Good morning.

Welcome to judiciary and legislation.

I'm the Chair Artoman DeAndre Jackson to my right, Artoman Les Westmoreland.

To his right, Otterman Bob Bauman to my left.

We have Ottawa McPratt and President Otterman Perez.

None of this is possible with our staff of citizens, Joanna Ortiz, and City Attorney.

Over there, of course.

I ignore so Bob rules that we move out of order.

Item 11, they'd be it before us, 251901 communication from the Equal Rights Commission regarding the 2025 annual report.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair and members of the committee.

So instead of a PowerPoint on the screen, we'll we'll go by the PowerPoint in the booklet, if that's okay.

So to begin with, if we'll move on to uh page three, you'll see the mission of the Equal Rights Commission, and that is to promote and protect equality, equity, and human rights through education, enforcement, and community engagement.

And our guiding star, of course, is chapter 109 of the city ordinances.

We're citizen-led, uh appointed by uh each one of us, 11 appointed by the mayor, and then approved and uh confirmed by common counsel for three year terms.

Um we'll keep moving.

Uh you'll see this is the 2025 version annual report.

So these are members that are listed uh uh as of 2025.

I have the privilege of chairing uh the commission.

I'm also joined today by Commissioner Jessica Bowling and then our uh staff uh from the uh department of office, it used to be the office of equity and inclusion, but what is it now?

Department of Compliance and Engagement.

And Ramona Ramos uh is here with us today.

So we're we're excited to have uh the team, part of the team here with us.

So part of uh the 2025 accomplishments was building out uh the commission.

Uh we went from uh 7 to 11 and we uh member number of members uh in the code of ordinances establishes the 11.

We were able to in 2025 um also um bring on Paul Smith, L.

Halo, Ray Johnson, Alexandria Stauback.

Also in a staff build out, we brought in uh the equal rights specialist.

That position was open for quite some time.

Uh and then because uh Alder Woman Pratt was a previous uh equal rights specialist uh with the commission, and we were so uh we were so proud that uh now uh you're uh uh able to take that work here at the Common Council and you've seen it firsthand and we appreciate that.

Um and then um Romana Ramos coming on board as the equal rights uh complaints liaison to handle complaints.

Um to the meat of it in 2025 was a civil rights uh complaint process, and um we're charged with monitoring and investigating.

So I don't know if some of you recall I had uh asked for an opinion from the city attorney on shall receive complaints, and uh the city attorney opined and said yes, we are um we are um the commission that must receive uh discrimination complaints based on protected classes listed in chapter 109.

And with that, we were able then to move forward with uh staff and get out into the community and have conversations with the community and let them know firsthand what we're doing and the protected classes.

So we have several protected classes, many of them are mirrored uh or the same as the federal government and the state government, uh, but we have additional protected classes like hairstyle, um which is which is one we've led with here in the city of Milwaukee.

Um in addition to that, we have three areas um public accommodation, housing, and employment uh that are protected through the Equal Rights Commission, and specifically by chapter 109.

Um I'm gonna get back into the complaints in just a moment.

Um, but I want to just uh let you know that we were out in the community.

Uh our International Human Rights Day, our eighth annual event uh took place this year, uh, which was an exciting opportunity to get into the community and have those conversations.

We also um held public hearings, one on facial recognition technology and looked at the potential discrimination because of that particular technology, and uh we had a transgender violence and protections hearing.

Um we also uh um the commission met 12 times for full commission meetings throughout the year.

Um we did um provide the results to uh the common council and the mayor on the facial recognition technology on the uh LGBT violence uh hearing we have established an LGBTQ ad hoc committee to look more closely into it and to provide a report by the end of the year uh to then share with common counsel in the mayor's office.

Uh also we've we've been out in the community in other events from Pride Fest, Juneteenth, Bronzeville, um, Mexican Fiesta, Silver City Festival, Puerto Rican Festival, uh, and Milwaukee among New Year.

Um, and and part of that was getting in there in the community and having those conversations and letting them know exactly what we were doing and what we're doing.

I know we're Ramona Ramos led a lot of those events, got us out of the community.

Commissioners were also out in the community, and for many uh they didn't realize, first of all, that they had the protections in place in the city.

And um what this did was bring attention to what we do, and what we saw was an increase in the civil rights complaint complaints that were coming in.

If you go to page 12 in the booklet, you'll see that the complaints did come in again based on employment housing and public accommodations.

Uh a bit of a breakdown on um the complaints that did come in, and and not only complaints, what we found is people were looking for remedies in the city for a lot of things.

And they felt that the Equal Rights Commission was the place and the people to call because there's a sense of trust.

And even if they needed something that another department could handle, they came to us and we were able to refer them and refer them to the appropriate channels, the appropriate departments, the appropriate people.

And sometimes we had we referred to the state and we referred to the federal government to meet their needs.

So we've been a clearinghouse for people's complaints or needs that are out in the communities, and if you can see the most active zip codes were 53209-06, 5325, 53215.

And in the on the next page, there is a heat map of complaints.

I think it's also inserted in the um in the larger version that you can see I'm holding up.

Uh, and that is the complaints uh based on all domanti districts.

Uh so we've broken it down that way in a heat map as well.

Um so these are these are just the complaints, not all that has been referred uh to different departments and uh other agencies uh throughout.

So Ramona, do you want to just touch on on the complaints and in that in that process?

Sure.

So when I came on board uh as the complaints liaison, I started with checking our systems.

How does the email work?

How do we receive complaints?

The phone number, so what are the access points to the public that they can we can actually receive their complaint?

Another big component of that was getting the word out to the community.

So attending events was a big part of that.

Um many people were surprised that there was an Equal Rights Commission for as long as it has been in existence, I think almost 80 years since 1944.

Um we're happy to hear that there was this process to submit a complaint.

So when a complaint comes in, it is we receive complaints, the Equal Rights Commission based off of the uh chapter 109, the City of Milwaukee ordinance for uh things that have taken place within city limits.

Uh so that just kind of well, it doesn't limit, but it's very specific to just the City of Milwaukee limits, and that's why we were able to outline uh your districts.

In addition to complaints, I receive a lot of calls, uh, contacts, emails, which are also recorded in this report for people who have something going on but don't actually want to submit a complaint to the Equal Rights Commission.

So I help them.

I make recommendations, I make referrals, I send them to your offices, I send them to other uh agencies within the state or the city or the county that may be able to help them.

In addition to let's see, what else?

Well, I I I I'd like to refer to the data analysis report that's in here.

It's uh it's an appendices in the back.

So this gives you uh um definitely uh a deeper dive into all of the communications, the complaints that came in, uh, and it breaks it down even further.

It also breaks down the the different events that we attended, and uh it should give you um more information.

We're happy to answer questions if you get a chance to read this over and provide additional information if you need.

But I I we've used um who's with the uh analysis who did the analysis for us.

Andrew Beale, uh data analyst for Department of Compliance and Engagement, assisted with the actual analysis.

So one of the things that I also did in addition to checking our systems was gathering the data to make sure we could report out and see where we needed to do more work, where were things happening?

Uh and that resulted in this analysis report for 2025.

I would say the top three off the top of my head without looking at this, the complaints that we receive.

So an actual complaint when it comes in, they go online to the Equal Rights Commission website.

There's a form, it is submitted, we get the notification.

We have a process that's also based off of Chapter 109 where we may contact within five days to process that in terms of an investigation, and we've done very well with that.

Uh housing employment and public accommodations are the top three.

I would say with employment being the number one complaint.

Now for uh just the action items for 2026 and uh and what we're taking a look at right now, uh, and that's filling three vacant commissioner seats.

We've already filled two, by the way, this year, so well on the way.

Uh we've submitted uh another uh to the mayor's office uh as a recommendation, so that's in the pipeline, and we thank you for helping us through this process, Mr.

Chair and Committee and Council, uh, and and hopefully we'll have a complete commission uh by this year with uh a total of eleven.

We'll we'll continue with the equal uh the human rights day event, the ninth annual coming up in December.

Um as I mentioned, we've established the LGBTQ plus advisory committee to give us additional information uh and provide a report by the end of the year to submit to you.

Uh develop uh educational materials and digital assets.

We're continuously growing that, and then uh meeting the needs in the community, looking at multilingual multilanguage as as part of this process, expanding the outreach to the high impact zip codes, um, how can we we uh meet the people in their spaces and where they are, uh continue participation in major cultural events, and then something that uh Ramona has worked on uh for quite some time with I uh ITMD uh and that is uh implementing a unified case management system, and this is an app.

So uh folks in the community when they have a complaint, uh we've we've uh tried to eliminate as many barriers for them to provide that information and file a complaint with the office.

Yeah.

So I'm hoping that we will be able to roll out this web-based complaint system by quarter three.

So I've been working closely with the City of Milwaukee Resources, ITMD to create this uh system.

I believe it will be more efficient, it will be easier to actually record and process the complaint, but then also more accessible to the public, and it is a secure database system as well.

And I think most importantly, with the complaints, we need to analyze the data and determine gaps in amendment chapter 109.

Um as we analyze the data, even right now, we face a crucial challenge.

Chapter 109 limits ERC jurisdiction to areas not covered by federal or state entities.

However, with ever-changing federal policies, reducing complaint access and cascading pressure on state agencies, often employment focused, residents have fewer avenues for timely action.

We all know that HUD is pretty much not taking complaints now.

That's coming into the state.

The state is uh while it does take housing complaints, it's more focused on employment.

And there from what we hear uh is there there is a backlog, and that means people in Milwaukee who have complaints can't be heard.

So we this creates a gap, but also an opportunity to expand Chapter 109, align aligning with the mayor's year of housing with strong local relationships, we can ensure trusted accessible remedies right here at home.

In February, the ERC held a hearing featuring the Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.

That's this year.

They presented survey findings alongside community members, highlighting housing voucher discrimination.

We are now working to develop a resolution for you to consider a common counsel proposing legislative remedies to address these issues, further ensuring Milwaukee's commitment to fair housing.

So not only do we see discrimination in housing and those complaints not having an opportunity for remedy and consideration, we're also finding that there is discrimination in the housing vouchers.

And I think Madison uh has an example of how they deal with it with the Fair Housing Council, and we want to take a look at that.

We've asked LRB to take a look at that as well and give us um an analysis of how we can meet that challenge right here at home in Milwaukee.

Umy times um landlords are charging like $25 an application, and what's happening is um the folks are being ghosted, they're not getting a yes or no or anything.

They're paying $25, and that's not going anywhere, and that's not fair.

People need to hear the reason why they've been denied, or that they've been denied.

So we're working on that, and we're gonna come back to you with a resolution or with a proposal for a resolution.

Also, uh, we're gonna enhance commissioner training on complaint uh investigations and adjudication procedures so that we can better handle the complaints as well, and increase interdepartmental collaboration across city departments.

Many times city departments can handle things, and they have, and we appreciate each and every one of them.

Um, but at the same time, we need to make sure that we have uh strengthened relationship across all departments, and in chapter 109, we also have um the ability to bring departments in to report out, and I believe we have uh some scheduled for throughout the year.

Um that is uh a recap, a quick recap, a lot of the information, including an appendices that shows the areas and protected classes that we take in the back of the book, and then the ones the federal and state uh take, and the ones that only we are allowed to take, which is 11.

So, what I'm asking you in in the on the housing side is that you begin to consider opening up 109 so that we can expand our jurisdiction, and we're gonna ask that we start with housing so that we can take on those complaints, and then uh I understand there are always there's always uh a concern for capacity, but we have to fulfill the promise to the people and let them know that there is a remedy, and we'd have through chapter 109, but then execute it and be there for them and provide those remedies.

So we're gonna be coming uh with that ask to come in counsel.

And with that, any questions?

Mr.

Chair, yes.

Well, I care the computer.

I'm on the other side of the side.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Chair is all right, very good.

Uh how many of those 45 complaints, how many probable cause findings?

Zero.

Zero.

Oftentimes, oh, just go ahead.

Oftentimes what?

So if you look at appendix A, which kind of maps out what would fall under the jurisdiction of the Equal Rights Commission, and then it's also stated in chapter 109.

I want to say I'm reading.

I'm reading your remedies here.

I mean, you you're you're the process is basically to do a preliminary investigation if a determination of probable cause of a violation exists, then you would move to a more formal hearing process, then you'd reach a determination uh whether there was a violation of chapter 109 occurred, and if so, you have some remedies which actually have a modest amount of teeth here.

I mean, uh you have the issue you have the authority to issue a forfeiture of up to $5,000 with enhanced forfeitures for repeat violations and referral to the city attorney for possible injunctive.

So basically none of that ever happened during 2025.

And the reason is because of uh Chapter 1097C.

Uh we do not have or can exercise jurisdiction over any complaint uh that's set forth or states any facts and allegations uh that are the subject matter within the jurisdiction of any state or federal equal rights agency.

Um that's where the limits lie.

And and they uh I'll be honest with you.

Okay, people don't want to go to the federal government, they don't want to necessarily go to the state government.

They want to file their complaints here at home, but we are limited in we are prevented from doing that.

Uh and many times uh we had one uh I I'll just share and not the individual, obviously, but they they felt they were discriminated at work, and all they wanted was for our agency or our commission to let them know about training opportunities and and asking for an apology.

And all they wanted was for our agency or our commission to let them know about training opportunities and and asking for an apology.

Nothing more than that.

So they didn't want to go to the federal or state government or the state to file all of the complaints.

They wanted something simple.

But we're limited because of the jurisdiction uh and in 109.

And that's why I'm asking common counsel.

Now that we've laid all of this out, we've shown that uh we have we're implementing a process, uh we have the staff to accommodate it, that we need to open this up and and be able to take care of the complaints.

Obviously, we'll keep asking um, we'll keep referring, but if people want to bring their complaints home, then they should be able to.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

So the how how did uh 1097 C ever get in there in the first place?

Was that required by the city attorney when the commission was created?

Is it is there some sense that it was a previous administration?

That thought capacity was limited and uh and that uh staffing uh would not allow for this point.

You seem to be spinning your wheels pretty much.

Absolutely.

And that's why we're working diligently to lay the foundation with this process and with the staffing with the training, and we're ready to go.

Uh and I think now more than ever is an opportunity to move forward.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um just based on just to start with Alderman Bauman's question.

The fact that um is it you couldn't find probable cause or just take action on the issue?

Take action.

Yeah, because there is another agency with greater jurisdiction.

So they would be in there would be a recommendation made for them to file the complaint and the ROAS the equal rights complaints liaison, I would assist them with directing them to the correct agency.

So to Bauman's question was how many had probable cause that's different from being being able to take action.

So you could your investigation say there is a problem, right?

Hear other agency do something about it, and we have a paper chair to do that, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

So Ramona, you've been collecting the information, and we do we do collect that.

So we know what the complaints are, and many times it is probable cause.

But again, it's referring to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Can can they use that probable cause in any other level of complaint?

If they want to take it to federal court if they want to do that, absolutely absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

If they if they want to go through those processes, and you know those processes can be cumbersome for for people uh when you're talking about the federal government and what agency you've got HUD, you've got EEOC, you've got different agencies.

So we help navigate for them and help them through that process to a point, and then we have to stop.

But it would be, I think, beneficial to the person filing the complaint and to the city for us to handle the complaint and collect that data and and know where the problem lies and help with the corrective action.

Many times it's just uh you know, informing a particular entity that has violated an an individual or uh violated someone's rights to to look at corrective action, and we can make it local corrective action.

And uh I I think that would be the appropriate way to go because that ultimately that's what we want to accomplish.

We don't want to be punitive, we don't want to get into the complaints hearings.

We want to figure it out and and maybe mitigate before it even gets to that process.

But without that opportunity uh uh and and that jurisdiction, we don't have that opportunity to do that.

You said housing was at the top of the list for complaints.

If you had the say this is the problem with housing, what what would that be?

Considering that's the number one complaint.

People denied housing based on one of the protected classes, whether it's uh race, obviously uh I think it's is is the top.

Uh you've got ethnicity, national origin, disability.

Okay.

Disability.

But then there's also disability is a is uh is a huge one too.

And uh again giving us the opportunity to take that as part of our jurisdiction.

And the part of the Dana data analysis you were talking about, um you mentioned the current court system that we have.

Is that what you mentioned when you talked about analyzing the data and meaning um well we we would be the the adjudicating body, and if there were there were an appeal, then it would go on to the court system for uh appealing our decision.

Okay, but I think we have an opportunity to mitigate a lot of this uh at the beginning before the complaint ends up in in a in a hearing process.

But all of that is in place in chapter 109 for us to hold the hearings, and this entire process is laid out in chapter 109.

talked about analyzing the data and meaning um well uh we we would be the the adjudicating body and if there were there were an appeal then it would go on to the court system for uh appealing our decision okay but I think we have an opportunity to mitigate a lot of this uh at the beginning before the complaint ends up in in a in a hearing process but all of that is in place in chapter 109 for us to hold the hearings and this entire process is laid out in chapter 109 it's just we can't use it uh many times and there are only very few protected classes which are far and few between uh that we're not seeing complaints on that we have jurisdiction over okay I just in my experience I know that um whether it's municipal court or some state legislation or even our process through DNS and you talk about housing and landlords um there's probably a lot of accountability that isn't happening that could help with your complaints and to coordinate that would be extremely strategic.

Absolutely yes and then um to answer your question when it comes to housing many times people don't want to file a complaint because they don't want it on record because they're fearful that they will be um evicted or there will be some retaliation and we also heard reports of that during um the public testimony on housing and that testimony was specifically on source of income uh this or excuse me discrimination based on source of income for housing meaning if someone has a section 8 voucher and they go to look at a place they go sometimes up to 75 dollars uh for the application fee they get to the point of submitting a down payment the uh property owner finds out uh that they have a housing voucher and then they deny them they said the units not being rented it's uh no longer available so that's time wasted $75 and they have to start the process all over again so I get many of those complaints but then I also get many complaints on property issues meaning my ceiling is leaking there are rodents uh there my landlord my property owner doesn't live in this state and I can't get a hold of them so many of the things that we've seen and I'm sure you have heard of and that are on TV those complaints come to the the Equal Rights Commission whether or not it's an official complaint many times they're calling right now who's supposed to be handling those type of complaints when you're discriminated against because of a housing voucher there is no uh jurisdiction and that's why we're gonna create uh we have um as far as a protected class is source of income but we're gonna we're asking um we're gonna be asking common counsel we're working on that jessica do you want to apply on that or you want to just to be more specific so right now we have all these protections for renters right yeah if you're discriminated against because you filed a complaint with DNS uh we added uh an inspection for lead right if you that was included previously a couple years back we added lead if you decided to call the health department or DNS to say I think my rental unit there's lead here and my kids are at risk that that wouldn't be a reason for retaliation so we have all this on the books and right now no one holds any landlords accountable for that.

So source of income uh needs to be clarified where it includes vouchers that's what we're gonna ask common counsel to put a clarification in chapter 109 that source of income includes vouchers.

So right now who handles all the other stuff since source of income isn't included do you know because do you get complaints on what when we do but no there there's no one who handles a source of income now for vouchers the state the state yeah but what about the other stuff you talked about if my ceilings leaking and I call and I get retaliated against my landlord who does that complaint?

No one but I direct them to DNS or department of DPW to get assistance to get the inspection to start seeing what our city services can do to assist them.

So it's always a recommendation and a referral but there is no one to hold anyone accountable there's no system in place that I know of okay outside of filing a state or federal which specifically for HUD housing they are no longer taking complaints.

Okay.

Um have you guys talked to community advocates at all?

All the time okay because there's a lot of those there are our goal to every time there's a landlord tenant issue they're you know they're doing the rent with the rent withholding they're negotiating I'm assuming that they have an ex uh an enormous amount of experience with who's doing what where and accountability issues so and they serve a great need so there's a lot of people referring to them I think all at once so for one agency I think it's a lot that's just my personal I'd like to hear their policy recommendations for us to to be able to do accountability.

Yeah we can do that.

Yeah and so Commissioner Boylan did you want to say anything on the committee on housing?

Yeah we've just started looking into some sister sister municipalities to see what they're doing Madison has been Madison in Dane County have been recommended for us to look into and so we're gonna look into how they're doing that what it costs and how we could possibly implement it and implement it here.

And I think that recommendation there's several preemptions that we've been trying to fight with against the state for a long time with inspections and districts and areas that I think we need to continue lobbying on so thank you.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I was just gonna say I'm I'm thankful that you all finally gotten to this point at least.

I know we were definitely spending our wills for many years when I was an equal rights specialist, so the fact that you can now take complaints.

Um I was gonna ask, are you are do you do all the investigations as well, Ramona?

Yes.

Investigations are in-house.

Okay.

And then um I know that most of the things end up being reported, I mean uh referred out to EEOC or ER uh ERD.

Um is there and I you probably have a tight relationship with the people you were talking to in those divisions.

Do you ever hear back about the final results?

Like uh after you have handed over your investigation, do you know?

Are people ever circling back with you to see how the your initial investigation then which led to uh maybe a state complaint, how it was resolved.

From the complaint.

Okay.

I stay in touch with them.

So um, as you know, complaints are time sensitive.

So if I'm referring to EEOC or um the state of Wisconsin, especially if it's employment, there's a time clock, and that starts from the date of the incident, then you usually have 300 days.

I think it also states that in chapter 109.

So that's why I have the quick turnaround to get that initial contact in within five days have they the interview because everyone who files a complaint has an interview with me.

And then to see what is the best path forward.

So I started, I guess, my own system of following up 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and then just stay open and available to them to say let me know how this goes.

A lot of times people will circle back or I'll make a follow-up call and they'll say I have an appointment um a year out, six months out, nine months out with another agency.

So I think we turn it around much faster.

So I have a lot of contacts and a lot of people contacted me because of that fact.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions on the topic?

Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for your work.

Uh what's more than uh we you talked about the uh application fee in in applying and getting ghosted.

Does the state cap that at 25 dollars?

No, I don't think it's regular.

I don't think there's a cap because I've heard up to 75 dollars.

Okay.

I heard somebody say yes.

I I've heard I've heard two things.

I've heard that 75 dollars and I heard 25 dollars.

So aside from that, do you ever receive complaints that somebody may have been charged more than what that cap is?

Not yet.

No, I have not.

I think people don't know what the cap is.

I honestly do not know what the cap is.

I thought there was no cap because I have heard different amounts 25, 35, up to 75.

Okay.

I think we should they would charge more if they could, is that what you're saying?

Or they can't charge more, they just don't.

Or they are and get away with it.

There's no one regulated.

So there's no process, there's nothing stated that if you take money from someone for this application and you don't follow up or they don't get that uh said apartment or house, what happens with that money?

They keep it.

And usually they you sign something saying that they can do that.

So I don't think there's anything there to regulate it.

If you I think on Zillow, even they'll refer you to uh property owners that are renting properties, and when you go to the other site, you'll fill out an application and it will ask you for an application fee.

But I'm pretty sure that you have to click a box that says I agree to this.

So it so we're saying a landlord can charge a rental application for the actual cost up to a maximum of 25 dollars for a background report if the applicant lives outside of Wisconsin in most situations.

So uh we I think I I think we have a lot of landlords that are taking advantage of people that don't know what that cap is.

And I think we should make it publicly known what that cap is to uh exploit these individuals and make it clear that source of income which includes vouchers are a source of uh that are valid and you cannot be discriminated against or denied uh an opportunity to rent based on that.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Tony.

So um Auto Woman Pratt moves us to the hold of the call of the share.

Thank you.

Place gone file.

Thank you.

Sure.

I like my case.

Yeah, that's we should put a ordinance in.

That's crazy.

All right, item one, two five zero three A two resolution related to the claim of Rocio Perez Cabalero.

This is the second time.

Can I get a motion?

Uh move denial.

Move denial based on non-appearance for the third time.

Hearing objections?

So order.

Item two, two five one five one three.

Resolution related to the claim of Shelton King Jr.

Shelton King Jr.

This is the first time.

This is the first time.

So move the hold.

Audible Westmoreland moves the hold.

This will be recorded as a time missed.

And we used to go up to three.

Just for everybody out there.

Hearing objections to order.

Item 3, 251 369 resolution related to the appeal of James and Laurra Lindsay for property damage.

Morning, Armor Chair, Council members.

Morning.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53206.

Tree fell on the fence in February of 2025.

Well, the extenuating circumstances is that tree, I've been in my residence over 20 years, and that tree has been dropping limbs for a while, and we were in told that we were in uh the rotation to have that tree pruned.

And then the event of uh COVID came and then we got pushed back further.

But meanwhile, my wife and I both made many calls to uh neighborhood services regarding that tree.

Eventually it fell and it uh destroyed the entire uh front gate.

I uh paid for someone that replaced the gate and then I asked for compensation and it was denied.

All right.

City attorney.

Yes, um, I think what uh Mr.

Lindsay said was uh broadly accurate.

Uh the uh a branch from a tree fell on February 11th, 2025 and damaged their fence uh at their home at 3318 North 26th Street.

Um our investigation revealed that forestry responded to the call regarding the broken branch, uh then they removed it.

Um that day the city experienced peak peak wind gusts of 24 miles an hour and average wind speed of 17 miles an hour.

Um and prior records show that in 2024 there was a request uh regarding br dead branches on a nearby tree, but there are no requests for the uh tree related to this claim.

Uh city attorney's office has recommended denial because the damage to the claimant's fence was not the result of the s negligence by the city's forestry services.

Sure.

You're saying that you reported this tree previously?

Several times.

In fact, it was documented.

And now what you try and get that for this meeting, they said you have to fax request, and that it's been a while.

Did fax last week to request to get this uh looked at.

And by the way, the they're like a roll of trees, and all those trees have been there since I've been there.

I've been in the neighborhood over 60 years, and those branches fall fi fall often, and we do report it and we do clean up stuff up, but though the if you look at the picture that I sent in, there were like five or six huge branches that they came out and actually cut after that tree uh them fell on my fence.

And we certainly have been reporting it, and again we were told.

In fact, someone said you had to wait for something to happen.

We were trying to get ahead of that, and the tree did what it was gonna do.

It actually failed and that's not the only damage in the neighborhood of people's property.

So the answer is yes, you have reported the tree several times.

Yes.

We have no record of that, is what you're saying.

Uh at least our office does not have a record for it.

We requested records from uh forestry service and they they do not have a received, by the way.

Wait, hang on, hang on.

Say that again.

For sure say what?

Uh that there was one other trimming for dead branches on a tree on that street.

Um, but there was no other request for pruning of branches of the who did you call to report this?

Neighborhood services.

Neighborhood services.

But and by the way, that tree that was trimmed was also I owned two houses, house in between, and the next two houses.

That tree that was reported of was the house next door, which was also one of my properties.

So have we talked with DNS to see what they have on file?

Uh I would have to double check that with our claims department.

Um I'm not sure uh personally.

Move to hope at the appropriate time.

I think that we should be reaching out to DNS to see what they have.

I don't know.

Anything else?

What do you mind?

No, I need that information.

I mean, I care for forestry, but if he's saying he'd be calling a DNS and our forestry, it could have been a drop all somewhere.

Uh Jeff Loffenberg or McFarland Street District Manager.

Um, I would say, yeah.

Uh if he reported them to DNS, we wouldn't not have been directly notified unless they would have put it into the system themselves, and we got uh got it through regular channels.

Um the only two requests for service we received uh were the the one for the actual incident that caused the damage and then one prior in July of 2024 uh for the address of 3018.

Um the tree that that caused the damage was at 3022.

So he did report the other tree.

You have the file for the other tree, but not that one.

I have the the request for pruning for or um inspection of the tree at 3018 North 26th Street.

The one that failed causing the damage of this incident was at 3022.

So that's it.

Is not two feet between the two houses, and that tree literally two trees together along with about four or five other trees.

That tree that failed fell at 3018.

Not 3022.

Correct.

I I'm not disputing where it caused the damage, um, but the tree that that did fail was located, it's its physical address was at 3022 and it fell causing the damage hitting the vehicle or uh the fence, I'm sorry, um at the address of 3018.

Like I said, I don't know if you have pictures or not, but it's it's literally between 3022 and 3018.

And there was number of huge branches that they had to come out of and it it covered about 23 feet.

Cost of transaction 450.

So they just do a vacation.

So split the bank.

Well, is this the tree that had the memorial on it?

Is that the tree that had the branch fall off?

Well, actually, it was we do neighborhood things and they wrap that tree.

Oh, that was like a Christmas lap thing.

Okay.

I was just trying to see because I was if it was a memorial, then we would have been out to what is the amount of your claim?

450 dollars?

438 dollars.

438 dollars?

I moved to settle for 200.

Split the baby, so to speak.

Rather than having to come back here and go through all this rigomerola.

All right.

I have a motion on the floor.

Oh, that's true.

I withdraw that motion.

We draw his original motion.

We have a motion to uh split the baby so to speak for 200.

We can continue to fight, but we just put it out there for you if you would like.

I came here assembly to make sure that at least I appeared because to let you know.

No, I I didn't agree, but obviously I'll take the 200.

I I never thought council bargain um the 438 dollars really was uh very reasonable for somebody to put replace against these days.

I just have to say that.

All right.

So you accepted the set the uh deal?

Yes, I my time is worth more than two and a dollar.

Absolutely.

All right, so we have a motion on the floor for the settle for 200.

Any objections here in the water.

Thank you very much.

And Mr.

Lindsay, the city attorney's office will reach out to you regarding the payment.

Item four, two five one three eight six resolution related to the claim of Donald Erison.

All right, so Mr.

Aronson uh brings us claim alleging that the basement of his property located at 608 North Broadway, uh sustained flooding damage as a result of a water main break on July 10th, 2025.

Uh our investigation revealed that on that date, uh at approximately 11 p.m.

Uh Milwaukee Waterworks responded to a reportable leak uh and confirmed it.

Uh the leak was found on the public side of a four-inch water service branch that served uh the location.

Uh water service was shut off and a contractor was hired to complete repairs.

Uh the city attorney's office has uh recommended denial because Milwaukee Waterworks responded as soon as it was notified, and water was shut shut off in accordance with standard operating procedures.

Uh so there's no evidence that the city was negligent in this matter.

Um just to clarify a couple pieces of of that information.

Um it confirmed it was uh a leak on the public side.

The we ended up contracting for repair, but this was a nine-inch hole on a four-inch branch, so it was a lot of water all at once.

My understanding was that the point of entry was the foundation to the building.

Um also the leak was 13 feet underground.

So it initially was reported as somebody had leaking up in the street.

So you meant that it had already gone 13 feet up, but it also dispersed itself.

So you told about what it's like bubbling up, right?

It'll but when the water when typically a main break or a branch leak, the water will bubble upwards, and that's how we initially will be notified somebody sees there's leaking or bubbling in the street.

Um it was at shift change, so by the time when we got out there, it had already been flooding through the foundation of the building.

Mr.

Aronson is one of multiple people that um were affected by in that particular building.

We had um like two feet of mud in portions of the front of the building from the leak.

Um, and we were responsible in the cleanup.

We hired an environmental um agency to come in and remove the mud appropriately.

Um we had also uh mitigation done by a licensed um company, SurfPro.

Um we had to remove all our belongings to a storage unit uh so they could remove all the mud and water and do the that once that was done, then they had to dry out the the basement.

Once the dryout was done, they had to mitigate for mold.

Um so this was a multi-week process.

Uh once the cleanup and everything was done, and they brought back the undamaged um goods back to our basement.

Meanwhile, our garage was full of damaged goods that the um company took to a dumpster to dispose of properly.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, I'm I'm sure this was very traumatic and caused a lot of damage.

But the real issue here is what is how was the city negligent?

And usually that negligence in these situations comes in the form of unreasonable delays and shutting off the water.

The city is not liable for acts of God.

The water mains just break to the normal how old was this water main?

I don't know.

A similar claim came before us last cycle, the Kin Hotel next door, and we basically denied it, so you can take this matter to court where there can be full discovery.

You can find out how how old a water main is, and they can be detailed analysis of what steps were taken because we're not in a position to settle claims for $50,000.

Yeah, at this amount just move denial, and you can go to court and that's the appropriate forum for claims of this size.

All right.

Well so we have to hire an attorney.

What do you mean by court?

Court, yeah.

Litigation.

Litigation.

At this at this amount, this is beyond our means of we're not a court.

We can't take witness testimony.

We've nobody's under oath here.

We we can't conduct extensive evaluations.

We got 15 more of these.

Well, if you remove the personal property, we have proof of what a cost is for the mitigation.

The issue of negligence, not damages.

We know there are damages.

The damage is obvious.

The issue is negligence.

Was the city at fault?

Who is at fault?

Who is responsible?

Well, there may be nobody at fault.

But again, at this amount, this is better in a court, not here.

So in the city hall our the courthouse up there, we'd go to trial.

Potentially, potentially what the can is going to do, because they they were denied for a claim basically the same size.

Same song.

So motion on the floor, bottom bottom move denial.

Here, no objections, so order.

City attorney.

So we can't appeal our denial.

Well, no, that's yes.

This is the sixth step.

Yeah, that would be the next step.

Uh so what happens now is that the decision of the committee will be referred to the full common council at their next meeting uh on April 21st, 2026.

Uh if they adopt the committee's recommendation of denial to receive a formal notice by mail of that denial, and then uh once you receive that notice, you can file uh in state court to uh you know pursue these litigations.

So we can we do we appear at common counsel and can we make an appeal there or no?

No, you'll for for your purposes and for everybody listening and everybody in the room, the city is not an insurance company.

We just don't pay claims because damage has occurred.

There has to be evidence that the city was at fault that we had a duty to do something and we failed to fulfill that duty.

Water main breakages are acts of God, the city is not at fault for a water main break unless there was a delay in response which caused the damage to escalate.

There was a delay.

I mean that may have been, but this is just a first stop.

That's for a court to sort out through the discovery process.

Okay, and again, again basically and you're right, and that's why later in the day we're gonna talk about a case that was settled involving water maintages.

Okay, but usually that takes litigation, so there could be a full discovery process, so all the facts can be determined.

Okay.

Rather than come in here, we're saying, all right, fine, we'll we'll offer five thousand dollars.

Take it no, probably not.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Item five, two five zero two seven six.

Resolution related to the claim of Brittany Hudson for property damage.

All right.

Brittany Hudson, this is a first time non appearance.

This is second.

This is this is the second time.

This is the second time.

She's overnight.

Second time, no show.

Uh you say you're giving three times now?

Uh subsidy.

Move for denial item five for non-appearance for the second time.

Hearing objects to order.

All motion was by Otterman Westmoreland.

Item six two five one six three two resolution related to the claim of Denise Wade.

Oh, good morning.

City attorney.

Yes.

Uh Ms.

Maheed brings this claim alleging that a rental property located at uh three two four eight West Ferrari Street and 3110 North 35th Street was damaged when the Milwaukee police uh forced entry onto the property on August 11th, 2025.

Uh she seeks $6,611 and 13 cents for door repairs.

Uh our investigation determined that on that date, uh MPD responded to a complaint involving sexual assaults, kidnapping, and recklessly endangering safety at the location.

Uh female victim reportedly jumped out the second floor window uh to escape.

Uh the MPD tactical uh enforcement unit made uh forced entry through the common hallway doors uh at the location.

Uh damage occurred as officers uh forced entry and secured the scene.

Uh the city attorney's office has recommended uh denial because uh Milwaukee police were not negligent and took appropriate action in this case, uh and therefore the city is not liable for damages.

So just to recap, they were at the right address.

Correct.

There was an emergency situation.

Correct.

There was in fact criminal activity.

Uh that would be something that Yes.

Um James Lewis, police district manager, Milwaukee Police Department, good morning.

Um just to add a few more details um to what the city attorney said on this claim.

Um we did get a call from a good Samaritan that a woman would have jumped out of this window.

There were allegations of uh sexual assault.

There was also allegations of a discharge of a firearm.

Um many squads responded to this.

They held containment on the scene.

The tactical enforcement unit was uh dispatched to the scene.

They did make entry to the two common doors.

Um however, this and this is where um I I've read the claim, and there's some some allegations of okay.

Well, they didn't come upstairs and and boot the rest of the doors.

So when they went upstairs to this hallway, there's many doors in this apartment complex.

Um facts that were happening outside of the tactical enforcement unit was that the woman who jumped from the uh second story started changing her story.

So they were applying for a search warrant at the time to say we're gonna go into this house, we're gonna secure it, but once we get there we want to search it.

And so they were trying to gather facts from her, and she comes off of her story.

Um and so they basically decide, well, hold on, we're everybody pause.

Let's not break down all these doors.

We don't know which one it is.

Um they knock on all the doors, they don't get responses from those doors, and because they didn't have enough to continue to go with the search warrant, they said we're gonna pull back.

We don't have the exigency anymore, given what she's telling us.

Um to my understanding of what happened um was that the next day, um I I believe it was you called the police and said um we need to come back to this apartment, and it happened to be that there was uh I believe it's the tenant that was deceased in there from a gunshot wound.

Um so we don't know how that gunshot wound occurred.

Um officers did not receive a response from that door.

We don't know whether he was deceased at the time or not.

Okay.

Okay.

So you say claim for the front door or both doors?

There's two front doors, sort of.

Oh like you it's like a out exterior door into a common hallway, and then there's you know, an apartment complexes sometimes there's that second door that was uh breached as well.

So those are the two common doors we'll c we're calling them.

Okay, a sexual assault and discharge of a firearm.

Yes, at the location.

Okay.

How was the city at fault?

Well, first of all, I could you pull them out, Michael Please.

Sorry.

First of all, the night of the incident, I received a telephone call from one of the tenants in the apartment, and he told me that there's police technical force on the scene getting ready to do some type of raid.

He said, You should check your surveillance camera.

I looked at my surveillance cameras from my home.

And then at the time, I looked in at the camera.

I saw the police in the hallway of my building.

And I told the tenant, which happens to be my nephew, I said, Wait, don't move.

They're in the building.

He said, What is that?

They're in the building where you are.

And I called the seven districts police station, got in touch with one of the police officers on duty.

I sent that six-page letter, I'm sure you read it, and I had the names in there.

And they told me that there is some type of investigation.

He gave me the he got me in contact with the officer on duty that night.

I offered to bring the keys to the apartment to let him into the unit to take a look at that tenant.

That's in my letter.

Yeah.

And he refused it to get the T keys from me.

Um so the tenants that were there said no one knocked on the door.

And when you look at my surveillance cameras, you don't see a police officer knocking on the door.

I offer my surveillance cameras to the police officer, he denied he did not want the cameras.

And that's why I'm trying to figure out what kind of investigation is this where the police officer just opened entry doors and then leave.

They did not do any type of knocking on any doors that night.

So um I see the claim um as when these doors were breached, what the officers had on scene, that's the narrowness of this claim.

Um I I do understand some of the what's in this is like, hey, I had more information, people should have reached out to me, they should have known this.

That is after the fact, that's after these doors are breached.

Um so could there have been a different response, perhaps.

Um, whether or not again, we don't have I don't believe that uh you were on scene at the time, so we've got a lot of phone calls going on while you're managing this active scene with TAC on scene.

So you know, I think that that may be some of the disconnect here, but I I think when we're looking at the claim, or at least how I've looked at this claim for the two doors was at the time that they did that, was it reasonable given what they had?

Um my answer would be yes.

Uh that's for the committee to decide.

Um and then everything that happens after that is sort of I mean, this is a bad term, but Monday morning quarterbacking, like, hey, you could have done this or that or this or that.

And those may be true, they may not be true.

What we have to look at is at the time that they did what they did, what information were they relying on?

So quick, about uh about a young lady that jumped from the window changing her story, that affects them getting a warrant.

Yes, because if if you're if you're told this happened, this happened, this happened, you have to give that to a detective who writes it in an affidavit saying, I swear that this is what I know, and then you give it to a judge, and then the judge decides whether or not there's enough for you to freeze that scene, take everything, do the search warrant.

If you've told one story and then you're getting it briefed again by somebody else and it's a different story, you can't go to a judge and say, This is what I know to be true.

Um because you're getting conflicting information, and so when people um stop being cooperative or change their stories or or say, No, that's not actually how it happened when it's been told to many people.

It makes it more difficult for us to go to a court and say, trust us, we're the police, we have this good information.

You you could have, you know, there's other information or there's omissions that don't make that statement enough for the detectives gonna say, I'm gonna sign this affidavit under my name with my oath, saying this is good enough for the court.

Um so it does make it challenging when people sure.

You could almost make the argument the police weren't aggressive enough in this case.

Well, I asked the sergeants, I said why didn't we kick in all the doors up there?

Because you that that guy might not have been dead at that point.

Right, and they said because we were getting information from the ground that this search warrant isn't gonna go through.

And so they decided instead of and the other fact was, and I know that you've you've put this in there as well, they and I spoke to the sergeant who said they weren't actually sure which door to go into.

And so the way of the layout of the building, I know it's probably very straightforward for you because you own it, but they weren't able exactly to dot tell which apartment they should have gone into.

And when you're dealing with exigency, you have there isn't always the time to say, let's stop, let's get the video, let's look at what we have, let's get a blueprint of this place.

Exigency is either you have it or you don't.

And and if they decide that they don't have it because this story that they've been told is falling apart, the best you can do is announce your presence, which they certainly did.

Um I've listened to it.

They've announced that Milwaukee police is here, um, and they decide we're no longer going to kick this door, all these doors in up here.

We'd be having at least three more that we'd be talking about today.

I I I also want to say this is that because he's pushing that the police didn't knock on the door.

There was an article.

I'm getting text messages and phone calls telling me some lady jumped out the window on the 35th and birdline because the the police is already talking to CBS 58 News.

I gave you a copy of that article.

And it's like, well, well, how does CBS 58 News get that information if the police didn't tell them?

I didn't know what was going on because the police wouldn't share any information with me.

Now the streets were blocked off, and then the next day, I mean next day, I went to the apartment.

Of course, the young the the win um the pictures that were taken by CBS 58, you can see the window open.

And it and the curtains are blown outside uh um when you go past the building.

So it looks like somebody did jump from a window, in which I got a copy, I gave you a steel picture showing the lady she actually did jump out the window, that did happen.

The problem I had was even when I tried to get the police there, I said, Well, do you want to go in and talk to the tenant?

You know, he didn't want to be bothered with that.

Well, how hard is that to find out from the tenant what actually happened?

The next day, I decided to look at the cameras myself, and I saw the woman jump out the window.

I also saw the you know the police around the building.

I also saw the tenant never leaving the unit.

That that became quite and his car was not secured from the night before.

He always put his glove on the car because that's not what we hear from the doors of the front.

But see, my thing is I'm saying they did not do a full investigation.

That was not an investigation at all.

That was kicking my doors and trying to decide what do we do next.

That's is that okay to go around just destroying people's property?

And I and the man did die that day.

He died from a gunshot wound.

I saw him with my own eyes lying in the floor, blood coming.

He was completely nude, blood coming from his um mint area.

It he had on nothing but shoes.

I saw him lying on that floor.

And it's me, I believe he probably could have been saved.

If the police will win into the apartment and got it.

Well motion on the floor is done by Otterman Bauman.

Any objections?

I'll abstain since I wasn't here.

What I'm saying.

I'll obstacle.

So that's three, two.

Three, two.

Motion carries for denial.

Hear no objections order.

All right.

So uh the decision of this committee will be referred to the uh full common council on April 21st, 2026.

Uh if the full council adopts this committee's recommendation of denial, uh it goes through a formal notice of denial.

Uh, and then upon receiving that formal notice, you'll have satisfied uh the requirements to file suit.

If you wish to pursue this claim for the delivery.

Wait, I'm sorry, what'd you say?

You were talking so fast.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Uh so everything on like what I just said is on that sheet.

Um okay, okay.

All right.

So then is okay for police to go around tearing up doors and leaving a man in there to die?

That's not saving someone.

That's not what happened that night.

And I just really can't believe that I'm leaving here with my doors being destroyed, and I saw the case.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Derek Brown.

First time.

It's not because we do title.

Um one of them was excused.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it was going to the last time it was scheduled, but then he he did call and reschedule.

Yeah.

We've been I've been in contact with him, and Joanna and I sent hey, is this okay if we didn't get a response back when we asked if today was a good date for him or not?

How long ago was that?

Um after the last cycle.

So yeah, between this hearing and the last hearing, somewhere between there.

I I could look it up.

Hold on.

Is it a second time scheduled?

Yes.

Technically third, the second time.

Uh yeah, motion never checked on force you don't.

I mean a motion.

This is the second time.

Non-appearance, technically third, but second time non-appearance.

What are we doing?

What did you say?

Second time on appearance, but technically third.

Oh, okay.

Move denial.

Move and denial by Ottawa and Pratt for item 251-404.

Hear no objection, so item eight.

Waiting for me.

251980 resolution related to the claim of Santana Stingley, represented by Christia La Faye.

Attorney.

Well, item 8, City Attorney.

Yes.

Uh Ms.

Stingley, uh by attorney Chrissy or Krista Lafave, uh brings this claim alleging that she sustained personal injuries related to her arrest by MPD on May 7th, 2024 at her home uh located at 4879 North 24th Street.

Uh she claims damages in the amount of 75,000.

Uh our investigation revealed that on that day, MPD officers were dispatched in relation to a domestic violence incident.

Uh Miss Stingley was misidentified on the call CAD as a suspect in that investigation.

Uh and while she was in custody, uh, she was found to have several valid warrants from the Greenfield Police Department.

Um during the arrest, she notified uh officers that she lacked undergarments and requested to be allowed to be put something else on.

The officers didn't allow that uh for officer safety reasons, uh, but did provide garments to her during the booking process.

Um Ms.

Stingley further alleges that during her arrest and booking officers made rude and inappropriate comments uh toward and about her.

Uh the city's attorney's office has recommended denial uh because it the city was not negligent in this matter and thus aren't liable for claimed damages.

Uh I don't.

Um this is uh the dollar amount in this claim, excuse me, including with the uh allegations of it uh do and have spoken with the city attorney's office about this, do not lend itself well for a full discussion today here.

Um so I would echo the comments that the city attorney's office has made uh about the nature of this case.

Well, Mr.

Chair, I mean we do not do personal injuries here, so we'll move denial, and you can go to for your litigation.

And and just I had there were a lot of facts not included in that in terms of what happened in the internal affairs investigation, the outcome.

So I was prepared to address all of those issues today.

There's not the court for that in this but plus this dollar amount plus personal injury.

So did more or less just the first step for you to continue to case.

So motion denial by Otterman Bauman, hearing objections to order.

Mr.

Chair, those facts in the file, did you submit them?

Um they're in the eternal affairs investigation, which um when I made the claim back in 2024, I don't believe the investigation was complete until 2025.

Um, has all that information.

Is that something we normally do?

Don't include any of that.

Um I mean i in terms of our our denial, um no, we usually just include the letter.

Okay, but you may you reviewed that in order to make your decision, correct?

Uh yes, I I was not personally the one who made the decision, but uh our our office did review it.

And the claim the claim was made back in 2024, and it took a very long time to get all of the information from internal affairs and and that outcome.

So that's a public record.

Yes and no.

Parts of it would be it could be requested through public records.

I don't know what the redactions would look like on it.

Is that something that should be concluded in our file?

Um the claimant can add it.

Uh I I don't know the best way to answer that, just because I don't know the city attorney's claim adjustment process about what they typically do or don't include.

Um from MPD's perspective, we don't typically fill the file with with information.

We send a representative.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so the decision of this committee will be referred to the full common council at the next meeting on April 21st, 2026.

If the full council adopts this committee's recommendation, you'll see a formal notice of denial from the city clerk's office by mail.

Upon receiving that formal notice of denial, uh you'll satisfy the statute of correctness file.

Item nine, two five one three A four resolution related to the claim of Magdalena Cesarbiti.

First time Autumn Westmoreland moves to for hold.

This will be recorded as uh non-appearance.

Item 10, 251631.

Resolution related to the claim of Julia Woodruff.

Julian Roseruth, Auto Woman Pratt moves to hold for a non-appearance.

This will be recorded as a non-appearance for item 251631.

Item 12, 2514, substitute resolution directing the chief court administrator to report program metrics to common council.

Sponsored by Auto Woman Dimitrievich.

She should be here.

Yeah, she should be here.

Well, Audible Westmoreland moves the hold, but you can stick around.

We'll make a call and see if she could pop up.

I'll text her.

All right.

Item is to held temporarily.

No objections, so order 13.

252008.

Resolution canceling real estate taxes levied against certain parcels bearing tax key numbers on the 2025 tax rolls, plus interest applicable to the date of repayment, if appropriate.

Good morning, honorable members of the committee.

My name is Nicole Larson, Commissioner of Assessments.

To my right, I have Ryan Ranger, deputy commissioner, and he is going to address this matter.

Sure.

So the two items we have here.

Um we have a Cape Cod property and an office property.

They're both 2025 appeals.

One of them relates to the initial appraiser in charge of the Cape Cod.

He is no longer with our office.

We had another appraiser actually then get into the property and made some changes to the property record.

And so that resulted in that settlement.

We got some of the marketing materials.

We updated that listing, and that's why we settled on that property and changed that value.

Um so that was it basically uh correcting to 2025 appeals.

So these are people that appealed their saying their tax was too high or whatever.

Uh yeah, they disagreed with our assessed values for 2025, and so uh we settled on both of these.

So how does that work?

You paid a difference, or we just hold it and take it off the future taxes or um no, they they get paid that difference.

We correct those initial assessed values for 2025 to after after we got into both of these properties.

We changed it then some of our listings and lowered the values, and thus we refund that difference in the tax amount.

All right.

Any questions on this file?

I do see that resolution should be adopted.

So Auburn Westmoreland moves to adoption.

Hearing no objections, so order so item 14, 251 696 communication from the office of the assessor related to 2026 assessments.

I'll reach out.

She didn't ever spot.

All right.

Before we hold this, I do have a question.

There was a recent report prepared by a John Johnson.

I don't know if you know that name.

He's a researcher data guy from Marquette University.

And the article commented on the fact that Mr.

Barrata is now a billionaire and that his portfolio is worth a 1.2 billion dollars.

And in there was a reference to several of their properties that had been refinanced, and there was an assertion that the properties were assessed to 34% of their market value.

Is that possible?

I did see that uh uh item that Mr.

Johnson wrote.

Um we are in the process of reviewing it.

Okay, so that's all I can say at this point.

Very good.

Thank you.

Go on.

All right, so uh we'll move the hold, temporary hold.

Can you guys take around?

We'll hold we'll hold the file since uh auto macogs is in here.

Sir uh hold it for today for this meeting.

Yeah, we're holding.

No, no, it's another meeting, not later today.

So you're you're done.

Okay, okay.

Well, well, no, I mean there was just some question because it was well, I I won't get into it.

Hold it to another meeting, hold it for a cycle or hold it to later this meeting.

Uh we only have four more left before we go into closed session.

So we'll hold for another meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I just said to do that.

Okay.

And I'm still in Marina's office.

All right.

Item 15, 252097, resolute related to the cross appeal by the commissioner of assessments for determination of the state of Wisconsin Board of Assessors related to tax key number 355-043117.

Uh, thank you.

Uh, we are here on this item as well.

This concerns a manufacturing property in the city of Milwaukee.

All manufacturing properties are assessed by the state of Wisconsin by state law.

That's a state mandate.

And uh in this instance, the property owner has appealed the evaluation put on the property by the state of Wisconsin, and so we are seeking permission to file a cross appeal to make sure that the city of Milwaukee's interests are represented to make sure that the assessment is fair and equitable.

So this is done by a state by the State Department.

By the state does it, but now it affects us because they're going to litigation.

Um, well, it's not in litigation in the courts just yet.

It would go before the uh Board of Assessors and the Tax Appeals Commission at the state level.

Okay.

But if the state would reduce the assessment and it would result in a remission of taxes or a refund of taxes, then yes, the city of Milwaukee is on the hook for refunding those taxes.

And that's the same with the next file as well.

Same with the next file as well.

All right.

Any questions on this file?

Nothing about no.

All right.

So order item 16, 252098, resolution related to cross appeal by the commissioner of assessors of determination of the state of Wisconsin Board of Assessors related to tax key number 356031211.

One.

Okay.

That's that's the same situation.

Um the uh property owner has appealed, state assesses it.

We want to cross appeal, make sure that the city's interests are represented.

How often does this happen?

Not terribly often.

This particular property with these two particular properties are the same owner.

Uh they seem to appeal every year.

All right.

Well, 516, hearing no objections to order.

Audiment Westmoreland moves reconsideration of item 14, 251 696.

And we've been joined by Ottawa McCoggs on the board.

Thank you, um, Mr.

Chair.

Um this is a file.

I think I've done it every year for the last several years, um, just for taking the assessment opportunity to um the um assessments throughout the city and for the public to hear it and to kind of see where um whether might be trends or where um some of the highest um assessments may have gone and where some of the lowest and what the average is and all of that kind of thing across um across the city.

But it's just to get the assessor's office an opportunity to publicly discuss all of this and for us to um ask any questions that we may have been getting from constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So um on the 2026 assessments, the assessments have not yet been published, and to prevent um almost a scare in advance of the assessments being published, we're not at liberty to discuss them at today's meeting.

My intention was to put in a communication file for the May 4th judiciary and legislation meeting, because that's after the assessments are released, after they're published, but before the uh objection deadline, which is the third Monday in May.

So if we could hold this matter for a cycle, we could use this same file.

Otherwise, I can introduce a separate file.

If we could hold this, Mr.

Chair, that'd be great.

Move to hold.

All right.

Honor moves the hold, and um where I'm at 14.

Item 14, hearing no objections, so order.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we don't do it.

I think it's okay.

Okay.

All right.

Other bombing moves reconsideration of item 12, 251, 433, substitute resolution directing the chief court administrator to report program metrics to the common council.

She wants to hold it.

She wants all there.

Who wants to hold?

Well, all right.

We have official communication.

Unofficial communication.

So Harvin West Morgan moves the whole file.

Thanks for coming to see us.

But thank you.

See you later.

Yeah, 14, so item 17, 241692 communication from the intergovernmental relations division, legislative affairs division related to legislative updates.

Good morning, Justin Morales with Legislative Affairs Division.

Good morning, Calvin Lee, legislative affairs division.

Yep, uh Katie Eager with Intergovernmental Relations Division.

So I'll start out.

We just have a few updates for you today.

Um, mostly following up on uh some of the legislation that was passed at the end of the cycle or the uh legislative session.

Um we just had the signing ceremony for this piece of DACA legislation um that was very, very well attended and something that the the city should be proud for for leading on.

Um this session had seen more than two thousand bills introduced, a few hundred pass, and you can call on one hand how many times the Senate broke the rule of seventeen, which is their unofficial uh rule to not bring forward legislation without 17 members of their caucus um being in favor of it.

And this was just one of those times uh to pass this bill through.

So it it's looking to have a solid impact.

It looks to be something that the city could uh mark it for for growth opportunity to to bring in a uh well-needed workforce uh into the city.

And um it's I think although small, it's something that um I think is a bigger victory than it looks like on on paper.

Yeah, um on the same bill, um exciting that this one made it through.

Um, as Justin mentioned at our last uh judiciary and legislation meeting, it looked unlikely that this was going to go through um so much so that it was not even noticed on the official calendar for the final Senate session day.

Um, and I just want to thank our uh Senate Dem, uh our own Milwaukee uh Senator Tim Carpenter, um leader Hesselbein for um doing some tough negotiations and strategizing um which resulted in this bill getting pulled off message from the assembly um and brought up in that final session day uh passing through the voice vote.

Um so exciting that I think a number of you got to join at the the bill signing last week.

Um, and uh just exciting that it it made it through on the final day.

Good, okay, good.

So with session wrapping up, uh we looked at transition now to start uh working with you all to um develop considerations for what um modifications to the legislative package will look like.

Um including some of the the top priorities here.

I think we'll go into the next session uh with a little bit of a different approach.

Um we've been asked regularly to highlight um a handful of the very top priorities uh that the council has in mind that they would like to move forward.

Um so we would like to actually to work through that relatively quickly so that we can have something ready to go right after the elections.

Additionally, this is a critically important time.

Um you have a number of retirements uh in both the Senate and in the assembly um meeting uh potential uh new elected representatives, getting to know them, build familiarity with them is uh essentially a full-time job to have those relationships for uh coming through when you really really need them.

So the team, both the legislative affairs and I'm sure IRD will um be working hard to meet a lot of new people because uh I would say that more than two-thirds of the the legislature now of 132 members have been there for less than five years.

Yeah, um I'll just also say that in addition uh to the DACA bill passing.

Yeah, um I'll just also say that in addition uh to the DACA bill passing um there were uh a few other bills that we have discussed previously in this committee um that passed last weekend.

A number of those housing bills that um we had talked about went through um the modifications to the historic rehabilitation tax credit.

That one is one that has been in the ledge package for um years uh and that finally made it through this session, so that was really exciting.

Um we also saw the um extending TIDS uh from one year to two years after closure.

Um that bill made it uh through as well, and uh DCD is already working on ensuring the compliance with some of those other planning requirements um that were also baked into that bill.

Um the low income housing tax credit program, some modifications are made to that so that it'll be able um to be used by more people here in the city of Milwaukee.

Um and then the workforce housing loan program, um, which was established last session, the um also received some modifications legislatively.

Um so we have some more tools in our toolbox for DCD um to take advantage of.

Um I think in our May meeting uh we'll look forward to uh maybe putting together like an actual presentation and and we can talk through the specific bills um that we had registered, you know, either for or against um and where those ended up this session.

Um, but as we said, uh most of them just got signed last week.

So uh good job.

So that TIF language.

I remember baked in there with um baked in there losing control of the zoning or something like that.

No, you would just it long-term comprehensive planning was something that they um included within the bill.

Um if you remember the the uh city department said that they should be able to hand it, and I want to say to three-year rollout for that.

So uh yeah, there were it was it was called the truth in planning bill.

So there were various um uh sort of requirements that would mandate a uh municipality's comprehensive plan to match their zoning ordinances.

Um now after speaking with DCD, they took a close look and analyzed this bill for us, um, the original language and the amendment language um that loosened some of the original requirements.

Um and they said that we are mostly in compliance, it's not going to take too much for us to be able to be in compliance with the language in this bill.

Smaller municipalities that don't have as big of a uh a team, it's going to be more of a challenge for them.

Um so the League of Municipalities worked really hard to get some amendments to soften some of those requirements.

Um we should be in good shape.

The impact that this TID extension is going to have on affordable housing in the city of Milwaukee is going to be vast.

Um we'll look forward to you know working with DCD to actually put some figures to that and presenting it because I think that with some of the the upcoming TID closures, we'll be able to really maximize um affordable housing impact thanks to those things.

So does it mean after the year of the closure year?

You're running for one year, but you can run it for two years now.

Exactly.

Yeah, great.

Yep, so it doubles the amount that we can put back into our affordable housing pot.

Great, great, great.

Calvin Lee, I the only thing that I want to add is I need for you, the council to please check your emails.

Uh aside from what has been outlined by both Justin and Katie, there are a number of initiatives that I know that you all have spoken with me personally that you like, such as anything specifically dealing with veterans' issues, obviously Alder Woman Taylor, she's a veteran.

I'm a veteran.

I've been keeping her in the loop on some of those bills.

There were two bills that were signed recently also by Governor Evers, reckless driving.

We've got an advocate here at the table, uh Ottoman Westmoreland.

There was uh SB 248 ignition interlocks, even though it's specifically dealing with more of the drunk driving.

We're still trying to curtail some of the recklessness that we have seen in the city of Milwaukee.

Um charging stations, another one that was signed um that we've brought forward to this body, whereas um Otterman Borgellis, that's of interest for him.

And let me just put out there one last bill that was actually um, and I've sent emails out to you all.

Um thing that the governor did do recently was veto the food stamp program data bill that was AB 1027, which we do not, or the government is not going to provide data.

By who the people are and what they buy?

Um this specific bill, and this was being driven by the federal government and wanting data and so forth um of who we have.

If you pay attention to what's been going on actually right now, whether it's red or blue states, there are a number of people that are now moving off of the roles of receiving food stamps and things of that nature.

So I just want to put that out there so that you can inform your constituency in your respective districts as well.

And I'm sorry, did you have any key me wrestling that?

Definitely.

And just one final note.

Um the state is sitting on a billion dollar plus surplus at the moment, and it looked like uh negotiations on how that would be spent down or distributed, um flamed out at the end of session.

However, last week they they really heated back up, and from what I hear they're on a precipice of some sort of negotiated deal between Evers and Boston um Senate leadership.

So we're not entirely sure what that means yet, but um to pay attention to because it's a lot of money out there, and it's actually um given just uh the nature of a big election coming up that uh it would be spent down prior to that.

What yeah, I just want to uh acknowledge the all the lobbying efforts and I think some of the victories we heard early on, a bunch of no's to some of the stuff we were really pushing and it and it got through, and I just want to thank all of you for doing that, and I'm glad that the housing bill got passed and that there are some modifications, especially weed up.

And I'm just gonna put it out there that there are consequences uh for what was uh there before the changes.

I have a an affordable housing uh deal that had about a hundred and forty-three units, and um the way we were set up before these changes, um, they couldn't get to the finish line as is, and this is in a very um desirable area in the district in Walker's Point, and then now it's gone from 143 units to 90 90 units or 140 to 93.

So I lost almost a third of the units based on um the prior rules and regulations that we'd have had to get these deals done.

I'm glad it got fixed.

It's too late for this deal, but um it has consequences, and I'm feeling it in the district uh that I have 50 almost 50 less units available for affordable housing in a desirable area on Walker's Point next to SERMAC.

So uh I just had to put that out there.

Anything else on the committee?

All right, autumn by moves to hold this crowd chair.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Audible mess West Morland moves us into closed session.

The just the judiciary and legislation committee may convene into closed session on Monday, April 13, 2026, in room 301 B, City Hall 200 East Well Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Pursuant to section 19.851G, Wisconsin statute for the purpose of conferring with the city attorney who will render verbal or written advice with respect to litigation in which the city is or is likely to become involved.

And then may it go into open session for regular agenda items, roll call, please.

Resolution approving a contract between the City of Milwaukee and Gresher Law Group for legal services related to securing employment based on immigrant visa for a department of emergency communications employee.

No.

Motion fails.

Move approval.

Roll call, please.

Alan Embowman.

No.

Other than What's Morning?

No.

Mr.

Chair Alderman Jackson.

All right.

Motion passes three to two.

Thank you.

Item 19, 251910.

Resolution authorizing the city of the city, the office of the city attorney to contract legal services related to conducting a responsible to the audit of software licensing agreements.

Move your place this on file.

All right, we'll replace it so file by Otterman Bauman.

Roll call please.

No.

Albert was more than Mr.

Chair Alman Jackson.

No.

Motion fails.

One to four motion fails.

We'll entertain another motion, please.

Vote to approve.

Audible Prabh motions to approve.

Alan Pettis?

Aye.

Although member Pred.

Aye.

Alderman Bowman.

No.

Alderman was Morland.

Aye.

And Mr.

Chair Alliman Jackson.

Alright.

Okay.

Motion passes 41.

Motion passes 41.

Item 20, 251 996.

Resolution authorizing settlement of the claim and the lawsuit in title 875 East 1 LLC versus City of Milwaukee.

City Attorney.

Yes, for the reasons discussed in closed session.

The city attorney's office recommends approval of this matter.

All right.

Alderman Westmoreland moves approval of this item hearing no objections.

So ordered.

Item 21, 252037.

Resolution authorizing settlement of the lawsuit entitled Stephen Kwood versus City of Milwaukee, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Case number 23 CV 1644.

City attorney.

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

All right.

Audible woman Pratt moves adoption of item 21.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Item 22, 252049, resolution authorizing payment of the claim of Josephine Purple Purple.

City attorney.

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

All right.

Alterman Bowman moves approval of the moves of adoption.

Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Mr.

Chair, I'm sorry.

Which one?

Um they not lined up if you're looking at both sheets.

Yeah, okay.

Um the one previous to this, I'd like to reconsider so on on a no on that one.

21.

What which one you look at?

R21?

Yeah.

Uh it's 21 on this sheet and it's 22 on here.

Just give me the proper one for our request and all 21.

Uh 252, 25207.

Yep.

That is a no.

Yeah.

Move to reconsider Otterman Perez is a no on item 21.

Okay.

All right, cool.

All right, that concludes judiciary legislation.

Same bat time, same bat channel.

Thank you.