you're able to um go to the e notify um section of the city's website um you will be able to um enter um uh put in your property address and you can do it for multiple properties if you have multiple properties but you would need to put in each individual um property that you own um and you can select the types of notifications you get if you would like to know when the next ARBA meeting is if you'd like to know um if there's a a community um organization having an event in your area if you want to know if there's police uh presence in your area anything like that you can just literally go through and check the boxes and select what you would like to get notification for but you'd have to put in each individual property because we don't assume that you want to be alerted for everything.

So at this time I see uh uh ACA Joseph Dobbs.

Did you want to enter into the conversation?

I see a little hand up on your screen.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just wanted to jump in and provide the citation uh for Act 317 if that would still be helpful.

It's 2017 Act 317, which created Wisconsin statute section 66.0628 sub 2M, which created a requirement that in general municipalities have to provide some notice before imposing fees, but the last sentence of that subsection says it does not apply to a fee or charge related to the clearing of snow or ice from a sidewalk or to an ordinance violation that creates an immediate danger to public health safety or welfare.

Thank you.

Is that Mr.

Yandel?

Yeah, I'm just trying to pull it up so I can read it so we know what we're talking about here.

Oh two oh eight, you said uh attorney Dobbs.

Oh uh six to eight.

Six two eight.

I'm just gonna do a little side note here.

Mr.

Triplett, it almost looks like what happened here is actually a recent property owner took this property over in October, and you probably weren't notified by notified system of this violation, so you should make sure that's in place.

Okay.

Um was it the contractor fees that made it?

Um it's like 500 plus dollars, and we talk about a sidewalk clearing.

Well, I heard from the testimony that the contract free was uh was that 470 or 420 dollars?

420.

It's based on the length.

And I want to comment briefly on that, and I'm glad you brought that up.

This board from from the last three or four years that I've been on it has encouraged contractors to bid on this work to try to keep the cost down, and so it is an open bid, and the top bidder got it, and that's what the fee is.

And I know it seems high, but there's reasons for it because then not that much work, and when they're notified, they have to get out there right away and things along that line.

So hopefully that answers your question.

Just let me know when you're ready, Mr.

Andell.

Sure.

I apologize.

I'm just trying to review the record here.

No problem.

I know what the requirements of the board are we have a pretty strict adherence to this notice.

In this particular case, I don't have as much problem with the notices because basically no place to post it because it looks like it's a pretty well open area.

I feel like the city should have to at least do like a you know contact that.

Well, like you said, the rule say otherwise, but I feel like the notification system in this scenario is a failure.

Uh Mr.

Trippett, I'll tell you what we'll take any suggestions from you because this has been something this board has pounded on for the last three or four years.

E-Notify posting, because we don't want to bring people like you, honest taxpayers into the system if we don't have to.

Well, uh I actually uh Mr.

Chair, I I think I've looked at this.

I think I have a general understanding of it.

I I don't want to like spend too much time on it.

I guess what I what I my concern is that we have been we generally have had strict adherence to our posting requirement.

I don't see a posting, and I don't know offhand what the posting would say, but it seems that the purpose of it would be to alert a property owner that they're at risk of incurring additional uh contractor fees, and I think I'm troubled by there not being a posting or any proof of a posting.

And I think what I understand the testimony by Mr.

Triplett to have been, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that he didn't receive that he signed up for e notify.

Is that correct, Mr.

Triplett?

You're signed up for e-Notify.

Yes.

And is it your testimony that you didn't receive a notice of this?

Correct.

And do we have any way of confirming that by Mr.

Brandon or anyone anyone else?

Well, Mr.

Triplett, I'm I'm a little this is uh Chair Bob, but I'm a little confused.

I'm a little confused.

I thought that you you may not have been notified because you just purchased the property.

Correct.

Then I had assumption that um that I would be notified for everything with the fact that the city knows that I was on every other property I have there was um notified and this right here was a new one.

I had to purchase a um uh property in the city of Milwaukee in 15 years, so um you know, to know that I have to sign up additionally.

You know, I guess we can say it's my mistake, but in the same sense, you know, I had no other way of being notified unless I go to the property and see something stamped on the on a tree, maybe or the notified system that you just hadn't have an opportunity to enter into.

So can I clarify the testimony?

Is that you were not signed up for e notify at this property, or you were signed up for e notify as of right now.

If I checked right now, uh according to uh Mr.

Brandon now, not as of right now, as of the date of this um citation or of this um uh I'd have to go log in.

I don't I'm not a hundred percent sure.

I feel like uh I don't have the paper in front of me, but I feel like when I notified the city that I was the owner, um I would assume that that was you know was it, but I can't confirm or deny that right now.

I don't have a paper in front of me.

Okay, I I have no further questions.

Uh any further testimony, Mr.

Triplett.

No.

Okay, we're in committee at this time.

I'll entertain the motion.

I motion to deny.

I have a motion by Liz Hammer to deny Mr.

Triplett's appeal.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair, I I would I would second that.

But I would I would just add to that though that I do feel that it should be on the city's.

So I think my concern here is that the snow here is a little out of control.

Um, the public should have a right to walk on the sidewalk.

And I think that Mr.

Triplett, if your testimony is that you own other properties, I think that you should be aware of that.

And I don't know that I necessarily buy the I I didn't know what to do, and I didn't get a notice, especially given this much snow.

Um, but at the same time, I I do think if it's our policy to generally require strict adherence to notice requirements.

Uh, I'm troubled that the city didn't include a picture of a notice because that at least gives the property owner some opportunity to clear it.

In this case, he would have had another full day to have cleared it.

And um just a bit troubled by that, but nonetheless, I I will uh second.

Can I just add in there?

Like I said, it's a high traffic area.

So you say to get down to bare concrete, which is is just difficult, you know.

Okay, well, I I think that that only makes it that much stronger that you should have been out there.

If it's a high high traffic area, then you should know that there's a lot of people who want to use that sidewalk.

So I think that only just makes me feel a little more um compelled to second this, but nonetheless, I still make the same uh statement to the city.

Okay, I have a second by Mr.

Yandel.

Do I have any objections to that motion?

Hearing none so ordered, Mr.

Triplett, we denied your appeal.

You'll be getting written notification of denial and what your appeal rights from our decision are.

I want to thank you for coming this morning.

Please sign up for e-notify though.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Everyone have a good day.

Okay, I'm gonna go to number eight, the appeal of Carmela Feeling for snow removal fees at 5254 North 49th Street.

It's Miss Feeling with us.

Coming to the table, sir.

Thank you.

Good morning, Miss Feeling.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, who'll be appearing for the city?

Who will be appearing for the city on the appeal of Miss Phelan?

Mr.

I didn't realize I was muted.

Sorry about that.

Um Brandon City of Mocky Paris.

Okay, Miss Feeling.

Um Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in.

Would you please raise your right hand?

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

Yes, thank you.

Okay, you may proceed, Mr.

Brandon.

Sure.

Uh this address at 5254 North 49th Street.

Uh the record was PWCF-25-1047.

Um December 15th, 2025.

Um, there was a complaint made about uh sidewalk snow, and an inspection was conducted.

The property was found to be in violation, and it was cited at that time on uh the on the same day it was sent to contractor, and on December 16th, 2025, uh a contractor cleared the sidewalk of snow and ice.

The fees associated are a $50 posting fee, $70 contractor fee, a $75 admin fee, $10.15 for tax, and a total of $205.15.

Attached to the record are the inspection photo and the contractor before and after photos.

Hi, Miss Feeling.

Have you had an opportunity to view the photographs submitted to the board by the city?

No photographs I never saw.

Okay, do we have those photographs uh at the board there to show her real quickly if possible?

I can't show her.

Well, I don't need to see them.

I know I know it was done.

I saw it done.

Maybe that makes a difference.

Okay, so you do not need to see the photos.

Well, what would you like to tell us about your appeal, Miss Feeling?

Well, usually I rely on my family or my neighbors.

So of course I thought they did, but my son said he didn't, so I assume one of my neighbors did.

And the next thing I find out when I got the violation, who did it, who shoveled?

And I because of my medical reasons, I can't really get out there and being retired.

So and I normally always get some kind of info, whether it's posted, whether it's an email or knock at the door, or the CD always informs me one way or another.

Uh so I was very surprised.

Uh that maybe there was something posted on my door, and maybe the wind blew it away.

All I can say is I and I have a mailbox, but usually they don't put it in the mailbox, or they're tied to a garbage can if it's pertaining to that.

But I've been there since '98.

And uh at this point, because of my medical issues and me being retired, I just couldn't afford it.

So I was asking if you could help me out and uh this one time, and I'll make sure it won't happen again.

Mr.

Brandon, as a result of the testimony by Mr.

Feel by Miss Feeling.

Is the city city willing to make any compromise resolution of this matter?

Uh I would be happy to let the board make that decision.

I at this time I we're not gonna um reduce any fines.

How about the posting fee?

If you if that's what you guys would like to do, absolutely.

Well, the only reason why I bring up the posting fees, I can't see the posting on the photos.

I think we need to rename it to an inspection fee.

I think that's what we're gonna do going forward as well.

And how much is that posting fee or inspection fee?

Uh $50.

Are you willing to concede that to resolve this appeal or do you want it to go further on?

If she is willing to accept that, we can we can do that.

Okay, Miss Feeling, the city is willing to reduce it by $50.

Is that acceptable to you?

Uh that sounds uh a great blessing, but I get paid only on the third.

May I have until a little after April 3rd to be able to pay it?

Well, it sounds like we've resolved this, but I'm thinking bring up a very good question for the people in the audience.

Um, how does Miss Phelan have to pay that money?

There will be a bill that gets nailed.

Um, I believe that there's 30 days to pay once you once you receive the bill, you have 30 days uh to pay uh that amount.

And if there's if no payment received, then the um the amount plus I I do believe that there's a ten dollar late fee.

I'm not sure on that, but there is an additional fee that would get uh added on, but then it would just get rolled into your tax uh your tax assessment.

Does that answer your question, Miss Phelan?

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

So from my understanding, you're willing to accept the 155.15 cent charge.

How much he said 50?

Uh no, it's reduced by 50.

Oh wow.

No, I thought you said it would be 50.

No, it'll be reduced by 50 because the con you'll still have to pay the contractor fee.

Oh wow.

And because it wasn't posted, that's all the discount they'll give me because uh won't be able to pay 30 days if I do get that.

I would have to be April, and then it would go to May to be able to afford to pay 150.

Well, you'll have time to pay it.

If you don't pay it, then there's just a $10 late fee.

But if you want, that's gonna help we resolve this matter this morning.

Do I have any other choices?

Is that my final well?

That's a compromise settlement.

I mean, you can go to a full board and take your chances, but that's a compromise.

So that's why I'm asking, would they reduce it any more?

Can I get a more of a I think that's we're basically at the contractor fee?

So that's that's it.

That's final.

That's correct.

Jeez.

All right, I'll have to take it.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna take it a mo I'm gonna entertain a motion on appeal of Camarella Feeling for it being to be reduced to 155 15.

Do I have a motion?

Do I have an alternative motion?

I'll motion for the um I'm sorry, but you have a motion for the 15515.

Yes.

I have a motion by Miss Hammer for the appeal of Carmela being granted in part and denied in part.

Now basically the fee would be 15515.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair, I'll second it.

Okay, second by Mr.

Yandell.

Any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

We're gonna go to number nine.

Number nine is the appeal of Sandra Scott.

For snow removal fees at 3763 North 36th Street.

Is Miss Scott with us?

Yes, I'm here.

You're in the audience there, Miss Scott.

Yes, yes.

Good morning.

How are you doing today?

Good morning, sir.

Who will be appearing for the city?

Forestry.

Okay, Miss Scott, would you please raise your right hand?

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

I was just missing the last claim.

Um, do you solely affirm that the paint and penalties are perjury in the state of Wisconsin?

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

I affirm.

Thank you.

Okay, you may proceed, Mr.

Brandon.

Okay.

Uh for the address 3763 North 36th Street.

Uh, this record was PWCF-25-001035.

Um December 3rd, 2025.

Uh, after uh responding to a complaint made about sidewalk snow and uh ice, an inspection was conducted.

The property was found to be in violation, and it was subsequent subsequently cited on the same day.

Uh it was sent to contractor for abatement, and on the same day it was cleared by city contractor on December 3rd, 2025.

Uh the posting fee of $50, $70 contractor fee, $75 admin fee, ten dollars and fifteen cents for tax to a total of two hundred and five dollars and fifteen cents attached are the inspection photo as well as the contractor before and after photos.

Um this property, uh one additional note uh since this has come up uh previously.

All the properties are heavily salted.

This property was completed on at 7 36 p.m.

Um obviously the the salt is gonna take a little bit more time to to kick in, but it was salted and uh shoveled as as close as they could to Bear Haven.

Okay, Miss Scott, do you have any questions?

Is the city's witness?

Um sir.

Um I um was under a medical treatment, and uh I have uh had surgery on my uh left knee and and back, and uh I I am I get uh personal uh help in the home, and um my uh consult um my consultants with Iris was trying to help me find someone to um to shovel the snow, and I was looking to um, but at that time it took some time for me to get someone, which I have now, but I didn't have at the time, and I wasn't able to do it.

I was under doctor's care right at that time.

I think I sent the letter in to you all from my doctor uh that I was not able to do it, and but it wasn't that I wasn't seeking help to get it, unfortunately.

It's hard to get people good laborers nowadays, but I've been a property owner since uh 99, and I've never had this problem before, and Lord say the same.

I don't ever plan on having it again.

I was just in a situation uh that I had a flare with my back that I wasn't able to otherwise I would have uh tried to do something.

Um and so I'm just uh there was no notice.

Um I was shocked when I got it.

I I there was no sticker, no notice of any sort.

Um uh I have uh I'm the type of person I'm a law abiding citizen, a good taxpayer, and um I've I've I'm the type of person that I try to when I got help, I would try to help another neighbor to clear, make sure they're clear.

So uh people that were elderly or whatever.

Um I was just in a uh buying situation right at that time seeking help, and uh it just happened to be uh that you know I was caught at an in-between situation, but uh like I said, I've had property for many years in the city of Milwaukee, and uh I played plenty of taxes and stuff, but I always I've never had this problem, you know.

It was just an adverse situation, and I'm just asking for the mercy of the court because I am on disability.

Um my income reduced drastically because I had to because of a work injury, and um it's just was an unfortunate situation.

Mr.

Brandon, as a result of the testimony from Ms.

Scott, is the city willing at this time to make any compromise offer to resolve this appeal.

Uh, you're muted, Mr.

Brennan.

Sorry, sorry, I did it again.

Um I would prefer to uh uh defer to the board if if you would like to waive a fee.

Um at least if the board decided to wave a fee, would that be uh a resolution that you could live with, Miss Scott?

What do you mean by that?

I'm asked into um well, Mr.

Brennan, could you go over the fee freed of the whole thing?

Could you go through the uh breakdown again, Mr.

Brennan?

Absolutely.

Um there's a $50 inspection fee, uh, a $70 contractor fee, uh $75 admin fee, uh, ten dollars and fifteen cents for tax, and the total is uh uh two hundred and five dollars and fifteen cents.

Of course, any um service um fee that would be reduced would also um decrease the tax a little bit, but I didn't get any any type of uh notice or anything.

Um I just I just needed they just happened to at that particular time, but I've never had this problem.

I and I've been a homeowner since 99.

I've never had that problem.

Here's what we we typically never never waive the contractor fee because somebody actually had to go out there and do it.

And the city has generally been our policy that's not responsible, so that's $70 contractor fee.

Then we also have a ten dollar tax fee.

But we do have some maneuverability is on the posting fee and the admin fee, which is 125.

Uh at this time I'd entertain a uh a motion by a board member to see if Miss uh Scott would be willing to accept that.

Can't if you would um if I can just pay the 125.

I would I can work with that.

Do I um well that's certainly a fair compromise?

That's for sure.

Do I have a motion to accept the uh accept to grant uh miss Scott's motion in part and denying part?

My understanding is that she's willing to pay the posting fee and the administrative and a contractor fee for a total of 125.

The administration fee would be the one waived as well as well.

The taxes we can't waive, but they'd be reduced by the amount.

And I didn't get it, I didn't get any type of uh posting on my door.

I lived there, I was in the house.

You know, well, did you want to go to a possible compromise or go through a full hearing?

A full hearing.

Okay, the compromise, I guess.

You want the compromise?

Well, do I have a motion for the question?

I don't understand.

Is it possible to um what's the best that can happen?

Well, the best could happen is you don't have to pay anything.

That's what I'm asking.

I was under I was under the doctor's care right at that time, dealing with my back.

I could not get it, I could not do it.

Well, you can see why I'm trying to bend over backwards, because you certainly lay out a case for uh being a very responsible person, and you know, things happen.

Personal health and all kinds of things.

So I'm trying to look for a compromise versus a going to the thing.

And my understanding is that if it's 125 plus the tax that'd be acceptable to you, or am I mistaken?

Yeah, I uh yeah, I'll take the 125.

Okay, do I have a motion by board members then to grant and part and deny the apart uh part the appeal of Sandra Scott?

Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Yandell.

I would move to grant and part and deny in part, granting the appeal as to the admin fee, uh denying as to the posting and contractor fee.

Uh Miss Scott would still be responsible for the tax on that.

I don't know what the total will be.

Um, but that's what my motion is for.

Okay, I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to grant and part denying part.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair, I'll second.

Yeah, I have a second.

Any objections?

Very none so ordered.

Well, Miss Scott, um take care of yourself.

I'm working on it, and I'm glad that you got a backup in place now for seeing that we're starting to get a lot of snow again.

I never saw any pictures either.

Okay.

Well, and I'm gonna call the appeal of Eric Shirley for Shirley Revocable Trust for snow removal fees at 319 East Bolivar.

Who's here representing uh Eric Shirley?

Shirley is Eric Shirley, you're there.

I'm here.

Okay, good morning, Mr.

Shirley.

How are you doing today?

Good morning, Mr.

Bob, and I'm fine.

How are you?

Good.

And who is appearing for the city of Milwaukee?

I'm brand Citywalkie Forestry.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon has previously been sworn in to testify.

Would you please raise your right hand, Mr.

Shirley?

Just only affirming the pain and penalties are perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

Uh for the address at 319 East Balomar Avenue.

Uh, this record was PWCF-25-10596.

On December 16th, 2025, uh, a complaint was responded to you by a four-sheet technician.

The property was inspected, found to be in violation for sidewalk snow and ice.

It was cited at that time.

Um, on December 16th, on the same day, it was sent to contractor for uh abatement, and on 1217 of the next day, it was cleared by contractor.

The fees associated are $50 posting fee, $70 contractor fee, $75 admin fee, $10.15 for tax uh for a total of $25.15 attached to the record are the inspection photo as well as the contractor before and after photos.

Okay, uh you've been listening, Mr.

Uh Shirley to the previous uh hearings.

Is there any compromise solution, Mr.

Brandon?

To this short of going to the board.

No, sir.

Okay.

Uh I have a question for Mr.

Brandon.

Yes, Mr.

Yandel.

Mr.

Brandon, I'm looking at the picture here where the contractor is in the before and after.

Is that one of the postings there on the railing?

That way it is what happened here is the uh inspector took the photo before they posted it.

So it's just in reverse order.

So the inspection photo happened, then the sticker was attached to the railing, so it's out of order.

That's something I'll just talk to my inspectors about.

Just make sure that they take those in the right order.

Um, but it was properly cited at that time.

Mr.

Shirley, have you had an opportunity to view the city's photos?

Yes, sir.

I have.

Okay.

Okay.

Any any questions from Mr.

Brandon, Mr.

Shirley?

No questions.

What would you like to tell us?

Any questions from board members to Mr.

Brandon?

Okay, what would you like to tell us about your appeal, Mr.

Shirley?

I just moved to the area, relocated here for a job.

So I bought that property in August, moved in in September.

Um, wasn't aware of the ordinance, but I completely understand why it's in place.

I'm aware of it now.

Um, I did receive that posting that was on the railing, so I was perfectly aware of the situation.

Um, I travel quite a bit, so it happened to be on a day where I was out of town.

So I completely understand why the city wants the sidewalks clear.

Um, I've since made arrangements for when I travel to have somebody else come in and clear those sidewalks quickly.

So it hasn't happened since.

Um moved here from southern Ohio where snow is not as big an issue as it is up here.

So I say that for your sympathy coming from southern Ohio, but uh completely aware is why the city wants that cleared.

So um I was just looking to make a compromise here and see if we could uh eliminate some of that fee.

But again, I completely understand why the city has that ordinance in place.

Any questions uh for Mr.

Shirley from by board members.

Okay, we're in committee at this time.

I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Eric Shirley, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Yandell.

Move to deny.

I have a motion by board member Yandell to deny the appeal of Mr.

Shirley.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair.

Second by Miss Uh Hammer.

Do I hear any uh objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

Uh Mr.

Shirley, I just want to make a brief comment.

I'm glad for you being so forthright with the committee regarding this appeal.

Uh as you can see in this case, we did we did see the sticker on the railing, but they didn't we saw the backside of it versus the front.

And um, but I did look at the photos, and uh there was quite a bit of snow that had to be removed.

So I'm glad you have the situation under control, and welcome to the city of Milwaukee.

Thank you, Mr.

Bonnet.

You're welcome.

At this time, I'm gonna call the number 11.

The appeal of David Glaubacke and Kim Kip Menster for snowboard removal fees at 2331 East Newberry Boulevard.

Hello, I see you uh there, Kip Menster.

Yes.

And is David with us?

He is not, he's working.

Okay, and who's gonna appear for the city of Milwaukee?

And Brandon City Milwaukee Porter.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in.

Would you please raise your right hand, Mr.

Menser?

So perching the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

The property at 2331 East Newberry Boulevard.

This record was PWCF-25-10596.

On December 16th, 2025, there was a complaint made to the city of Milwaukee regarding um sidewalk, snow and ice.

An inspection was uh conducted at that time.

Uh there was a violation at that time.

It was cited and sent to contractor for abatement on the same day.

Uh on 1216, same day, the property was cleared by a city contractor of snow and ice.

Uh the fees associated are 50 posting fee, inspection fee, uh 280 contractor fee, uh 75 admin fee, and 24 and 85 cents for tax.

The total is 429.85 cents.

Um, as you can see from the inspection photos, the um the property is um a longer length, which is why the contractor fee is 280 this time.

It goes up um every 60 feet.

Um, so there was inspection photos and contractor before and after photos attached to the record as well.

Okay, Mr.

Um Mencer, have you were you able to see the photos produced by the city?

I saw the inspection photos, but I have not seen the contractor photos.

Okay, and I would argue that they I there was no any there wasn't anything done by the contractors from what I can see from what I can assume.

Um, but I so I would like to see those photos.

All right.

I have contractor after photos in my file.

Um it shows quite a bit of clearing.

Um and this was done on all on the same day.

This because I was home that entire day.

Well, the clearance the clearance photo is uh 1217 25 start time 740, end time 10 40 a.m.

Okay, so because I did all of that the day before on the 16th that night that that was all done the same day as the post aid by myself.

I spent four hours doing that with my neighbors with their assault and with a shovel and a pick.

There was no there was never any work done that day or the next day by a contractor.

Well, because there's we have cut we have inspection photos, we have contractor photos before we have before and after contractors.

I I have seen the inspection photos.

I have not seen so there's before and after contractor photos.

Yes, I have them in my file before and after.

I would like to look significantly different than the before.

I would like is there a way for me to see those photos.

Um yeah, we provide them to you.

I the city website only has the contractor photos that I was able to, or not the contractor, the inspection photos.

Mr.

Brandon, do you know whether or not uh he would be able to see the contractor after photos and before I believe that they're yep, they're all attached to the file.

Um, so I believe anybody can go to their um to their appeal and pull up all the the photos that I attached.

I am in that appeal currently, and the only two photos are the inspection photos.

You want to maybe I don't know, is it is the file like if you keep going further down on the the record I have um it you just scroll all the way down and there's uh contractor photos at the below that I mean I can I can share my screen and and show you what I can see but um I mean if you want Mr.

Mensker we can uh we can schedule it another time or we could pass it and see if you can get them, but clearly in mine as we have before and after.

I would I would be very interested in seeing those because I spent again I went out with my neighbor next door at and spent four hours on the the night before those contractor photos putting down tons of salt and make it and they did the same thing with us, and they did not get this same contractor fee.

So I'm very confused as to where the this is all coming from because it was all completely done the day before.

Well, all I can tell you is we have before and after and the after.

Somebody put down a significant amount of salt because the sidewalk is clear.

So that's where I'm kind of confused because we do have I am as well.

Well, uh I I mean I wish I could see those photos because I would be shocked if the true before and after were from them because I this the sidewalk was clear for the most part at night the day before.

And then when the sun came out the next morning, it was even more clear.

So I would love to see those photos.

Well, you would you would acknowledge that the before photo shows a lot of ice, correct?

The inspection, yes.

Yeah, and I got the notice.

I I more than I I definitely got the notice because I went out and immediately started cleaning up when the notice was put on my front door.

Yeah, the photos are really clear.

I I don't know how to resolve this.

Um I guess what we should do is we should uh I'd entertain a motion to hold us for the call of the chair, and we can reschedule and you have an opportunity to look at the photos and discuss this with Mr.

with Mr.

Brandon.

I yeah, I wish I could see those photos because I at this time at this time I entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair.

Mr.

Chair, yes, Mr.

Yandel.

I would move to hold for the call of the chair.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Um we'll we'll reschedule this, Mr.

Mensker.

Thank you.

Yeah, they're very clear.

That is shocking to me because it was completely clear the night before they came.

Uh I I don't know.

I would love to see these photos.

Well, they're they're in our file, so yep, you're getting them at this time.

I'm gonna call number 12, the appeal of Misty Turzbinkowski for snow removal fees at 4719 South 20th.

Yes, uh morning, Ms.

D.

How are you doing?

Good, how are you?

And you did a good job at pronouncing my last name.

Well, normally I always go last name, but with your last name being so long, and we having trouble with my audio today.

I'm a little under the weather.

That'd be fine.

Up here on behalf of the city of Milwaukee.

Brandon City Monkey Forestry.

Okay, Misty, would you please raise your right hand?

Solely affirming that the painstone penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

Um, this address was 4719 South 20th Street.

Uh the record associated was uh PWCF-25-11037.

On December 16th, 2025, there was a complaint made to the city of Milwaukee regarding tall or uh sorry, um, regarding uh sidewalk uh snow and ice.

An inspection was conducted, found to be in violation, and the property was cited on 1216 2025.

The property was sent to contractor for abatement, and on 1217 2025, the property was uh cleared by a city uh Milwaukee contractor.

Um fines associated with it are a $50 uh contractor, or um, I'm sorry, a $50 posting or inspection fee, $70 contractor fee, a $75 admin fee, and $10.15 for tax.

The total is 205.15 cents attached with the file are the inspection photo as well as the contractor before photo and after photo.

Do you have any do you have any questions of Mr.

Brandon?

Um, well, yes, um, I did not get a notice from the city.

I only received a bill in the mail for the 2515, which I was completely floored by because I have been a resident of Milwaukee for over five years and never had an issue.

Number one, number two, and previous to that, I'd been a I've been I lived in Milwaukee previously to be here for five years.

So um, I do know the city ordinance with the sidewalks.

Um that particular weekend, I had been out of town.

I went out of town Thursday night, so I was out of town Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and I did not get back till Monday evening.

Um, and I did not the other thing is my I don't usually do the snow removal.

My my husband does, or my boyfriend does, and he has shoulder shoulder surgery, so he's not been able to.

So I've been trying to keep up on it as much as I possibly can because I've been working overtime.

I've been working ridiculous hours of hours of overtime.

And um, I've been trying to do it as soon as we got back into town on that Monday night.

I did go out there and try to remove the ice and the snow.

Um, it did not look like the after photos that I saw in the thing at all, because I had to do a lot of work to get it out.

So it did not look like that when um for the after photos that you guys see.

That's not what I ended up having to do on that Monday, um, on that Monday when we got back.

So I don't know how they got those photos because it didn't look like that when I went to it.

I mean, it of course it didn't look as bad as it as the before photos, but um irregardless.

I was not notified and I was floored that I got this um in the mail.

Um, and I've never had a sighting violation.

So I would like to at least have a lesser fee than what I was granted.

Um, because I did not receive any notice besides the bill in the mail, if I could.

I'm just trying to do what I can.

Any questions from board members of Miss Uh Misty.

Okay, we're in committee.

That this time I'll entertain a motion.

I'll uh I'll pass the gavel over to Mr.

Yandel.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

At this time, I'm gonna make a motion to grant in part and deny a part uh the appeal of Misty.

I would motion that we waive the administrative fee, but you should have to pay the uh the uh posting fee and a contractor fee plus tax, which is 120 plus tax.

That's my motion.

Okay, we have a motion by uh uh board member Bobbitt for a grant in part and deny in part.

Uh the motion is to waive the admin fee uh to deny the uh deny the posting.

I'm sorry, to deny the appeal as to the posting and uh contractor's fee.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

All right, we have a second.

Any objections hearing none, so ordered.

Um I will pass the gavel back to Mr.

Bobbit, Mr.

Bobbitt.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, Misty, we granted your appeal in part and denied in part.

Uh, you'll now be responsible to pay 120 plus the tax.

So you were given a reduction of 75 due to the circumstances.

Thank you.

I appreciate I really do appreciate that for you to have some grace and at least lowering the fee.

I appreciate that.

And we will try not to have that happen again, but I'm doing the best that I can.

Thank you very much.

This time I'm gonna call the appeal of John Sephero for snow removal 802 east.

Uh good morning, Mr.

Seferro.

I see you there on the screen.

Morning, Mr.

Bell.

How are you?

Who's gonna appear here on behalf of the city?

I am so sorry.

I keep doing that.

Um Ben Brand at City of Monkey Porter.

Okay, Mr.

Sephiroth.

You've uh Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in.

Would you please raise your right hand?

You so only affirm under the pain and penalties of perjuring the state of Wisconsin.

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

I do.

Good morning, Mr.

Trefirral.

Morning.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

Um for the property at 800 East Kowani Street.

This record was PWCF-25-10073 on December 3rd, 2025.

Uh, an inspector, uh, City of Monkey Forestry inspector uh cited this property for sidewalk snow and ice based on a complaint that was made.

Um 123 2025, the property was also sent to contractor.

On 125 2025, uh the contractor cleared uh the sidewalks with snow and ice.

The fees associated are $50 posting fee, $210 contractor fee, $75 admin fee, $19.95 for tax.

Uh, and the total is $354.95.

Um attached to the record are the inspection photos showing a quarter property with a uh longer length, which is why the contract fee is higher.

Um, and also contractor before and after photos.

Mr.

Severo, have you had an opportunity to see the photos?

Uh no, I haven't.

I did not receive any photos, and I did not get a posting.

Uh there was nothing on uh my door.

I have owned and lived in this property, which is a duplex for 47 years.

I bought it in 1979, and I have taken care of it, or have had someone take care of it for me, which now at my age of 74.

I do need to have someone help me with the uh snow and uh removal and that uh this was a particularly hard storm.

I don't know if you recall, but there was a lot of uh wet snow and it was ice.

Um I did make I do have a tenant downstairs, it is a duplex, and I make arrangements for him to clear the snow.

But when this happened, he was out of town.

So when it snowed that evening, and I oh I said well, we are you gonna clear the snow in the morning?

And I didn't, he was gone.

And so uh the next day, um, I do have a degenerative spine uh problem known as spondylosis thesis, which is a narrowing of the lower back, so I can't do any heavy work.

Um I went out the next day and cleared whatever the snow on top as I could, but uh it was one of these snows, you know, where they it uh snows and then the temperature drops to like 10 degrees, and it's it was about an inch of ice, and it was like a block of ice.

I went out, I went went to the hardware store, I got three bags of ice melt, put it down, waited, went out there, tried to do, but it was still hard.

And uh, you know, but I I'm not able to chop and do any kind of like that.

You know, I cleared the top of the snow as best I could with a shovel.

Um, but and then I tried to call to see if I could get a backup to help me to clear the walk.

Um, like I said, I've owned this property 47 years, and I've always cleared my I know I understand the ordinance.

I know, you know, uh again.

There was no posting, nothing stuck on my door, or my I went and looked at my lower.

There's it's a lower and an upper.

I live upstairs.

There was a um, because I've got I did have gotten other.

I'll admit I have gotten things like for um brush removal, but they would stick a something on my front door and says, you know, you need to clear this, and within you know, 48 hours, but there was no notice at all of that, so I didn't even know that was it.

So anyhow, I put down the ice melting crystals.

Still there were not.

I was good, and then I was gonna wait till the next day and put down some more uh uh ice melt, and uh, but the next thing I know, I see there's a guy out there with a front loader.

That's how bad it was.

They needed a front loader to get the ice, it was so thick.

So I mean, I was just no pun intended, but between a rock and a hard place, uh, you know, trying to get this uh almost you know, half an inch to an inch of ice off the sidewalk.

So I was doing what I what I could possibly do.

Um, but again, you know, like I said, I just uh that's pretty much where it where you know where it stands.

I was doing whatever I try, I was trying to do the best I could.

I was I was gonna make the same comment than that when you said they needed a front loader.

Yeah, the photos show a significant amount of uh a significant amount of ice accumulation on the sidewalk.

So the remediation would be very the contractor fee to me seems very reasonable considering what the project looks like that had to be done.

Yeah, but I mean, no, I'm not equipped with a backload with a front loader to get a block of ice off the sidewalk.

I mean, I guess the city expect me to have a contractor.

I don't know.

Is there any questions of Mr.

Sefiro from board members?

Okay, we're in committee at this time.

At this time, I'm entertaining the motion.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh Mr.

I would move to grant in part and deny in part.

I am looking at this at the ordinance, which is 116-8.

And one of the things that I'm noticing in here, since we've had so many of these today, is that uh 116-8 says it says that the owner occupant is responsible for clearing the sidewalk.

Uh and then it says whenever ice has so formed on any sidewalk that it cannot be removed, then the persons responsible for snow and ice removal under the subsection shall prevent the remaining ice from presenting a hazard to the users of the sidewalk by applying sand abrasive material or any product that melts ice to the entire paved surface.

So I think obviously there was ice there.

Obviously, the city incurred some expense here.

Um, but it does seem that the appellant made a good faith effort to comply with the ordinance, and I think for that reason I'm going to move to grant in part and deny in part.

I will grant in part as to the posting fee and the admin fee and move to deny as to the contractor fee and any applicable tax.

Yeah, I have a motion by uh board member Yandell, the grant in part and denying part, and by and large, what the motion is is that the appellant would be responsible for the posting fee and the admitting fee, which is 125 plus tax.

But we would not be responsible for a 210 dollar contractor fee.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Chair, I'll I'll second that.

Okay, we have a second.

Any objection to that motion?

Hearing non-so ordered, Mr.

Sophie, we granted your motion, your appeal in part and denied in part.

You'll be responsible for 125 plus tax.

That's I that's agreeable.

I mean, because I think it was there were extenuating circumstances.

And thank you for this morning being here.

Uh this time we have the appeal of Ying Mua for snow removal fees at 7805 North 76th Street.

Is Ms.

Ying you are there?

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

What number are we on?

What number, please?

Uh who is asking?

This is property 2739 North Ninth Street.

I'm number 25.

I was asking what number you on.

Right now we're on number 14.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Okay.

Uh yeah, I'm uh Ying's daughter and also her tenant.

I have the rental agreement right here with my name on it.

But I don't know if you can see that.

Um let me blur my background.

Uh well, who owns the property?

My mom, Ying Wu.

Uh, and because your mother do appear at a later date.

No, but I do.

I'm the tenant, so she doesn't live here.

So that's why I have the rental agreement to show that I was here, so I'm supposed to be responsible.

But here's the problem.

What do we decide your mother is going to be responsible for?

So either you can have your mother appear.

We do have by Zoom appearance, or you can hire an attorney.

But we will have to pass the case.

Whatever we decide, your mother's the one that's gonna be responsible for it.

It said if I have substantial interest, and I do because I live here.

That's what the uh letter said.

Well I don't deny that I more or less think the substantial interest goes into the ownership of the property itself.

Being a rental, I think it's problematic because no matter what we decide, your mother's gonna have to pay, and we do have the accommodation of doing it by Zoom video.

So I mean, at this time, I would not feel comfortable going ahead without your mother being present.

So we can pass the case and I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call at a chair.

I mean, I guess, but it says substantial interest.

So I I figured, you know, being the tenant and being on the lease agreement that says I'm responsible for the removal of you know snow and then mowing the lawn.

That should be it.

Well, that's gonna be oh, sorry about that.

That's all right.

At this time, I'm gonna entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I would just ask if uh ACA Dobbs would be able to provide some guidance on what a substantial interest means in this context.

Are you with us, uh assistant city attorney Joseph Dobbs?

Absolutely.

So ultimately, this was an issue of fact for the board.

The statute in chapter 68 requires someone to be aggrieved in order to file an appeal with the board.

Now there's sometimes two separate issues as I see it.

Uh, or two different ways this problem can come up.

If someone files an appeal and then someone else uh appears on their behalf, that's a different issue, and that's where we get into the uh attorney uh representation question.

But here I believe the person appearing is the one who filed the appeal in her own name.

And so the question for the board to decide as I see it is whether she constitutes an aggrieved person under the statute.

So has she suffered a loss?

Does she have that substantial interest?

Which is a is another way to frame uh to frame it.

And I think that's a question that the board uh can vote on and decide.

Uh I don't think there's necessarily a categorical answer that the law would provide.

Um, but I don't think the law would require someone to um I don't think the law would say it is limited to the owner of the property in all cases.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

Okay, um well, yeah.

I that's okay.

Well, who's gonna appear on behalf of the city of Milwaukee?

Mr.

Brandon, you have to and Brandon City of Maki Forestry.

Okay, and you are are you again?

You are Ying Moa.

I'm Ju Jong, so I'm the one that filed the appeal, and then when I got the letter about the appeal court, it says my name and my mom's name on it.

So that's why I thought I'd so you're you're you're Zhu Zhang.

I'm Ju.

Yeah, I'm Jujong.

Okay, Ju, would you raise your right hand, please?

Sonia from under the pain penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay.

This property is 7805 North 76th Street.

Um record associated was PWTF-26-00360.

On January 27, 2026, uh complaint was made about sidewalk uh snow and ice.

Inspection was conducted by a forestry technician um and found to be in violation.

Property was cited and sent to contractor on the same day.

On the same day, uh, one twenty uh January 27, 2026, the property is cleared by a city of Milwaukee contractor.

Fees associated uh with this are a $50 posting fee, $210 contractor fee, 75 admin fee, $9.95 for tax, and the total of $354.95.

Also attached in the record are the inspection photos as well as the contractor uh before and after photos, photo, yes, photos.

Okay, uh, do you have any questions from Mr.

Brandon?

Uh I did not get a notice.

Do you see anywhere on there where I was given a notice?

Mr.

Brandon, are you able to answer that question?

Uh, in terms of a physical posting fee or a uh posting slip of some sort.

I don't see that in the photos.

Once again, that's not required.

Um, but I don't see it in the photo itself.

Did you have any other questions?

Uh Zhu.

Uh no, no other questions.

Any questions from board members?

Okay, Zhu, what would you like to tell us about your appeal?

Uh yeah, I didn't get a notice at all.

Um, I understand, like listening this whole time, uh, that the city needs us to remove snow within 24 hours.

Um, but I just started living here back in the spring.

Um, and so I just kind of want the same grace as like the first guy did.

I think Mr.

Reynolds was it, I forget his name, uh, where he was able because he didn't get a notice, he was able to get his appeal um waived or whatever.

Um yeah, it's my first offense if you look at it.

Um I just I usually pay you know, I always pay my taxes, I always try to, you know, be the good person, but yeah, I do understand like at the time we didn't remove it in within 24 hours.

I seen the photos.

Uh I just wish I had some sort of notice because if I did, I would have removed it.

So since then, since getting this, I've actually been removing the snow within 24 hours because I know about this now.

Um, because I didn't know about the ordinance until I got the um the letter about uh how I owe a lot of money to the city.

Okay, do we have any questions of board members of uh uh Zhu?

Chair?

Uh yes, Mr.

Yandel.

So I um Mr.

I'm just curious.

So, why wasn't the snow removed?

I don't think we got any testimony on that.

Oh, I thought I had some more time to remove it, but I think I thought I had like 48 hours or something.

So I actually came out the following night after work to remove it, and I saw it was already gone.

Uh, but I thought my neighbor did it because sometimes my neighbor will help me out when he sees me out there, uh, because he has a snowblower and I don't.

So I did not think anything of it at the time.

I was like, oh, my neighbor did it.

So I thought I had 48 hours.

I did not realize I only had 24.

Okay.

Any other questions of Miss Zhu?

Okay, we are in committee at this time.

Uh entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Yandell.

In trying to exercise some consistency here and reasoning, uh I would move to grant in part and deny in part, granting in part for the $50 posting fee and denying as to the remaining fees.

Okay, so then your your motion is to it would just charge the contractor and admin fees and whatever the taxes, and you'd waive the uh posting fee, yes, sir.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to uh deny deny in part and grant in part.

Ms.

Yu would be responsible for 304.95 cents, consisting of the contractor fee and amin fee and tax.

Do I have a second?

A second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Do I have any further discussion or any objections?

Hearing none.

Excuse me.

How come the first guy got everything waived then?

Because I feel like I have a similar situation as him.

Well, I think one of the things that I can comment on is the amount of snow on your property.

The photos that were before a board that decide showed that there's a significant accumulation of snow on the sidewalks by you, and it had been there for a fairly significant amount of time.

So it's kind of comparative from my standpoint.

I I noticed the amount of snow on your sidewalks was significant.

Okay.

Yeah, I didn't I didn't see the first guy's photos, so makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, we get the photos, and some are really light dusting a little ice and snow.

This one is it's snow covered.

Yeah, yeah, I can agree on that.

Okay, uh, you'll be receiving a written response from our um clerk, and they'll have your appeal rights if you want to appeal our decision.

Okay, thanks for coming.

All right, thank you.

We're gonna have the appeal of Joshua no uh Jonesha Hendon, AC DL properties, LLC for snow removal fees at 8230 West Marion.

Is Jonesha with us?

Is Jonisha in the audience?

Oh sir.

Okay, at this time I'll entertain a motion for denial for non-appearance, Mr.

Chair.

Move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to die for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Oh second.

Second by Ms.

Hammer, any objections?

Hearing none, so ordered.

We're gonna be proceed.

Um, could I ask a question to the board?

Um, will you be going back to the first agenda item that was given more time?

Um, I what happened here.

Do you want me to go for that right now?

It's it's my last one for the day, so I'm just wondering if you okay.

I'm glad you brought that up.

I thought you might still have the rest of these because we have quite a few.

Yeah, okay.

I'm gonna call uh number one, the appeal of Charlie Clark, Prairie Park LLC for tall grass and nuisance fees, 8413 North 99th Street.

Is Charlie Clark with us at this time?

No one has shut up, sir.

Uh entertain a motion for non-appearance denial, and it is uh says set for nine and is now about 1045.

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Mr.

Yandel.

Move to deny for non-appearance.

Got a motion by Mr.

Deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objection to that motion?

Hearing none so ordered.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Brennan.

You have a good day.

We are now gonna call the appeal of Jordan Sowinsky for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 42 52 North 89th Street.

Is Jordan Sowinsky with us this morning?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh there was a communication that I forwarded to you.

Um I needed more clarity, and that email was received after our first after our uh February meeting.

So I uh schedule a reschedule this item.

Uh, but I did forward you that email for lack of clarity and understanding for myself.

It appears that Mr.

Sowansky has a court um uh situation going on with this item.

Okay, so we're just gonna hold it for the call of the chair.

I don't know if the city attorney can um give any more insight on this.

Oh, that's okay.

At this time, I'm gonna entertain a motion to hold the appeal of Mr.

Solinski for a call of the chair.

Do I have a second?

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair, move to hold chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

We're holding it for the call of the chair.

So whenever the underlying thing is resolved, then we'll just schedule it back on our calendar.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, now we're gonna go to the appeal of Steve Brick.

And that's for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 2938 North 24th Street.

Mr.

Brick, are you with us?

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

Do I have that motion?

Mr.

Chair, move to deny for non appearance.

I have a motion of Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

No second.

Any objections to that?

Hearing nonso ordered.

We move on now to number 21, which is the appeal of Michael Wish.

Wish senior.

Good morning, Mr.

Wish.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you well.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Who's gonna appear on behalf of the city?

You're gonna have to.

Laurie Gallup, Department of Neighborhood Services.

Okay.

At this time, would you please swear in the witnesses?

Show me if I'm under the pain time penalties for perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

Okay, you missed you can proceed, Miss Gallup.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, we had a solid waste violation at the property address of 4646 North 29th Street.

Uh GBG C O 25-04 197.

Uh, the order was posted on the property on 1015 of 2025.

Uh the order was also mailed out on the same day.

Uh in your packet, you will see that we did have uh a reinspection that was called in, and we are granted a reinspection uh rather than the 24 hours.

So we did have contact uh the reinspection was then granted for 1021 in your package.

You will see our con our my inspector photos that were taken on October 14th.

Uh a lot of cardboard scattered litter and debris kind of throughout uh their part of the property.

You also see a copy of our posting uh on the property and a number of photographs for multiple areas of scattered litter and debris.

Uh after all of those photographs, you will then see the contractor was sent out on 11.3 of 2025.

Uh you will see the photographs as far as scattered litter and debris before and after.

Uh, there was some that appeared to have been cleaned up, but some that was not.

So, with uh the fees that were occurred for this one is we had a $60 and 13 cent contractor fee and our normal administration fee of 120 and $2.88 for uh IT fees for a total of 1830 one.

Uh like the previous cases, is the city city willing to offer any compromise to resolve this short of a full board hearing.

Uh with this one, I would say that I I with within my limits of waiv the the administration fee.

Uh, they did attempt to clean up.

Uh I would like to know that at any point in time when we send a contractor out.

Uh it is the it is the entire area.

So it does appear that this area they did attempt to remove all the solid waste, the scattered litter and debris, but there were still some left when our contractor did arrive out there.

So uh the photographs kind of show a little bit of more scattered litter and debris.

We know that it flies around with wind and stuff like that.

So I would stay say that uh wave the IT fee, wave the admin fee, and then the sixty dollars and thirteen cents for to pay the contractor.

Mr.

Wis my understanding is this if you're agreeable, the city will waive everything except the contractor fee, which is sixty dollars and thirteen cents.

Is that acceptable?

It really isn't, your honor.

They offered me that a day or two ago.

They gave me a phone call and offered me the opportunity to pay $60 and not have to sit here for three hours this morning waiting for my opportunity to speak.

Um I would have accepted it at that point.

It really isn't.

Well, that's up to you.

And first of all, you didn't wait three hours.

We start at nine.

Oh, excuse me.

Well, I was sitting here since since eight.

Yeah, no, I two hours, excuse me.

Uh yeah, you're correct.

Well, that's also something I have to address because this is extremely unusual for us to have this many snow and snow removal.

And now we're probably gonna get another large wave coming up next time.

Yeah, because of this last snowfall.

But that's up to you.

You want to go in front of the full board?

We can.

If they're willing to do the $60, we can resolve this.

Well, I would because I do I actually have several questions I would like to know.

And yeah, I feel completely we did all of our due diligence, and I can even prove it through some of the pictures that you have there.

Um, so no, I would like to go through with the full board.

Okay, yeah.

No problem.

Uh, do we have any questions of uh do you have any questions of Ms.

Kelllup?

Uh I do.

Uh and then this one's for yourself and potentially for attorney Dobbs.

What is the obligation of the Department of Neighborhood Services or for the city for surveying purposes that you know each property that you uh you know which property it is that you're taking pictures of, and that your contractors are properly taking pictures, what angles are taking pictures from, you know, that they're on the right property.

What is the procedure within the city uh for that?

Well, we're right now we're in a period of you asking questions of Miss Gallup.

Ms.

Gump, are you able to answer his question regarding how did you determine this refuse was on his property?

Absolutely.

I'll do my best to answer that.

Uh so our inspectors are trained.

We do have the city of Mocky uh Google Maps.

Uh, we also have map Milwaukee that does actually will show some parcel lines for us.

So, in but if there ever would be a question of, you know, is some of this on one property, is some of this on the other property.

Uh, typically we try and at least determine that by taking multiple photographs.

Uh, we've had incidents where some people just move the debris onto the other person's property.

So we do try and take a number of photographs.

Hence, yours has a lot of photographs.

Uh, but at any rate, it's scattered litter and debris throughout your entire property, not just where there would be a photograph taken.

And we uh have contractors that have bid and won this bid.

And we uh have contractors that have bid and won this bid, so they are under that impression that same impression that you know it's you have to keep your property, the entire property free and clear of litter and debris.

So when they go out there, they do have our pictures that my inspector has taken.

They go off of them, and then it wouldn't be in the best interest of the city to not, you know, the contractor us to not pick off the rest of the scattered litter and debris that we see that the contractor would see.

So we have map Milockey, we have different resources to be able to help identify any property uh lines or where the property may be.

In this case, I I think we were pretty clear as far as the pictures that we took that it was, you know, this property.

Any other questions of Ms.

Gallagher?

Is there is there any personal accountability to your contractors?

This one I think was CDC landscape.

Is there any personal accountability to them if they wrongfully you know take pictures or wrongfully clean debris and then I'm charged for it?

Sorry, I was just pulling up on the side here.

Is there yeah, what what is the personal accountability to some of the people that you hire out?

Well, they go through a pretty extensive bidding process.

Uh, there are a lot of criteria that is put on our contractors for that.

Uh, as a department, we also have quality control.

We look at the pictures as far as are they actually cleaning this up.

Uh, we have policies that are written that says we've got to review a lot of the pictures that we receive from contractors.

So we do our best.

Uh, are we perfect?

Uh as far as that.

There are times where after I review that I will say the city made a mistake, we are not gonna charge that property owner.

So we have a lot of kind of safeguards for that in place.

Okay.

Any further questions from Miss Gallup?

Not right now.

I don't know if I can reserve them for after we move forward, but well, okay.

Uh, any questions of Ms.

Gal from other board members?

Okay, uh, Mr.

Wis, what would you like to tell us about your appeal?

Yeah, thank you.

Well, yeah, I don't know if you guys have access to looking at the very original pictures.

If you look at the very original pictures that were taken, there was a substantial amount of trash that definitely warranted a garbage violation from the Department of Neighborhood Services.

I've responded personally to 30 or more this year at several different properties that that we own and have always adhered to them and always got them all completed.

I've never had a violation one time or a fine that went through.

Um so we received this one.

I called Brenda over there and got uh an extension.

I went out there personally and took care of it.

And if you look at the very original pictures, and then you look at the pictures that are at the end, you can see we cleaned up all of it.

Uh you know, when when I left, I'm very confident 100% that it was one completely taken care of.

Um now I would go to, I don't know if the board here all has access to the pictures that they did the before and after.

And the most alarming, well, a couple, I guess several of them are alarming.

If you look at the very first picture, this is why I asked you about surveying the lines, uh, Ms.

Gallup.

Is that one?

You could not have taken where they took this picture from that is not on my property.

They would have been standing on the north end of the alley.

You would be on the neighboring property, taking a diagonal picture towards my property.

That is the property line.

That trash that is right there is not on our property.

That that is the absolute border right there.

Um, so that is our not ours.

That is why that was not cleaned.

Now you go to two.

Yeah, two is where they clean that.

That's the only trash really that I saw that maybe would warrant actually the contractor picking it up.

If you go to three, now you can see on there there's like six or seven items that were not there after I cleaned, those would be the six or seven items as you referenced it earlier.

That after I cleaned it, it just maybe blew in there, or I've personally seen it.

The garbage trucks, when they dump it, they grab it, they dump the whole thing, and a couple items will fall out, or even as they're pulling down the street, I've seen it come flying off the back of their trucks.

They're re-littering the streets as they're picking up debris.

So I mean, if you look at the very original pictures that this order was ordered from, and then you look at this picture.

I I don't think it warrants at all having a contractor come to clean up six or seven, looks like a Twix wrapper and uh uh you know, a cap to a McDonald's cup or something.

Um, and then what's what's even more alarming to me is if you look at picture three and then you go to picture four, they're not of the same place.

Picture three is clearly right behind the garbage hand that you see the couple pieces.

If you go to four, that was my work.

I remember it very specifically because I was extremely proud of it.

Standing in that spot right there was a tremendous heaping load of stuff.

I took a shovel and I took my I have a steel uh 800 series XL blower and blew it all off.

I was very proud of that spot right there.

You can see it was meticulously cleaned.

I raked it, shoveled it, stuck everything in the bag, and it's not even the same picture from the before and after.

You go before this is right behind the recycling can where when the duck the truck dumped it, two or three things fell off, and then he took my picture, my clean spot as his after picture.

That was not his work, that was my work right there.

Is what they're asking for money for.

Um, and then yeah, the next one you go to before and after.

I don't see any difference at all.

You go to six and seven, they're the same.

Uh same with seven and eight.

Seven and eight are identical, seven and eight, nothing, nothing was done by the contractor.

The only thing the contractor did is he cleaned the neighboring property where he stood on the north end of he would has stood on the south end of my neighbor uh neighbor's property to take a picture of my property from the north end.

It wasn't standing on my property when he took that picture that wasn't on our property, and he took a picture of something that's on the border that would have belonged to the property to the north, and then he cleaned that and then charged us for it.

So um, I went there personally.

I raked, shoveled with two other guys.

We blew it, rake shoveled.

It was like 20 bags of stuff.

Not only do we clean the debris, we clean the whole rest of the yard.

And I often, when I'm there doing this, I clean up the alleys and clean up other areas too all the time.

I take huge pride in that, and um, and the other thing is ultimately these things don't directly uh affect you know tenants in the area, but some of these charges do get baked in, they get baked into uh twice.

That's why some the it's some of the highest rents to some of the lowest income people in in southeastern Wisconsin.

And this is a big problem of it.

This trash.

Um so that's what I have to say.

I don't think I don't think it's justified at all.

The only thing that they clean that contractor clean was not on our property.

The parts that he took pictures of that are clean are my cleaning, what I did, and then trying to receive $60 for doing it.

It's unfair, it's unwarranted.

Frankly, it's unconscionable.

Okay.

Any questions from Mr.

Wis from board members?

Okay, we're in committee.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Yadell, I'll pass the gavel to you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this time I uh make a motion to grant the appeal of Michael Wis.

All right, we have a motion to grant the appeal of Michael Wisp.

Do we have a second?

Yes, I'll second it.

We have a second.

Any objections?

Hearing none, so ordered, I'll pass the gavel back to Mr.

Bobbitt.

Okay, Mr.

Wis, we granted your motion, your appeal.

Uh, so you will not have to pay any of those fees.

Thank you.

Thank all of you.

I appreciate it.

Okay, we're gonna go to number 22.

The appeal of most Nassau for garbage and nuisance litter nuisance fees at 4383 North 27th Street.

It looks like NASA in states LLC.

Are you with us?

I'm with you.

Uh, could you activate your visual?

Uh I think are you caller number one?

Yes.

Uh I mean, I called the number, I didn't uh call it like a video.

Yeah, we have to have the visual, the visuals required.

Okay.

Are you able to activate your visual from my phone?

Not sure the this is uh doable.

Well, you either you are or you are not able to activate your visual because if you are able to create my visual, we have to reschedule it.

Yeah, I'm unable to do it.

Okay, at this time I'll entertain a motion to hold this for the call of the chair because uh Ms.

Uh NASA Enterprises LC is not capable of uh doing the visual.

Do I have a motion?

Uh Mr.

Chair, this isn't a motion, but this is just an observation.

I'm looking at the what I believe are the notices that are all I think are all the same.

Um and on the notice it says you can dial in using your phone.

So I know that our policy is to require video, you know, video, but it seems like these notices are maybe not consistent with our policy.

Well, that's well taken.

I mean, actually, this is probably one of the first, if not the I don't recall this being a problem with all our notices.

Everybody's been able to do the visual.

But I agree with you that if we need to clean it up, we'll have to clean it up, but we'd have to have a visual because there's no way to assess the credibility of a witness without seeing them personally testify.

So um I will so note that and I will talk to Miss Polakle about that.

Uh, but at this time I would entertain a motion to haul for a call of the chair.

Mr.

Chair, I would move to hold for the call of the chair.

I have a second.

A second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Any objections?

Hearing once ordered.

Uh Mr.

Nessar, we're gonna hold this for the call of the church.

With me, we'll probably reschedule it.

But we do have to have anyone that testifies us before us, we have to have audio and visual.

Uh, I'll take a look at our notice again.

To my knowledge, this is one if not the only time that this has come up.

Because on my phone, I can I can also qualify.

Do you have an iPhone?

Yeah, it's an iPhone.

I tried to do the first time, but it doesn't allow me.

What it says is choose another phone number or email address to call uh 312, which is the phone number I'm calling.

Okay, I'll check into that.

We'll we'll be rescheduling if you can't work it out with the city.

All right.

At this time, I'm gonna move to number 24, the appeal of Edward Grant.

Uh Edward Gantt for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 312 East Townsend.

Is Edward Gantt with us?

Yes, I yes, I am.

Good morning, Mr.

Gantt.

How are you doing today?

Great.

Can you see me?

I can see and hear you.

Okay, yes, sir.

Uh are you are you in a car?

I'm parked because you just had that.

Okay, as long as you're as long as you're parked, that's fine.

No, we can't do it when you're driving.

No, well, you just had that discussion with the gentleman before.

I drive diesels, so this paper does say you could call in.

So I drive, so I was listening for hours.

I'm gonna listen to every case one by one.

And when you got to him, I was like, oh crap, I don't want to get kicked out.

Why wait this long and not be able to do my case?

So I pulled over our parked, I got on the app.

So what it is is you gotta have the app.

You can't FaceTime it.

You gotta get this app and then type in that code and and and then you can do visual.

So once I heard him not be able to handle his case, I'm now pulled over parked face.

So I can handle it.

There's nothing that says we can't use audio only.

Yeah, the paper does give me an option, but um, if you say I'm visual, I'm visual, sir.

I'm ready.

I think I'm ready.

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Gantt, we're gonna hear your appeal.

Uh, who's appearing for the behalf of the city?

Lori Gallup, Department of Neighborhood Services.

And good morning, Mr.

Gantt.

Would you please raise your right hand?

You still only affirm it in the pain penalties for perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Miss Galp.

Uh is there any way to resolve this short of doing an appeal?

Uh again, uh to stay uniform.

I don't have any room because uh the city does occur at an expense with for the contractor.

Uh, we do pay that contractor.

I do have a little bit of room as far as our administration fee and the IT fee.

So that's uh the 120 and then the 1208 it fee.

So this one would be six hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-one cents contractor fee.

That'd be acceptable to do.

Do you want to do a full hearing, Mr.

Gantt?

I would like to do a full hearing right now.

Okay, you can pro you can proceed, Miss Gallup.

Okay, so the property address is 312 East Townsend Street, uh order number GBG CO 250437.

Uh on 1028 of 25.

We did post a solid waste violation at the property.

We did verify that there was a violation by photographs, uh, part of the packet that we provided for the 1028-25 inspection, does show a number of large black bags, cardboard all kind of stacked up alongside the house there, uh, multiple different pictures.

You will also see the posting that we took a close-up of, and then uh the posting after the front door.

After that, you will see the fact that we do have contractor photos uh when they arrived uh to do the cleanup, uh the before and after.

There are four different uh angles on here that was taken, still solid waste and debris that was cleaned up by our contractor for the contractor of fee of six hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-one cents.

Yeah, if you had an opportunity to review those photographs, uh Mr.

Gantt.

Uh uh, no, no, sir.

Um, I had my own photographs from you know, uh, my employees that took pictures uh of what was there before it was removed.

So I know it was there.

Are you are you uh are you a resident of California?

Is your appearing remotely?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Had you submitted those photos to the city?

Uh no, sir.

I did submit my uh credit card statement to show the dumpsters that I was purchasing at the time while I was cleaning out that unit on the second floor.

Um, and I also uh uploaded the proof of my incorporation that I'm the owner of that ENG property investment that owns property.

Um I was just waiting for my uh opportunity to question in.

Okay, do you have any questions from Ms.

Gallup?

Yes, um, I like to say uh first to Ms.

Gallup.

Um, I don't mean these questions to be combative, so I'm just trying to give the board a clear picture of what I think, and maybe they can make a good decision.

Um first question I have, ma'am, is you agree that the debris is in the backyard of the property?

Uh kind of the yep, side of the house kind of thing, from what what I can tell.

Uh there's the dumpsters for pickup for our sanitation crew is kind of there.

Uh there's like a little patio area that this was all stacked up on where the dumpsters uh for sanitation are.

So that's what I can verify right there.

Is that a yes?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, do you um do you know the laws in regards to an independent contractor entering someone's private property, like a backyard, i.e.

cutting locks, jumping gates, and removing personal property off their property without a government official there with a warrant or some type of uh person with authority to allow them to do that.

Uh Ms.

Calp only answer if you have an idea of what to say because it's even to me, it's confusing a little bit.

We've had city interpretation, we've had city or city of Milwaukee attorneys have interpreted that same thing.

So if this is a fully fenced in locked area, does not appear to be to us, we would handle that differently through a different kind of order to to have this abate it.

So we do have an ACA on this hearing that could chime in and say something if they chose, but we've had many different opinions by the city attorney's office that say yes, we do have that right to a bait a public safety health hazard.

Okay, so let me clear my question up more.

I'm not saying asking if you, the city or a city official or the police have a right.

I'm asking if an independent contractor has a right to enter a person's private property, i.e.

jump fences, cut locks, enter a person's backyard, and remove their personal property.

Well, that's kind of a question that you're you're putting a lot of scenarios out.

I'm not sure that I could answer any of those scenarios without having give me photographic evidence.

Tell me that we should or shouldn't do something.

Okay, I'm it's kind of like a question that you know I I can't answer because you're giving a number of scenarios out to be able to properly answer that.

Okay, I'm gonna clear it up more easily.

I uh we can both do we both agree that the trash was not on a public sidewalk in front of the property, not on the front grass where people could cut across your grass freely, walking, where it's a public area, it was not there, correct?

It is on private property.

We are within our rights to have that public safety hazard abated through cleanup.

Okay, I'm gonna ask it again.

Was the trash in the front yard or sidewalk area where people usually generally walk and maybe touch your grass, walking, cutting across.

Was it there?

No.

Okay.

So we both agreed the trash was in the backyard earlier, correct?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

So what I asked you, because I I think you're saying I'm making it confusing.

What I was asking, and the reason why I gave scenarios because every home is not the same.

So a law usually applies to all homes, and that's why I made those scenarios because all homes are designed differently, right?

So this particular home, the backyard, is adjacent to an alley.

So I can't gate that because it's a parking as well, right?

So the reason why I asked that question is is because the tenant who I was removing their trash, because they said they could not afford to remove the trash out of their unit because they were moving out and they didn't have the money to, because it was a I um I don't know what the correct wording for a pack rat.

I don't I don't mean to sound you know um professional, but they had enormous amount of stuff in that apartment once they were trying to move out and they didn't have the money or the means to move it out.

So I had to take thousands of dollars out of my pocket to pay for dumpsters, and that's why I emailed the uh receipt uh from my Wells Fargo to show all the dumpsters I bought before and after that contractor showed up cleaning out that apartment just to try to be done with it and move forward out of my pocket total loss, and that stuff what happened was while we were putting things in the dumpster that was in the front of the property, the tenant then called the police on the people cleaning and said, You're throwing out things that are have value to me.

I need to review everything before you put it in the dumpster.

So I'm paying and they're getting police called on them.

It's it's combative, basically.

So once a dumpster was removed, and the dumpster company was taking enormous amount of time to bring us another dumpster because they said it was a busy time of the year or what have you, we're waiting.

So now we place those items in the private rear of the property for review and waiting on another dumpster, and in between the dumpsters, uh active cleanup, the city took it in charge of me, and I had gotten to an issue with the tenant claiming some of their things they wanted to keep were missing, and also the lower unit tenant claimed some of their things were taken that had nothing to do with the upstairs tenant because that's their backyard.

So that's why I asked what was the rights of an independent contractor coming onto a person's private property, which I consider a backyard private, not just a public area, people are walking freely, and I just have trash laying out there, and you can just come take it away and write me a ticket.

I totally understand that.

I don't disagree with that.

That's why the items were in the rear and were dealt with in that manner.

So if you guys have that, if you have that email I sent you, you'll see that I have dumpsters before that date and a dumpster after the date of the ticket.

And um, I would like to say to the board, I was trying to do everything to the letter of the law.

The one thing I don't have control of is the dumpster companies bringing dumpsters like simultaneously, and or they're busy and they're bringing it and give us a day or two, and then instantly I get a 700 ticket while I'm spending thousands on dumpsters and and labor for guys to do this stuff, and it was just a total loss plus the 700 ticket on top.

So that's why I was asking what's the legality of these contractors to enter into a person's backyard and not have a warrant, not have uh any kind of authority to do that because this wasn't city officials that came and took that uh stuff away, correct, ma'am.

It is contractors that go through a bidding process that are hired to contract with the city of Milwaukee.

So they are hired by the city of Milwaukee through a contracts.

So your answer is no, they're not city employees or police or anybody with the authority to enter my property, private property.

Well, let me interject her.

She's saying no, there are private contractors.

But Mr.

Gantt, I can see what your your complaint revolves around.

And it basically revolves around these tenants that occupied that building that had quite a bit of trash.

And the apartment.

Yeah, it wasn't outside.

It was in the apartment.

It was being removed from the apartment.

Well, I understand a dumpster.

Yeah.

So I understand it, but it's on the property itself.

Do you have anything else you'd like to tell the board regarding your appeal?

Yes.

Um if they could look at the the show that I had consistently bought dumpsters before and after the ticket was written.

And um for lack of a better word, I felt like it was predatory for the inspector to find a small window of gap between dumpsters to write a $700 ticket, sir.

And I really would beg the the board to please give me some kind of um uh um grace because how could I get a large ticket like that?

And I'm in the act of cleaning.

They it's like an act of cleaning going on, and I get a ticket wrote soon in between two dumpsters, and it doesn't seem fair to a guy like me that's doing good.

Okay, at this point we're in uh unless there's some come uh questions by committee members were in committee.

I just have one quick question.

Uh is that Mr.

Yandel?

No, Mr.

Bruzanne, uh for Miss Gallup.

I just I was just kind of looking through all the all the documentation, and it says uh 28 yards of debris removed.

Is that cubic yards?

Yes, it is okay.

Any further questions from board members?

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just have one follow-up on that.

Hey, Mr.

Car is there other debris than what's pictured for what the contractor picked up is is that's what's in their pictures.

Uh it's it's very similar to what uh my inspectors took as far as their pictures.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I guess I'm looking at these pictures, and I I know we've had this kind of issue come up before looking at these pictures, and I am really having a hard time seeing 28 yards worth of waste.

I don't know what I'm missing, but this just doesn't seem that doesn't seem practical to me.

Um Ms.

Gallup, I guess my question would be to you.

Has this has this I know we've dealt with this before, but does the city verify in some way that that the amount of cubic yards claimed to have been picked up by the contractors is correct, or do they compare it to actual visual of of what we're looking at?

So we do quality control on these photographs.

Uh again, uh, you know, just like we have had this before, each one of our contractors do kind of uh measure things a little bit different.

I've got one contractor that uh 3.5 cubic yards is the is the size of the back of a uh normal trash uh vehicle.

They charge us every time they pull the lever once they compact it.

So that but they only charge us three uh cubic yards when that happens.

Uh this particular contractor kind of uh does things based on uh how so that trash cart uh is one cubic yard.

So how many of those does it take to really you know to to identify this?

So that's how they kind of do it.

It is not rocket science, it is very difficult because they are cleaning a hundred properties a day, so it's uh not like they can, you know, at when they go and dump the trash truck that they're able to say exactly how many cubic yards and divide that out by how many stops they made.

Uh so we do the best we can to uh determine this.

Uh at you know, at the end of the day, the contractor and and us work very closely.

If we see something so extremely egregious, we ask them to take a look at it again.

Uh they they look at many different angles, what they picked up for that day, what they dumped off for that day at any any of the waste uh disposal places, and then they came back and say, Yes, this is correct.

Any further questions?

I um I do have a question for Mr.

Gant.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Gantt did you did you receive the notice on the property?

Um, I did not see the notice.

Uh I did have a tenant tell me um that um they they made a comment to me at the time.

They said, Hey, you know you got trash in the back.

I said, Yeah, I have my guy said it there.

We're waiting on another dumpster.

And they was like, Oh, okay, I'll just make sure I don't want you to get a ticket.

I'm like, okay, don't worry about it when the dumpster comes, they're gonna put it in there.

And the lady needs to come and look.

I don't want to call on the police and say I threw something that was valuable away.

So I'm no that I don't know if they said that because they saw the notice, and they was like, oh, okay.

You know, so I didn't physically see it, but that's maybe they saw it and they called me, and I told them, Well, I'm waiting on it.

They didn't literally say though, you have a notice.

They just said, you know, you got trash back there.

I don't want you to get a ticket.

And I said, Yes, I know that it's there because they know I'm out of town.

So they would just give me a heads up.

But no, I I personally know, sir.

They didn't take a picture of a notice and send it to me and say, You have a notice.

So, no, I never seen a notice.

And I was never told it was a notice by the workers or the tenants.

Okay, so I want to just clarify your testimony, is not that you did not receive notice, right?

I mean, you don't know whether you did or not, is what you're saying.

Exactly, because I had a constant this is a constant work site with a dumpster sitting out in front for like two months.

It just was a window of one taken away, waiting for another one to be delivered that I got caught up with the ticket.

Okay.

And uh my next question is are you aware of the the city has a uh e-notify system so you can get notifications from the city if you're in violation of certain ordinances?

Oh now, no, I've been listening all morning, and you guys gave a whole uh spill to the guy that had the land with the uh snow.

I just listened to that, and I didn't know about that, but I just heard it now, so I will be uh signing up for that.

Um I think I I'll say to the board, I I'm really concerned about the size of you know, uh first of all, I think that Mr.

Gett does sound it he has presented some credible evidence that he was making uh serious efforts to get this taken care of.

So I understand that the city could have come in there and taken this.

I do have concerns about the city removing personal property that doesn't.

I mean, we don't know it even looks like we don't have any pictures of personal items.

All we see are garbage bags, uh, so we don't know what they took in the backyard.

But from what I'm seeing of the garbage bags, I I really don't see 28 yards.

So I I have serious concerns about this, and I would be inclined.

I don't know, actually.

I have concerns about this.

Well, one comment I want to make is that for the people listening, as you can see from the testimony, Miss Gallup, that some of these contractors do a hundred of these pickups a day.

That's the kind of trash problem we have right now existing within our city.

Um, but after that, if there's any further questions, we're in committee and you can address your concerns, Mr.

Yandell with a motion before the board.

We're in committee.

At this time, we'll entertain a motion for the appeal of Mr.

Gantt.

We're we have to make the tough decisions, so that's what we are prepared to do.

I'll hand you the gavel, Mr.

Yandell.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna make a motion to grant the appeal of Edward Gantt for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 312 East Townsend.

We have a motion to grant the appeal of Mr.

Gantt.

Uh, do we have a second?

Yeah, I'm gonna second that.

And we have a second.

Any objections?

Hearing none, so ordered.

I'll pass the gavel back to uh Chairman Bobbitt.

Okay, miss Mr.

Gantt, we granted your appeal.

As you can see in our other major cities are experiencing the same problem with refuse, and we we hire private contractors remove the the garbage and litter, and it's open bidding process, and we take in your case, we had lots of photos as well.

Um, but somewhere sometimes I just saw it the need and to make a motion after your testimony about how diligent you are to grant your appeal.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Uh we're now moving to number 25, the appeal of Michael Rice for garbage and litter nuisance fees.

2739 North Ninth.

Is Michael Rice with the case?

Michael Royce.

Michael Rice, president.

Okay, is that you wearing the Packer cap 2739 North Ninth Street, Michael Rice, owner.

And are you what the one that has G by it?

G-E-E.

That's the tenant.

Okay.

Uh who's gonna appear for the city?

Laurie Gallup, Department of Neighborhood Services.

Okay, Miss We don't have a visual, we don't have a visual appearance for the appellant.

Well, I thought it was Mr.

Ghee, no.

No, it's uh it looks like a telephone call.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

I read your whole, I read your whole letter.

There's nothing that says first of all, the tenant is on video.

I'm the owner.

So there it's it's kind of like respectfully that they're kind of changing policy on the fly.

So I'll I'll I respectfully ask the board to dismiss this case with prejudice because uh there's nothing on the letter, board members that says must be video only.

It says or audio, and a couple people on this line testify to that.

So I'm here to hear the case today with audio, but if they're gonna uh reschedule a different date, when I took a half a day off of work, I respectfully have to dismiss the case because I did everything what the letter says, and uh an attendant is here with video as well.

So I asked the board to uh give me uh give us guidance on this.

Well, we certainly are not in a position to dismiss it with prejudice because we never made any ruling on the underlying facts.

Well, I and I'm I'm and I'm here to and I'm here to testify to those.

Yes, I know.

Um, the interesting part about this is this hasn't been an issue until basically to my knowledge today.

Uh we might have had one, but out of the hundreds of appeals we've had, apparently everybody's equipped with an iPhone and is able to do a visual and audio.

Uh I at this time I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair unless board members want to proceed.

I'm curious who's giving the testimony today.

Okay.

So we don't have a motion, so okay.

Uh Mr.

G, are you you're with us, right?

You can hear me.

I can't hear you though, G.

Mr.

G, can you well?

Who's the one guy that has Mr.

G by it?

You're I can't hear you though.

Zoom video is worked out very well for this board.

So occasionally we do have some hiccups, and it's with this large amount of cases we had today.

Having the Zoom video is a tremendous advantage to people in Milwaukee to appear before the the board and not have a problem.

We have a Mr.

G that I could not hear, but I could see.

We have Mr.

Rice, who I could hear, but I could not see.

Mr.

G, is that is that your name?

Again, I will uh entertain a motion to hold for the call to the chair unless the other board members want to navigate through this technical difficulty, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Mr.

Yandel.

I move to hold for the call of the chair.

Is he giving me is he typing a response?

I have a motion now.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel De Hall for the call of the chair.

Do I have a second?

I have a second by Ms.

Hammer.

The tenant is the tenant does sections hearing none, so ordered.

Can you hear me now?

Mr.

Rice and Mr.

G, we are gonna reschedule this appeal for a different date and time.

And I'm gonna look at cleaning up the language on our notice because I don't know what today is, but all of a sudden now this has become a problem.

We're now that problem.

The tenant is talking to the board right now, sir.

Right, are you saying that right now we're holding it for the call to the chair, so we're moving on?

Okay, so we're gonna go to number 27.

The appeal of Jose Torres, ideal property solutions for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 403 North 61st.

Jose Torres, are you with us?

Okay, I will call that again.

Is Jose Torres with us or is he in the audience?

He's not in the audience.

At this time, we'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

Am I off now?

You're off, Mr.

G.

I'll entertain a promo uh motion for non-appearance of Jose Torres, Mr.

Chair, move to move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second by Miss Hammer.

Any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

Uh we have the appeal of Fabio Ribero for garbage and literal nuisance fees at 2013 North 14th 41st Street.

Mr.

Rubero, are you with us?

At this time, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, move to deny for not for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Oh, second.

Any objections?

Shearing none so ordered.

We now move to our 1030 agenda.

Appeal of Sigmund Seraphon for re-inspection fees at 2120 South 18th.

Yes, sir.

You want to come up to the table, sir.

He's at the table, Mr.

Chair.

Good morning, Mr.

Serafin.

Are you able to hear see and hear me?

Yes, sir.

My name is Sigmund Sarafin.

I live at 2120.

I live at 2120 South 18th Street.

I lived there like 70 years.

Okay.

And then who's going to appear on behalf of the city?

Hi, I am Peter Lairdson.

Good morning, Mr.

Lartson.

Good morning.

Mr.

Sarah, would you please raise both of your right hands?

Just only affirm under the pain and penalty of perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

I do.

Okay, Mr.

Laird said consistent with all the other cases before any way to work out a compromise.

Yes, we are uh in this instance.

We certainly respect the board's decision.

I can begin with the narrative.

Uh know how we normally start.

Okay, let's proceed.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh the Prime Minister complaint uh February 10 of 25 regarding feeding outdoor cats, cat food all over yard.

On February 18th of 25, a referral was made from the residential section for outdoor storage to special enforcement.

On March 3rd, the property was inspected and order issued uh for discontinue outdoor storage and some other items.

You do have the packet.

Uh May 12th.

Uh the inspector spoke with the owner, uh confirmed mailing address and receipt of order.

There was a two-week extension granted.

Uh, and then reinspections began June 2nd, July 9, September 22, and then on October 6th, the appeal was filed.

We've not made a reinspection, uh and the reinspection uh fee in front of you is the 508 from September of 22.

Uh you do have photos.

Uh in this instance, um, you know, I wish that there was smell of vision.

Um, this is as much a landfill as outdoor storage, and I'm sorry to use those terms.

Uh, but this is a real hazard.

Um, there is open waste in the backyard of this property.

Uh, there's a vehicle that's been on a jack for a year or more.

Um, etc.

So I think the pictures speak for themselves.

Um, we're always about compliance.

Uh I don't see that this is unfortunately gonna happen anytime soon, but I'm certainly happy to hear any good news.

Um, with that, I'm available for questions.

Okay, Ms.

Mr.

Sarah, do you have any questions?

Mr.

Lartson, yes, sir.

Um, I was just wondering, who did you talk to?

I didn't talk to anyone.

Are you asking who the inspector was?

Yeah, because I tried to call the I tried to call the inspector like three or four times.

What the violation was?

Have you seen your backyard, sir?

Yeah.

Do you think it's acceptable?

It's not acceptable, but I'm trying to work on that.

And that's why we're here today.

Okay.

The thing is, my sister, she's a hoarder, and every time I try to clean that up, the Milwaukee police shows up and tell me it's her property, I can't mess with it.

Every time she calls the cops.

I mean, if you look at my record, every time you guys called me and told me to clean it up, I had it cleaned up.

And for the for the board, the inspector was special enforcement inspector Willis Neal on May 12th.

And where's the pictures?

Have you have you seen the pictures?

There's an extensive set of pictures showing a tremendous amount of refuse.

I even know about the cats.

Could you show the pictures to uh Mr.

Serafin?

But the thing is, I start.

I'm gonna give you a moment.

I'm gonna give you a moment to reveal all the photographs.

Yeah, as you can see, there's an extensive amount of debris and associated items.

Perhaps for Mr.

Serifan, uh, you're listed as owner occupied.

I'm sensing that may not be the case.

No, that's my house.

I was there 70 years.

Okay, all right.

All that stuff by that truck.

I try to move it, the cops show up.

I don't know what to do.

Well, Mr.

Sarah, I have a question for you.

Would you would you agree?

The stuff that's there is basically drunk.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, I know.

I don't like it.

But see, every time I try to do the cops show up and tell me that's her private property.

I cannot touch it.

I tried to kick her out.

She won't leave.

My sister, she had a property, Miss Skegel.

She was doing the same thing there.

The city actually took it away.

I don't want that to happen to me.

I mean, I'll pay your fine, but I need some help here.

And that that truck where all the stuff is, there's no plates on that.

Why didn't the inspector put a tag on it to tow it?

Is there anything else you wants to hear about your appeal, Mr.

Serafin?

I just need more time and some help.

Well, you know, there are some legal services available within our community.

We have legal aid, we have legal action.

There's also several others that would probably be able to give you some help here because you obviously need it.

I mean, the pictures are overwhelmingly against you if you acknowledge that that stuff is out there.

I mean, there's a lot of trash.

If I do something, the cops go, oh, you gotta leave.

It's my house.

Well, that's why I think you may need some legal assistance to help you your sister or whoever else is doing all this stuff.

I think the police are right in that it's a uh a civil matter, but I don't know why they would stop somebody from cleaning that up.

It's a mess.

I understand.

That's what I've been trying to do, but the police tell me, oh, just let it go.

I don't want to let it go.

I want it resolved.

Well, yeah, you can't let it go, not at the extent it's developed into any questions from committee members of Mr.

Serafin, Mr.

Chair, yes, Mr.

Yandel.

I think uh Mr.

Larritzen had asked a question.

I just want to make sure that we are clear on uh Mr.

Serafin.

Do you live at the property?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so you live there with your sister, yeah.

Fortunately, and your sister pays you rent or she's a guest, or what?

She gives me like 200 bucks.

Okay, so she pays you rent.

And did you say you said that you tried to have her removed?

Does that mean you tried to file an eviction action against her or what?

Yeah.

What is your sister's name?

Anna Serafin.

How do you spell that?

Well, Anna, A-N-N-A.

Sarah, S-E-R-A-F-I-N.

And what was the outcome of the eviction action you're claiming that you filed?

Nothing.

She's still there.

You see her room.

It's worse.

I uh am looking on CCAP right now, and I'll just note for the board I don't see any eviction action against an Anna Serafin.

I mean any other questions for Mr.

Serafin.

Okay, we're in committee.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Mr.

Serafin, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Yandel.

I'll move to deny the appeal.

I have I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to deny the appeal of Mr.

Seraph and do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second by Miss Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections to that motion?

Hearing none so ordered.

Mr.

Serafin, we denied your appeal.

You'll be getting notice of that in writing by our clerk.

If you want to appeal our decision, it gives you what you need to do.

You're gonna have to do something with that problem though, because it's significant.

The cops come down on me.

Well, maybe you should get some legal assistance because you've got a significant problem dealing uh developing there.

At this time, I'm gonna call the appeal of Kenneth Brown for reinspection fees at 7809 West Hadley.

Mr.

Brown, are you with us this morning?

Yes, sir.

And where are you?

At my attorney's office.

Okay, could you uh state your appearance, Mr.

Arena?

Kenneth Brown appears in person by video with attorney andrew arena.

And who will be appearing for the city of Milwaukee?

Peter Larrin.

Okay, Mr.

Larren to stay consistent with our previous policy today.

Any way to resolve this short of a full hearing?

Uh we are certainly open uh to pair to if I can recap, I believe from last month's hearing.

Um the property owner needed some time to determine how much time he needed to clean up his lot.

Um we can certainly talk about once compliance is obtained, talk about uh a drastic reduction in re-inspection fees during the fiscal tax year.

But if I believe they probably want to proceed with the hearing here.

Is that true, Mr.

Arena?

No, actually, we're in line with where we were last month.

Um, I've been working with the uh treating psychologist of Mr.

Brown and working on at a point where he would be more stable and able to get his yards cleaned up.

Currently, a big problem on cleaning up the yards at this point is the latest snowfall, and he also suffers from Reynolds disease, which is extremely affected by the cold because of the Reynolds disease.

But um we're planning on pushing through and getting those yards cleaned up.

Uh on this particular, I think we're talking about Hadley today, 7609 7809 Hadley Street.

That's the house he actually resides in.

He lives there, and the house is in his name.

What is your date to clean up the property?

Well, in the last hearing we talked about August.

I mean, we have to get some better weather, and he needs some help, which I'm going to be involved in pushing that through along with him.

Um I suspect that I'll probably be the one that's more forceful on getting it done than he will, but some somehow, some way we're gonna get it done.

Well, I think you need a shorter time frame.

August is quite a bit out there, and he's got quite a bit of refuse there.

Well, he has two different powers that are in this condition.

Um, if we can say July.

Uh if you know, I mean, Mr.

Lartson, what would be acceptable for a cleanup due date for the city?

Uh we would not object to the board's ruling of a July due date.

Uh, we will be coming out monthly.

Uh those uh reinspection fees are subject to appeal.

Um, as part of our monthly reinspection program, uh internally, uh, if the if the work is done uh by an agreed due date, as I had mentioned, we will remove a significant amount uh of reinspection fees in that fiscal year, which ends August 31st.

So if I'm correct, the proposal, Mr.

Arena, attorney arena is you'd have it done by August 1st, July 1st.

Yes, we would love August 1st.

We just mentioned that it's August 31st is the fiscal year.

Well, you do realize that these reinspection fees are gonna keep accumulating over the months if it's not cleaned up even in the interim period of time, and if it's met by August 1st, then the city would possibly give you a reduction.

Do you understand that?

Do you understand that?

I would hope so.

I'm I'm paying an attorney to take care of things for me, and I'd do my damn is to get uh things accomplished.

But weather is a big issue for me, and uh I I need time.

Well, you understand that reinspection fees will continue until October, August 1.

I'm assuming that the inspection fees will be washed away.

We get it done.

Well, I wouldn't assume anything, but right now what I would say is this is that it looks like you're starting to deal with it, and if you deal with it, the city may then give you some leeway.

But there is quite a bit of refuse out there.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but uh like I say the uh cold and the snow is a definite hindrance, and the weather doesn't seem to be cooperating as far as uh doing things.

I'm gonna do well it's gonna be warming up pretty soon, so we did have some bouts of good weather, but I guess I would entertain a motion to hold this for the call of the chair, Mr.

Chair.

I would move to hold this for a call of the chair.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to hold for the call of the chair.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I'm a second by Mr.

Karseski.

Any objection?

Harry None So ordered.

Uh, Mr Brown, I want to be very clear to you.

You have to get that work done, otherwise, you're not gonna have any reduction at all in re-inspection fees.

And if this was for something other than reinspection fees, we'd be going to the full hearing.

Well, the reinspection fees now gives us some leverage to get you to remove that stuff.

Do you understand that, sir?

I can it like I said, the the weather is a big issue for me.

Well, it's gonna be warming up very soon.

So start preparing for the removal of that stuff to clean up the property.

Okay, I'm gonna number 31, the appeal of Jonathan Smith for reinspection fees at 615 South 89th Street.

Is Mr.

Smith are you with us?

He's at the table, sir.

Good morning, Mr.

Smith.

Can you see and hear me?

Indeed, I can okay.

And who's gonna appear on behalf of the city of Milwaukee?

Peter Larison.

Okay, Mr.

Lartson, to be consistent with all the prior cases.

Anything any chance to resolve this short of a full committee hearing?

Uh if we can get compliance, um, we're certainly uh uh willing to talk about reinspection fees.

Uh don't think that compliance is on the horizon, unfortunately.

Any chance for you to comply, Mr.

Smith?

Uh works done.

We are waiting on our architect for a UL value on what was wrong with the property.

Um, right now we're just dealing with him who lost vision in one of his eyes, so he's a bit slow in getting to all his cases.

Okay, uh could you elaborate a little bit more on uh the work and what needs to be done or not done?

Uh we needed repair to a firewall and verification of fire dampeners in the AC system.

The work has been completed as well as a fire door installed where there was none before.

Um, that work has been done by general contractors, and we are waiting on our architect to okay everything and get a email value to the city.

Um he was supposed to be in contact with the city about how these work were being done, but with the loss of half of his vision, I think he's fallen down on some things, and we may be moving to a different architect.

What a kind of a time period are you looking at.

Give us another two months to get established with an architect, get them in there to get the UL value, and then we can be reinspected.

Does that sound reasonable, Mr.

Laritzon?

Uh the board should know that this is a safety issue.

This is a public facility operating without an occupancy permit.

I forgive me, my narrative didn't make it into your packet.

I can proceed.

Uh, but if it's important to have the specific dates and times, uh, then we could adjourn.

I could ask for an adjournment.

Uh, but the short version that the city is concerned with we're not concerned about the money, uh, we're concerned about a public uh facility operating without an occupancy permit.

The alteration permit that Mr.

Smith describes has had no activity for three years.

Um at least in the computer system.

He's mentioned that work has been done on the property.

If it has, it's been done without a permit being issued.

Um, so this from our end, this is a safety concern.

Um, so you know, again, respect the board's rulings.

Uh, but as opposed to the prior cases of outdoor storage, for example, uh on Hadley, you know, I I am concerned about the public safety and the department is concerned.

Well, so well, well, hold on a second.

Let me interject here.

I am as well, but correct me if I'm wrong.

We're here today to discuss the validity of a reinspection fee.

Even if we rule against them, how are you any further ahead?

Other than just another reinspection fee, or am I mistaken?

I mean, our decision's not gonna shut him down.

Correct.

This is our this is our only venue, uh, attorney Bob.

But this issue started in 2020 of a club operating without an occupancy permit.

Uh we've gone to court, uh, we've got a litigated judgment uh in 22.

Um, there's been a long history here, and uh, and I know we've had we're the the agenda is running long, so I'll try to keep brief.

Uh, but in our process, after a case is litigated in municipal court, the violation remains, we reissue, and then it goes on a monthly charged reinspection cycle.

So every month we come out and we charge a reinspection fee as long as the violation remains.

The violation being operating without a valid occupancy permit.

This is the only tool that uh is uh available to us at this point.

Uh the fee is intended to compel the property owner or and in this instance the tenant who doesn't have an occupancy permit uh to come into compliance or to cease operations.

Um so you are correct, but we do not have the tools at this point um to you know vacate the unit, chain the doors, that kind of thing.

See, I'm trying to get you to the point where it's taken care of because as I read it right now, we could rule against him, he just pays a re has to pay a reinspection fee.

And if we can force him to get where you want to be faster through some type of agreement, it makes sense to me.

But um uh I I guess I want to hear some what the other board members may think of my colloquy and that of Mr.

Larittson and that of the appellant.

Mr.

Rian Dell, what are your thoughts on this?

Mr.

Chair, I I mean, if the city's saying that there's safety issues, I think that that's something that the board should you know consider heavily.

Uh, again, another somebody operating a club without an operating permit.

I don't know the full background here, so I'm not trying to rush to any conclusions, but that does put people's lives and safety at risk.

And I think that the city has a compelling case here to ensure that this is taken care of.

So I yeah, I I certainly agree with you.

Uh Mr.

Smith, could you get this done in the next 30 days?

We would try our hardest to get it done the next 30 days.

We just have to get established with an architect, a different one now.

Well, you I'm not talking about try, you have to do it.

Otherwise, we'll just go to a hearing and you probably not gonna prevail.

And you're gonna keep getting them and getting them and getting them because that's all our board can do.

And I'd like to see it resolved because it's it is a safety issue.

If you think you can do it within 30 days out, I would entertain a motion to hold for the call of chair.

If not, let's just go to a hearing.

30 days sounds reasonable.

Mr.

Larron, does that seem reasonable to you?

Yeah, we will continue to reinspect uh provided the club remains open.

Uh the fees will be charged, they can be appealed.

Okay, I'm gonna entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair.

Mr.

Chair, I would move to hold for the call of the chair.

I have a motion on Mr.

Young Dow to hold for the call chair.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Mr.

Karzetsky.

Any objection?

So order.

Uh, Mr.

Lartson, um I think the city also needs to look at another method of enforcement because as you can see with us a reinspection fee, we want to get to where you want the safety concern and that's taken care of.

I have no problem assessing fees on somebody, but that is uh we're not getting anywhere.

Sir, we have asked for enhanced enforcement procedures.

Um, we eagerly await them.

Well, thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Smith, make sure you get it done.

Aye, getting it done.

I mean, it's gonna be very expensive for you if you don't get it done.

We are very aware.

Okay, at this time, we're gonna call the appeal of Helen Bebetsky for reinspection fees at 2444 North 27th Street.

Is Ms.

Brebetsky with us?

She's coming to the table.

It's fine.

If you can just pull the mic towards you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Good morning, Miss Babeski.

Good morning.

And who's superior for behalf of this on the city of Milwaukee?

Um services.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Is there any way to resolve this short of a full hearing before the board to stay consistent?

Um compliance, that's about it.

Yeah.

Looks like you have a lot of work through the compliance here.

So how much time would you need to fully comply, Miss Bobetsky?

I was planning on selling the property.

There's been a lot of things going on.

Um, I want to sell it as is to somebody who can take it and fix it up.

And I do have a list of people.

I just need to clean.

I found somebody that'll help me get this um items out of the property that need to come out of there.

But um, as far as like painting and roof work, those have to be done during warmer times.

You need at least 40 degrees for any type of roofing material to adhere correctly, and you need at least 50 degrees for um 48 hours for paint to adhere correctly.

Okay.

Uh well.

Would you Mr.

Raspowski and Miss Bobeki raise your right hands, please?

You certainly affirm under the paint and penalty of perjury in the state of Weststanding that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Okay, Mr.

Rizbesk Roskowski, you could have testified.

Okay.

On May 15th, 2024, we received a complaint for a previous litigated order.

Uh the inspector went on on 524 of 24, issued a maintenance order for that property.

And 528, we spoke with uh the owner Helen pertaining to the order.

Um, she's aware that she was aware of the violation and she noted to us she was trying to sell the property at that time.

What date did he say he spoke to me?

I'm sorry.

I did not speak to you.

The inspector spoke to you on 528 of 2024.

No, he did not.

Okay.

Well, you're getting an opportunity to testify, Miss Robetsky.

This is the city right now.

Okay, so thank you.

Thank you.

He acknowledged um you acknowledged the violations.

You gave them an alternate address at 2068 South 95th Street, where we mailed a copy of that order to that property.

Um that order came due.

Um, it was re-inspected on 917, 2024, and then it was forward for the monthly reinspection program.

And it was inspected every month after that until this this month current concurrently.

Um, I got a call um in October of 2025 telling me I had um violations on the property, and there's been a lot of things going on as far as you know, like me not being able to take care of things.

I had um three deaths in the family, one each year, and I had to take care of those.

Um, I was like my daughter was you know, like I like I said, I've had a lot of other issues going on here, and it's not been easy for me to even get to anything.

Um, so I had you know, like my ex died, then my father died the next year, then the my daughter's grandmother died the next year.

Um, then she was in the process, you know, she's on the autism spectrum.

I have to take care of her.

Um, I've just I've been overwhelmed with so many different things.

And then she was in in the interim in there, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and I had to take care of that also.

So, and then I have you know, like I couldn't even walk up the stairs on Friday.

I've been really sick this last year, and I was trying to um see about my health here, and I don't have a regular doctor, so I actually went to um the urgent care and I found out I have a blood sugar of 390, and that's one of the issues.

I've not been able, you know, and I had COVID in between there too.

So there's you know, I have long COVID and diabetes on top of that.

So a lot of things with trying to clean out the property and get the stuff out of there.

I haven't been awake.

I'm sleeping, and that's you know, like I can't wake up most of the time here.

If I get some stuff done one day, I'm completely exhausted the next.

And I did find somebody to help me clean out the stuff in the property so I can get it ready for sale.

I do have a list of people that want to buy it because I always get these phone calls um wanting to buy the property.

So I do want to sell the property, get rid of it, and get it out of the way.

That's my main goal with this to rid myself of this property.

I don't want it anymore.

Um, I had to move in with my daughter because she can't be by herself.

I'm you know, like her, you know, like disabilities.

I she can't take completely take care of herself.

So I'm trying to take care of that house and her house and take care of all the people.

It's just like it's been overwhelming for me as a single parent to do all this stuff.

I don't have a support system with me to do anything.

I don't have anybody that's going to help me with things.

I have to do them all on my own.

So I'm taking care of her house until then I have that house, and I have to pay all the bills for her house, and then I have to take care of that house.

It's just it's like I said, it's just been completely overwhelming for me.

And the only thing I'm here to do is ask for um, you know, like just some leniency here, and that's the only reason I'm here.

Um, because I know, you know, like I said, I do want to get rid of the house.

I want somebody else to have it that can fix it up and make money on it and rent it out or whatever they're going to do or live in it, but I don't want that house anymore.

It's a burden to me at this point.

Okay, or any questions for board members on this Babetsky.

Um, I have some questions, Mr.

Chair.

Uh first from Mr.

Rabkowski.

Um, Mr.

Rubkowski, you said that the city reached out to Miss Babitsky and uh in in May of 2024.

Is that correct?

Oh, let me refer back.

Yes, on May 2824, we spoke with the owner.

This actual order, the original order was from May of 200, or let me go back to the first order written for this property was from 1118, 2022.

We issued an order for the property.

That property then went to court and was proceeded to be found litigated non-compliant.

Uh we put that on a six-month referral list, and six months we go back out there to reassess the property.

Um, and that flagged a new complaint.

As we went through the complaint, we issued new orders on the property.

Um, and ever since then, we made contact um refer back to the May 28th, 2024.

We then um spoke with her and she uh um gave us an alternative address at 2068 South 95th Street where we mailed a order to that property.

Um my question now is to Miss Babisky.

Um I think I overheard you say at some point when Mr.

Rapkowski was giving testimony that the city did not speak with you in May.

Um that's still your position.

City speaking with me.

I had contact inspector in October, and that's when he was telling me that I had all these fines on the property, you know, not fines, but um, you know, like violations on it.

And the other thing too is that when about two weeks ago, I got a call from actually I'm gonna stop you right there.

I just want you to answer my questions.

I I don't need another narrative on this.

Um so with that being said, Miss Babiski, what we have here by the city is saying that this has been an issue since November of 2022.

It's been litigated, non-compliant.

There have been subsequent orders filed.

Uh it appears that the city knows you're you're not you're not disputing that your address is correct.

You're disputing that they spoke with you back in May, which is now already two years ago, and it's still if what the city has testified is correct that you represented that you were gonna sell the property two years ago.

What's what is it?

How can the board um believe that this property is actually going to be sold now two years later if there hasn't been any effort to sell it in two years?

Well, like I said, I had um my ex is a state to deal with in you know, like I had that to take care of it.

That's not my question.

No, I want my question answered, please.

Okay.

I want to know what is the board supposed to.

How is the board supposed to believe that you're going to sell the property if you haven't done it in two years?

Yeah, I found somebody that's gonna help me clean out the stuff.

I'm starting to feel a little bit better.

Plus, I'm going to be getting treated for my diabetes.

I had a blood sugar yesterday of 390, and I need to get treated for that.

I didn't know it was so high.

I just found that out.

And so they're gonna do a different um medical thing with it because if I can't walk upstairs, I'm not getting the energy for my food either.

So I'm going to start with that new treatment.

Um again, Miss Pabisky.

I I am I don't want you to think that I'm not empathetic to your health issues because I sincerely am.

I I do really want that.

I don't want you to interrupt me, and I'd like you to not interrupt me, please.

Thank you.

So I think that everybody on the board and probably the city as well is very empathetic to your health issues, but you can understand here that there's an issue with the property not being resolved or sold after two years.

I understand you have a lot going on, but you're also starting to face some very significant fines.

And I think that from my perspective, uh, you just need to get the place listed.

Uh these other excuses about you're gonna get it cleaned out, you're gonna do this, you're gonna do that.

The weather has to be like like this and that.

And I I am just gonna say that that doesn't seem acceptable to me.

You need to get somebody in there, you need to get it listed, you need to get it sold.

When can you get that done by?

I think I can have that done by June.

I want you know, it takes usually people two weeks to 30 days to close on properties.

I think I can have that done by June.

And um, the weather will be I can get the stuff done out in the interim here with getting the stuff out of the property.

I have private investors that have called me.

Um when I had to deal with my ex's properties, I had private investors come in there and I sold the property within three weeks on that.

And um, that wasn't very hard.

So I have a list of about 20 people that are interested in the property, and I'm going to be contacting all of them.

And a neighbor's been calling me asking to buy the property from me.

So I like I said, I definitely want to get that done.

I want to get it over with, and I want to get rid of it.

I've just understand you understand that there's no requirement, not no there's not necessarily a requirement for a potential buyer of a property in this kind of condition that it's all cleaned out.

You understand that?

I understand as is, but there's some things that have to be removed from the property.

I've I sold my ex's properties, they were junk properties.

Um, you know, like I sold them from you know, like for my daughter, and they were sold as is, and that's what the property is gonna be sold as.

It's going as is, and it's not gonna be you know, a significant amount of money, it's just gonna be, you know, like basically the frame, the lot, and the garage.

That's pretty much what it is.

It's being sold as is, so it's it's not gonna be hard to sell it.

It's not anything, it's gonna be a cash buyer that comes in to buy it, and like I said, I sold his properties when I had two.

Ms.

Pabisky, I I appreciate it.

You you have a lot to say.

I I want to just keep this moving along.

So you you represented that you think you can get it sold by June 20 uh June.

Um, but here's my real question.

What would you tell the board when will you have this property listed by?

That's what I'd like to know.

Listed.

It's not gonna be listed on the MLS.

The other properties I sold um for my ex, I sold as is, and I had I put up a sign and I also listed it on eggs list, and um I actually got I have over 20 people that have contacted me in my phone, want to buy the property.

So I'm going to have I'll have an open house for it for these investors that are cash buyers and sell it.

That's how I sold his properties.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, and uh to Mr.

Rapkowski, if uh Miss Pabitsky is able to get it sold, what what what from the city's perspective would happen next?

What will this will the city be able to work with her in some way or where are we at?

No, the the ultimately the the the fines would be associated with the taxes if you put on the taxes of the property.

Um if the work was completed by selling, we could work with her with the fines, but since the work is not complete, the fines stay with the property.

So the new owner would inherit the fines as well as a new order would be generated in our system for the owner to correct those conditions in a time frame.

And uh a follow-up question is if a new buyer were to come into the property with these fines uh coming along with it, assuming that she Miss U Babitsky's not paying them, uh which I don't know if that's the case, that's just an assumption.

That's just an assumption.

Um, would the city work with the owner on those fines if the owner were to make the or get the property into compliance?

No, those fines would be associated with the old owner, they would generate a whole new order.

So we are willing to work with them on the new order itself if you needed more time for that.

Got it.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Any further questions from board members?

Okay, we're in committee.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll pass the gavel to you, Mr.

Yandell.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna make a motion to deny the appeal of Helen Babitsky for um her re-inspection fees at 2444 27th Street.

All right, we have a motion to deny the appeal by uh Mr.

Bobbitt.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right, we have a second.

Do we have any objections?

All right, hearing none, so ordered.

I will pass the gavel back to Chairman Bobbitt.

Hi, uh Miss Babitsky, we denied your appeal.

Um the reason why I made the motion and deny your appeal is I looked at all the photographs, and there's an extensive amount of work that has to be done, even by somebody else that would buy it from you and take it as is.

There's still quite a bit of work that has to be done.

You'll be getting notice of our decision to deny your appeal in writing, and it will also give you your appeal rights if you want to appeal our decision.

Okay, and thank you for appearing.

Thank you.

Um now I'm gonna call number 34 the appeal of Caden Stanley for vacant building reinspection fees, 5474 North 58th Street.

Is Caden Stanley with us again?

I'll make a call as Caden Stanley with us.

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

Mr.

Chair, move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Hear any objections?

Hearing none, so ordered.

We're now going to the appeal of Deborah Jefferson for vacant building registration fees at 5628 North 74th Street.

Is Deborah Jefferson with us?

Yes.

Laura, were you gonna speak?

That's okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh last minute we were able to uh settle that this case.

Uh the building was found occupied, and for a one-time courtesy, we did waive that fee for her.

Regarding Deborah Jefferson or Caden Stanley.

Uh Deborah Jefferson.

25.82.

So it's my understanding the appeal of DeForce Deborah Jefferson is now off the board because this there's been compliance, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Uh I will now address number 32 and number 36.

Uh the appeal of Ronald Mueller for reinspection fees 2947 north 30th.

I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair.

Mr.

Chair, so moved.

Okay.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Now we've got the appeal of Catherine Beck for denial of check-in keeping permit at 2912 North Prospect.

I will entertain a motion to call for the hold for the call of the chair pursuant to the city's request.

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair, so moved.

Okay.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Finally, we have the appeal of Latoya C.

Johnson for border fees at 48 54 North 65th Street.

And is that Latoya coming up to the chair to the desk?

That is them, sir.

Good morning, Latoya Johnson.

Uh, we're appearing on behalf of the city.

Is Latoya Johnson with us?

Okay, at this time I'll entertain a motion for denial.

Yeah, for that appearance.

Okay, I have a motion by Mr.

Yao and Dow to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Hammer.

Any objection?

Hearing none so ordered.

Thank you for coming.

Do we have to go into closed session?

Uh for an item.

It is we don't have any file specifically noticed for that.

It is, I would say within the board's discretion whether it wants to do that or not, bearing in mind the time and the amount of time it may take to pick this up back up again at a future session.

I am perfectly happy, and I think the situation does not require a closed session today.

We can move that to next time and budget more time for it appropriately.

Okay.

Then we will not do that.

I will say this though, we need to uh I hate to admit sometimes I'm right because I was right on this.

If you remember on our scheduling, I said we've got to start scheduling more of these because the response from the city was was we only have 20.

And I said, Well, we'll have 40 by the time it comes.

Now we had this major snowstorm, so I'd like to schedule a meeting sooner versus lady.

How later?

How many appeals do we have pending?

Without including the ones that were held from this morning, uh we have six appeals and the books.

Well, I'd say the most we're gonna get wait is a month.

That's maximum because I mean 40 appeals in one and it's a lot of work.

Uh when are you when would you like propose the next uh everybody look at their April?

How does April when how does Wednesday April 8th look?

That works for me.

I have I think I have a hearing that morning.

I don't think I can make that.

Okay.

Um about Thursday, April 16th.

I'm not available in the morning.

How is Monday, April 20th?

I can't make that disregard.

Uh how about uh Tuesday, April 28th?

That would work for me.

Works for me.

Yep, works for me.

Okay, we'll make it Tuesday, April 28th.