OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee Meeting - May 5, 2026

Common Council — Tuesday, May 5, 2026
BodyMilwaukee, Wisconsin
SessionCommon Council
DateTuesday, May 5, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:40:07

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

2026 at 905 a.m.

0:02

I'm Alderman Bauman, Chair of the Committee.

0:04

Alderman Stamper to my right is here as vice chair.

0:08

Alright Woman Cog will be joining us shortly.

0:10

We're also joined by Alderman Spiker to my far left.

0:13

To his right is Alderman DeAndre Jackson.

0:15

And our staff assistant is Chris Lee.

0:17

We're also joined by Common Council President Jose Perez.

0:21

First item on the agenda, we'll call these together items one and two.

0:24

Item one, file 25173, the substitute ordinance relating to Department of Neighborhood Services enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential properties.

0:34

And item two, file 252 240, an ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential properties.

0:42

Okay, how we're going to proceed.

0:44

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.

1:16

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.

1:56

Uh these are complicated, these are bureaucratically intense.

2:01

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.

2:29

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.

2:42

We'll take testimony if people are present on these two files.

2:45

But they haven't been publicized yet.

2:47

There's been no news releases, so I don't think word is out.

2:50

Although Brada knows because their lawyers already sent in multi-page letters objecting to the files.

2:56

So that's fine.

2:57

That's their rights, free country, they're entitled to be heard.

3:00

So why don't we proceed uh starting out with Mr.

3:03

Chair?

3:03

Yeah, all just at the appropriate time, I want to be at it as a co-sponsor.

3:06

You you're on.

3:07

How about anybody else?

3:08

Yes.

3:08

Yes.

3:09

All right, good.

3:10

Alderman Spike, sure.

3:13

All right, good.

3:14

Gunnar.

3:15

Good morning, Chairman Bauman and members of the committee.

3:17

Gunnar Rosh from the legislative reference bureau.

3:19

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.

3:28

Uh so this ordinance begins by defining a multi-unit residential nuisance.

3:34

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.

3:45

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.

4:01

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.

4:14

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.

4:26

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.

4:47

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.

5:00

Um so that does not mean uh that any or that any uh violation could be assessed to the maximum of um that range.

5:10

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.

5:29

So this would provide a range that is three times.

5:32

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.

5:56

The second uh item on the agenda, two five Mr.

6:00

Chair, yeah.

6:01

Just based on the first one, do you in your research did you kind of uh estimate that entire process that you talked about, the time frame on it?

6:10

It's it's hard to assess a specific time frame, and that might be more of a question for DNS.

6:17

Um, but I imagine it would depend on the specifics of uh what the issues are at the property and what what would be a reasonable time for those to be remediated Mike Basmanian uh deputy commission from neighborhood services.

6:30

Um we haven't really thought about how we would operationalize this quite yet.

6:36

Um but I I think um a process similar to any of our other appeal processes, providing you know, anyone that receives this notification with their by to appeal, and then um I think following a similar timeline to that would probably be the way it would work.

6:55

Um that doesn't provide any definition, but I think something similar to the processes that we already have in place would would probably be there.

7:02

LRB has been working with your office, correct?

7:04

Correct.

7:05

In fact, quite a quite a bit, which is why this has taken a little longer than I would have liked.

7:10

We want this to be workable because uh an amendment which seems to have a lot of teeth, uh but no bite is is just paper.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing███████████████████████23%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████17%
Land Use Planning████████████████16%
Economic Development█████████████13%
Procedural███████████11%
Public Safety████████8%
Procurement and Contracts██████6%
Fiscal Sustainability████4%
Parks and Recreation█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee Meeting - May 5, 2026

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.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Atty. Kirsten Pezewski (legal counsel for the Rental Property Association of Wisconsin, Inc.) testified on Items 1 and 2. She expressed concerns about the proposed ordinances and requested additional time to review the files, noting that many of her members are small landlords who could be disproportionately affected.
  • Ald. Larresa Taylor (9th District) stated her opposition to Item 10 (revenue bonds for Arbor Ridge Apartments and St. James Place), arguing that converting the existing market-rate luxury apartments to affordable housing would remove units that are working well for her district. She noted the developer had not contacted her before the meeting.
  • Ald. Jose Perez (Common Council President, 12th District) spoke in support of Items 1 and 2, emphasizing the need for better enforcement against large landlords with repeated violations.
  • Ald. Taylor also testified in support of Item 5 (zoning change for senior housing at 11919 W Bradley Road), highlighting the need for memory care facilities in her district.

Discussion Items

1. DNS Enforcement & Penalties for Multi-Unit Residential Properties (Items 1-2)

  • Item 1 (File 251773): Substitute ordinance relating to Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) enforcement of code violations for multi-unit residential properties. The ordinance would define a "multi-unit residential nuisance" and allow DNS to designate properties with multiple violations, giving owners a chance to submit a corrective plan. Special penalties up to three times the standard range could be applied.
  • Item 2 (File 252240): Ordinance relating to penalties for code violations on multi-unit residential nuisance properties. This file creates subcategories for violations so DNS can issue citations directly in Municipal Court, bypassing the designation and appeals process.
  • Discussion included testimony from DNS Deputy Commissioner Mike Mazmanian and LRB’s Gunnar Raasch, who explained the current court process and data tracking in the Accela system. Ald. Bauman, Stamper, and Perez noted the need to target large landlords who treat fines as a cost of doing business.
  • Both files were amended with Proposed Substitute A (Ald. Stamper’s motion, 5-0) and then held to the call of the chair (5-0) to allow additional City Attorney review and compilation of data.

2. Minor Modification to St. Rita Square DPD (Item 3)

  • File 252012: Substitute resolution for a minor modification to the Detailed Planned Development (DPD) at 728 E. Pleasant Street to add building signage for the senior living facility. The signage would comply with code (no more than 4 feet into right-of-way, at least 10 feet above sidewalk). City Plan Commission recommended approval unanimously on April 27, 2026. Ald. Brower (sponsor) supports. The committee recommended adoption (5-0).

3. Zoning Change from Industrial Heavy to Industrial Mixed (Item 4)

  • File 251867: Substitute ordinance to rezone 2156 and 2166 S. 4th Street from IH to IM. The property (former St. Anthony’s school) is partially used as a daycare; the change allows a wider mix of uses (schools, offices, studios) and includes a city-owned vacant lot for future Riverwalk extension. No public objections. The committee recommended passage (5-0).

4. Zoning Change for Senior Housing at 11919 W. Bradley Road (Item 5)

  • File 251606: Substitute ordinance to rezone approximately 15 acres from RS2 to RM3 for construction of 101 senior housing units (townhouse-style flats) on church-owned land. The church (Kingdom Faith Fellowship) will remain. The proposal includes 80% market-rate and 20% workforce housing units, with future phases for memory care and school expansion. City Plan Commission recommended approval. The committee recommended passage (5-0).

5. TID 56 Amendment for Donations to TIDs 89 and 106 (Item 6)

  • File 252191: Resolution approving Amendment No. 8 to Tax Incremental District No. 56 (Erie Jefferson) to donate surplus increment ($1,514,000 to TID 89 and $1,294,000 to TID 106). TID 56 (four high-value properties near the river) has generated over $77 million in revenue since 2004. The donations will cover project costs for affordable housing developments at Garfield & North (TID 89) and McKinley School (TID 106). The committee recommended adoption (5-0).

6. Creation of TID 133 for Affordable Senior Housing (Item 7)

  • File 252192: Resolution approving the project plan and development agreement for TID No. 133 at 2711 W. Wells Street. The district will support new construction of 124 affordable rental units for seniors (30-80% AMI), with 14 units for veterans and 18 for supportive housing. Total project cost is $50.7 million, with up to $2.6 million in developer financing from the TID. The developer is Milwaukee Development Corporation (nonprofit). The committee recommended adoption (5-0).

7. Lease with ABM Industry Groups for Parking Lot (Item 8)

  • File 252195: Resolution authorizing a five-year lease of a city-owned parking lot at 634 N. 5th Street (behind Vel R. Phillips Plaza) to ABM Industry Groups, LLC. The lease includes a 90-day termination clause, keeping the site available for a potential convention hotel. The committee recommended adoption (4-0, Ald. Coggs excused).

8. Conveyance to MPS for MLK Jr. Playfield Expansion (Item 9)

  • File 252194: Resolution authorizing the conveyor of two RACM-owned vacant lots to the City in trust for Milwaukee Public Schools to expand Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Playfield. The property was acquired in the 1980s. The committee recommended adoption (4-0, Ald. Coggs excused).

9. Revenue Bonds for Arbor Ridge Apartments and St. James Place (Item 10)

  • File 260026: Substitute resolution approving the issuance of conduit revenue bonds by the Public Finance Authority for the acquisition of two multifamily properties (374 total units) by Bedford Arbor Ridge, LLC and Bedford St. James, LLC. The developers (Post Real Estate Group) proposed converting the market-rate units to 100% affordable housing, with 40% of units at 60% AMI and 60% at 80% AMI, and $2.25 million in upgrades. The local alderman, Ald. Taylor, opposed the project. After a presentation from bond counsel and developers (appearing via teleconference), the committee substituted the file (5-0) and then voted to place it on file (effectively denying it, 5-0).

10. Tax-Deeded Property Sale-Backs (Items 11-21)

  • Eleven resolutions authorizing the sale-back of city-owned tax-deeded properties to former owners. All properties are located in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 15th Aldermanic Districts. Item 11 (1847 N. 2nd St.) was amended with a substitute adding a reversionary clause to allow the city to retake title if restoration conditions are not met. Each sale-back requires a restoration agreement with DNS. All items were recommended for adoption unanimously (5-0 or 4-0 on items with excused members).

Key Outcomes

  • Items 1 and 2: Substituted and held to call of the chair for further review (5-0 each).
  • Items 3-7: Recommended for adoption or passage (all 5-0).
  • Item 8 and 9: Recommended for adoption (4-0, Coggs excused).
  • Item 10: Substituted (5-0) and then placed on file (denied) (5-0).
  • Items 11-21: All recommended for adoption (Item 11 with substitute; others as filed; votes 5-0 or 4-0).
  • The meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com