The Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee of the Milwaukee Common Council met on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at 9:06 a.m. in Room 301-B of City Hall. Chair Ald. Robert J. Bauman presided, with members Ald. Russell W. Stamper, II (Vice-Chair), Ald. Milele A. Coggs, Ald. DiAndre Jackson, and Ald. Scott P. Spiker present. The committee considered 21 agenda items, including two ordinance changes targeting chronic nuisance landlords, multiple zoning changes, Tax Incremental District (TID) amendments, a revenue bond authorization for multifamily housing acquisitions, and numerous tax-deeded property sale-backs.
2026 at 905 a.m. I'm Alderman Bauman, Chair of the Committee. Alderman Stamper to my right is here as vice chair. Alright Woman Cog will be joining us shortly. We're also joined by Alderman Spiker to my far left. To his right is Alderman DeAndre Jackson. And our staff assistant is Chris Lee. We're also joined by Common Council President Jose Perez. First item on the agenda, we'll call these together items one and two. Item one, file 25173, the substitute ordinance relating to Department of Neighborhood Services enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential properties. And item two, file 252 240, an ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential properties. Okay, how we're going to proceed. Well, basically, these two files are a follow-up to commitments made by many members of the council at a press conference held about uh two months ago at the uh Concordia 27 location, 27th and Wells, and that uh promise was that we would work on uh some enforcement mechanisms and some ordinance amendments which would deal with the problem of chronic nuisance landlords, basically landlords of multi-unit buildings that seem to be uh immune or unable to deal with uh the orders that are issued against them. Uh these ordinances take two approaches one to give DNS certain powers similar to the 80 10 chronic nuisance ordinance, only this would apply to the case of multi-unit landlords, and the second is a provision that would impact municipal court in that we would allow judges to apply penalty enhancers to cases normally before them that the uh housing us that the Department of Neighborhood Services brings to Muni Court, and uh similar to what happens in state court uh under the criminal code where you can provide a penalty enhancer to an underlying offense to increase the potential incarceration fines and so forth. Uh these are complicated, these are bureaucratically intense. So I think the way we're going to proceed today is have LRB who drafted the text of these ordinance basically explain what they do and what and how they'll work, and then have the Department of Neighborhood Services explain the municipal court process, the prosecution side of their activities, which I think is a little less well known to not only citizens but probably council members as well, because it's kind of an inside baseball process that doesn't get a lot of visibility. Uh so I think that's and then we will hold these two files because the city attorney wants to do some additional uh legwork and research, which is fair because these are complicated matters, unless other people are here to testify. We'll take testimony if people are present on these two files. But they haven't been publicized yet. There's been no news releases, so I don't think word is out. Although Brada knows because their lawyers already sent in multi-page letters objecting to the files. So that's fine. That's their rights, free country, they're entitled to be heard. So why don't we proceed uh starting out with Mr. Chair? Yeah, all just at the appropriate time, I want to be at it as a co-sponsor. You you're on. How about anybody else? Yes. Yes. All right, good. Alderman Spike, sure. All right, good. Gunnar. Good morning, Chairman Bauman and members of the committee. Gunnar Rosh from the legislative reference bureau. So I'll start by explaining uh common council file two five one seven seven three, um, and then I'll explain how the second item on the agenda differs from it. Uh so this ordinance begins by defining a multi-unit residential nuisance. There is one standard defined in the ordinance uh in the original draft of the ordinance, but based on uh conversations with DM DNS, we have worked to refine that standard with a substitute ordinance. Uh the original standard um would apply to any building with four or more dwelling units uh that has more than one code vi or more than one order to correct a code violation per dwelling unit on that property. Um the way the uh item number one would work is DNS would designate properties that fit that criteria as a multi-unit residential nuisance. Uh the owners or operators of those properties would have an opportunity to either submit an appeal or they could submit a course of action, which the commissioner could accept or reject. Uh if the commissioner rejects that course of action, they would provide a reason as to why that course of action is insufficient, but it would allow for a process for owners or operators to avoid the special penalty assessed in the ordinance by following that course of action and remediating those issues. Um this ordinance would provide a new special penalty range that is three times the uh original penalty range provided in section 200 19 1. Um so that does not mean uh that any or that any uh violation could be assessed to the maximum of um that range. The way that typically works is every individual violation that is covered under the penalty section of 200-19-1 has a forfeiture amount, which is provided in the non-traffic deposit schedule, which is provided by the municipal court and approved by the common council every year. So this would provide a range that is three times. Um the council, if passing uh this type of resolution could indicate to the municipal court, administrator T Norfolk, uh, that the intent would be to have penalties that are three times as high for each individual violation, but those would not actually be set until that non-traffic deposit schedule is actually approved by the common council. The second uh item on the agenda, two five Mr. Chair, yeah.