For the steering and rules committee, I am Alderman Josepet as chair.

I am joined by Alderwoman Marina Dmitrievich Vice Chair, Alderman Bauman, Alderman Russell Stamper, Alder Woman Malayle A.

Cogs is excused.

He'll be with us in a moment.

And we're also joined by Alder Woman Charlene Moore.

It is approximately 1 37 p.m.

Uh today, Monday, June 2026, and we'll be getting right into it.

And uh item number one, file two five two four two communication from the Milwaukee Police Department and the Department of Neighborhood Services relating to the decline in nuisance letters of eighty ten chronic nuisance premise letters.

Could you please join us?

Uh excuse me, I'm sorry, we will be taking testimony just at the beginning.

It'll be the only testimony we'll be taking today, will be on this file from the public.

And um, and then we'll we'll take that information and we'll we'll uh put it into the record.

So I I know that I coordinated with common ground a couple of folks to testify.

Can you come to the front and testify, please?

Yeah, just what is it?

Two people?

If we can just make room for our folks to testify.

Sorry about the confusion.

We wanted to take the testimony and then go into the farm.

Oh, you want to take the testimony first?

Yeah, my fault.

Sorry about that.

And and just to set the tone, I mean, um some of these uh this request for this communication was really based on um, I know that I made some inquiries in 2024 about the the amount of nuisance letters that uh I know district two that I was receiving from my district, and in the process, we've had uh communication from several of our community groups and members about nuisance issues in our community, and uh earlier this year, I know that I signed the pledge along with many other elected officials with common ground.

So reason we wanted to get your testimony first and about the work you did.

Uh I know I signed it, the mayor did.

Uh, all the women's all the person on Maripa and and uh Kent LaBerne.

So we do have some traction and wanting to move things forward, and we want to take your testimony, put that front and center, and then uh all of us can react to that as we communicate uh how we move forward.

So thank you.

Thank you to the committee, and thank you to the council.

Good afternoon.

I am Gabriela Diegues of Common Grounds Strategy Team and Southside Action Team.

My comments pertain to this to several of the files today.

Our message is use and improve the eighty-10 nuisance ordinance to make our neighborhoods safer, to hold corporate landlords accountable, and to recoup funds for MPB.

Common ground submitted a nine-page evaluation of eighty-10 to the file with three concerns and nine recommendations.

This is part of our Southside Safety Campaign.

Last year, we conducted a survey and 1,557 Southsiders said crime is hurting their lives.

In April, we launched a five-point safety plan signed by our members and officials like Major Johnson, Council President Perez, Alderwoman Samaripa, City Attorney Goicki, District Attorney Lovern, MPD District 2, Captain Mejia, and others.

Thank you again to those who signed.

The fourth point of our safety plan is policy reform.

That is why we are here.

80-10 is one of MPD's most powerful tools to hold property owners accountable and to recoup service costs at problem properties.

But in eight years between August 2017 and August 2025, 80-10s usage has declined and has been inconsistent.

In total, 991 nuisance letters were sent to property owners in that time.

150 letters in 2018, but just 46 in 2025, less than one third of the amount, without a similar drop in crime.

Some MPD districts like District 2 have been relatively consistent with 80-10, whereas others, like District 7 reported zero nuisance properties in the last two years.

In the last two years, according to records, we obtained, let's be clear, 80 10 works.

The city itself says 81% of cases are resolved without any billing for services.

81%.

Concerns like evictions or foreclosures are rare and overstated.

In our analysis, Common Ground found thousands of properties that theoretically met the 80-10 threshold, but were not declared such.

Probably not all of those should have been nuisance, but we suspect hundreds should have.

How much money might MPD have recouped if they were?

How much safer might our neighborhoods be?

Additionally, we calculated that 48% of 80-10 properties are owned by corporate landlords, with 10 or more units, with Berrata and S2 topping the list.

This helps explain why S2 Realty, the largest Southside landlord, was able to operate a drug trafficking ring under the city's nose.

Just seven S2 properties received a nuisance in the eight years of records, with 13 others qualifying but not designated as such.

We need our city to be proactive, not reactive.

We are constantly told, call the police.

But this is a two-way relationship.

We residents of Milwaukee need to see that calling makes a difference.

In particular, corporate landlords must be held accountable.

We cannot allow them to continue to extract rent, make our neighborhoods unsafe, and rob MPD resources.

Our nine recommendations would improve 80-10.

In particular, if MPD created a standard operating procedure for 80-10.

Tracked confirmed calls specifically, tracked part two crimes, and conducted officer trainings on 80-10.

We detail our recommendations in the report.

Use and improve.

That's what we want for 80-10.

Use and improve MPD's most powerful tool for holding corporate landlords accountable and making our neighborhoods safer.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Yesterday, Common Ground stuck, is it on.

Common ground stuck with tenants in three properties that met the n the non-issued threshold, but did not receive a designation.

The properties are owned by corporate landlords.

Here is what we heard.

Story number one from Alderman District 12.

My name is Sylvia King.

I have lived in I live at 2519 South 13th Street.

There was the man high in Oderoin on the inside steps.

There was the gun pull on my boyfriend just outside.

It's ridiculous.

I wish my daughter had a safer place to grow up.

We call and call, but nothing changes.

Please do something.

According to FPD records, Miss King's building had three crimes, two assaults, one car theft, and five calls for service for assaults, one weapon in November 2024.

Story number two, Alderman District 8.

Five tenants at needing group loves on 21st and Pierce dead.

We do not feel safe.

The gate in the back, it's broken.

A woman was stabbed to death a few years ago.

It smells terrible here.

The trespassers are like zombies from drugs, they steal our packages.

We keep baseball bats by our front door just in case.

Security was present.

The gates work and the doors stay locked.

There are a few problem tenants, but it's mostly a management problem.

Management is never here.

When they are, they go to the office, close the door, close the blinds, and don't talk to us.

One homicide, three assaults, and one criminal damage, and 10 calls services, ten calls for services in December 2024, six assault, two weapons, two threat.

The needing group loves are owned by the Michaels organization in Camden, New Jersey.

Michaels has six properties in Milwaukee, four hundred and fifty-seven total units.

Michaels also operates the Wesley Scott Apartments, which was in the general sentinel for non-insurance conditions last December.

And to summarize, we submitted a third story from all their district four of Windsor Court where tenants, eleven of them suggested similar concerns with safety.

Thank you.

One quick question.

And I think we need everyone who's here today to really work the state legislature to provide the tools that we can't do at a local level to ensure a higher accountability for landlords in our district.

So I I want to hear from you guys.

Are you willing to work at with those state legislators to help us?

Well, we can't change anything locally.

What we can do at a state level to create some real change.

We would love to strategize with you all and I can just ask common ground.

Would common ground encourage state legislators where needed for legislative changes?

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your testimony.

Sorry about that, Chief.

If you'd like to come to the table now, we'd appreciate you.

I don't know.

Sure.

If you for those that may not know you for some reason, want to do any introductions as you participate in the conversation.

I think as people begin to speak, because there's we have city attorney police, just as you speak for the crowd, so they know.

We were having some sound issues too.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for being here, Chief.

Thank you.

Just want to first start off by saying thank you to the committee for having us here to address this.

I know that this is a concern in regards to city uh nuisance process and also how it impacts our community.

Also, like to say hello to the common ground, very familiar with the group organization.

Have uh met with them many times about this very topic, understanding that this is critical in regards to the toolbox that we use to hold not only again landlords accountable but business owners and whatnot.

Uh this is something that is a tool, as we said, as Markey Police Department understands in regards to the uh way to address uh nuisance or problem issues within our community.

We use a different number of different toolbox, I mean tools in the toolbox, nuisance being one of them.

Uh, but we also understand that it's a balancing act.

We don't use nuisance weaponized, it's not based off quotas, it's based off what we can use actionable for the particular problem at that particular location.

One of the things I like to say is that overall, when we look at a span of about five and a half years, we have nuisance about 515 properties and pre-nuisance about 1259 properties.

So these are the numbers and the data points that we'll use within our own uh particular uh uh house.

Um, I I think if you pull the mic a little closer, that might help.

Chief, thank you.

Is this better?

Yes, okay.

So I would like to thank Common Ground for being here.

We maybe change.

So as I was saying, we understand the importance of using nuisance as a tool, uh part of our toolbox of holding those within the community accountable.

Uh as we had talked about in regards to the overall numbers, five and a half years that we have got these data points.

We have used the nuisance uh process 515 times, the pre-nuisance uh twelve hundred and fifty nine times, and this from 2020 to the presence.

And the reason why we say these particular numbers because it's not as easy in regards to this particular process to uh nuisance a particular property.

Uh the use of nuisance process is to make those who are responsible for that particular location one aware of the issues.

Uh number of times those who are in that particular location are not the actual responsible individuals for the particular property.

And so it's important for us, which is why we have a pre-nuisance letter of making them aware of the issues at their particular location.

It's important that we are leaning into having a conversation with those who are responsible.

What we call this is like a my former district commander days a target team uh particular type of uh engagement where we utilize a number of different resources, meaning city attorney's office, DNS, myself, or the district commander uh utilize uh DA's office, uh a number of different partners to talk about the issues at the particular location and to work collaboratively to again abate the problem.

Uh what we have found in many of these instances, and I can speak to this even personally, people do listen.

They lean in, get that together in regards to whether it is a problem to uh residence, problem behaviors, where there is again what we want them to do is to abate.

We all know that sometimes it needs a little bit of a stern talking to and understanding again, leaning into the particular response, bringing out what we call is uh abatement um uh uh letter, uh, so that basically they are able to again handle their particular issues.

Uh it's also important for them to understand that there's consequences if they do not change their attitude or behaviors.

And so the pre-nuisance, which is why you see more pre-nuisance letters than there are nuisance letters, because people really do understand that this is going to be a costly and could be a um, I guess terminate your business venture.

Um again, this is something that I do have experience in in regards to uh this particular process as I look over here and see Alderman Ballman as his former district commander.

Uh, this had been again a tool that has been utilized, and uh, you know, you can say successful or not successful because a couple of businesses that we close down, they're not uh function to this day, and so that's something to take in consideration.

Um, but we also understand that uh, you know, it's important to get to the nuisance process where we work collaboratively with the city attorney's office.

We do have a correct relationship, and that we are going to lean into a process which we have to remind our community is not an overnight process.

As in a citation, we can get a citation and maybe have a court hearing within a couple of weeks.

A nuisance process is a long and uh very detailed process, rightfully so, because of the level of consequences for that.

But we also understand that this is part of our toolbox, something that again, this department embraces.

Uh, I have my district commanders here with me in regards to talking about anything in the specifics, but this is something that we do embrace.

I have no love for any particular resident, business owner, uh company who brings harm, impacts our communities in a negative way, they do have no friend in me.

Accountability is real.

It is important for me to say that we do lean into this, but and I appreciate your conversations with common common council president uh perez in regards to we always can do better.

One of the things I found that we have uh again the cost for service list where we have what we consider the higher numbers that we need to make sure that we are regularly reviewing and ensuring that we are digging down into those particular properties that have a number of costs for service.

With that in mind, though, just because you have a number of costs of service at your particular location does not qualify for nuisance.

Certain costs for service might be domestic violence related.

That is not eligible for a nuisance, and so these are the rules of uh engagement, and chief of staff uh Heather Huff will talk more about that in a little bit more specifically that we have to be mindful that as we are counting up these particular, what will qualify that they are recent and also they do qualify under the AD 10 status.

We also understand that we do have to improve our communication with our political uh leaders and also our uh community.

We always can listen more, need to make sure that we're responding.

That is something that the district commanders and my executive team understand, and we're always listening to hear what we can do better in regards to that particular relationship.

But we are a partner with you all, we all understand that we do need to make sure that we are uh leaning into the sugg the suggestions and that we'll be responsive to your concerns.

And so as I continue to talk about this in regards to that our commitment is here with our community with our political leaders, we understand that we can't lean into the particular work.

We do understand the rules of engagement is what we're bound by as a law enforcement, that we're part of the partnerships, and I will have Chief of Staff Huff just talk a little bit more about the nuisance process.

Sure.

Uh good afternoon to the committee.

Chief of Staff Heather Hoff for the Milwaukee Police Department and former assistant city attorney who worked on nuisance properties.

I just want to make sure my microphone's working all right because I sound really fuzzy.

All right, I'm gonna just take the chief's microphone.

Is that better?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, first I I do want to say the Milwaukee Police Department is bound.

Is it the television?

Oh, okay.

All right.

Um, do it the way.

All right.

Uh uh, the Milwaukee Police Department is indeed bound by the rules of the ordinance, um, and our policy.

We do have a policy related to nuisance property and nuisance premise.

Anyone can look it up online.

It is SLP 530 nuisance premise.

And basically, it outlines the steps of the nuisance process for our officers when they are out and about in the community dealing with these problematic properties and dealing with the complaints that come in.

How do we get information about nuisance properties through the alders through community meetings like crime and safety through regular weekly meetings with neighborhood safety teams that include safe and sound that's out in the community at each of the districts, getting information from constituents, residents, finding out what are the quality of life issues?

Generally, how these operate, and I'm sharing this with you and to the public, is that every week at every district, teams of individuals that include safe and sound, DNS, other city partners, the Milwaukee Police Department, talk about problem properties and creative solutions for addressing those problems for the residents.

So this happens regularly, and this is how we get our information.

One way, however, we saw that one thing we weren't doing, and this has been addressed with meetings with uh President Perez, is that we weren't systematically taking a review of our data to say what are properties that have three or more calls for service in a month, and looking at those calls for service, do they qualify for a nuisance designation or do they not?

Um, so with those conversations and with the conversations with common ground, thank you.

We're supplementing our efforts, and we're also doing a deeper dive into that data analysis, requiring all of our district captains to address any to review those properties, and if they choose not to nuisance a property that is eligible to be nuisanced, why not?

So that is one new step we are taking.

With that, I'm gonna just talk very briefly through what the nuisance ordinance does and how it operates.

First, when a property becomes on our radar, even before it qualifies under the nuisance ordinance, our district commanders are conducting call-ins with property owners.

So let's say there are a couple of incidents that affect quality of life uh in a neighborhood tied to one particular property.

Our districts are calling those landlords in.

Hey, let's have a conversation.

We see some stuff popping off here that's affecting the entire community.

You may be on the road to nuisance.

Let's address it now.

And many times, as the district commanders are here, that is all it takes.

Somebody, a landlord might not be aware that their tenants are causing harm to the community, and once you put somebody on notice, problem abated, and we don't have to take it any further.

When the nuisance designation and the 8010 ordinance is used, this is how it works.

A property has to have three or more calls for service, but there are qualifiers here.

They have to be certain types of calls for service that are enumerated in the ordinance.

Those calls for service have to be substantiated, meaning it can't be somebody just calling in to complain to say something happened.

The police have to actually verify that happened with some sort of evidence because we don't want people using it to target one another, right?

We don't want somebody continuously calling saying there's noise here when there's not just because they hate their neighbor.

So we have to have those calls substantiated.

Three in a month, um, and finally, there can't be any domestic violence element to that call.

So if there's let's say uh a loud fight and somebody calls it in, if we get there and it's related to domestic violence to protect victims of domestic violence, that's not allowed to be used for nuisance, and also there can't be some mental health issues.

I remember a couple of times we had reviewed properties with a significant amount of calls, but the caller had some mental health issues, so we couldn't actually substantiate what that call was for, and also there was definitely that element there.

Another way, so three substantiated calls for service in a month, or two very significant types of crimes that occurred within a year.

So uh the three substantiated could be three noise complaints in a month.

Um, it can't be three noise complaints over six months, and it has to all happen within a month.

So if somebody has just one party, that's not going to trigger nuisance.

If somebody has three parties in a month, that will, or two substantiated big events like a shooting or uh drug dealing occurs at a property, that can also trigger the nuisance ordinance.

The nuisance designation is made by putting a property owner on notice through a letter.

Hey, you are now designated a nuisance property, you have 10 days to come up with a written plan of action that you deliver to the police department to abate that nuisance, and it doesn't necessarily require evicting people because we don't want to be, hey, get rid of the bad people in your property, because we also know eviction is a problem in the city.

So it is always a balance.

Um some abatement ideas, for instance, are you know, you we went and we substantiated loitering in the lobby.

You need to lock your lobby, um, you need to get lighting in your lobby.

If it's a big type of apartment complex, you need to get security in your lobby.

There are things that property owners can do to prevent the crime from occurring or make it harder for crime to occur.

If there's something happening outside in the yard, lighting helps, there are different SEPTED principles that can be put in place, um, different types of you know, um, cameras, security cameras, things like that, depending on the location, and we're always willing to work with those owners once they get that letter.

If somebody gets a letter that says you're designated a nuisance and they call our district and say, Hey, I need to talk through what's going on here.

I want to figure out how to do the right thing, we're always happy to help work with somebody to make suggestions, but we're not gonna write the plan for them.

It's on them to do it, and they have 10 days to deliver it.

Once they deliver it, the captain of that district reviews it, and if it looks like it's gonna address the issues, they say, you know what?

This plan is approved, you now have some time to put that plan into place.

So if it's getting a fence, you've got uh 30 to 45 days, there's a window within the ordinance to do the things you say you're going to do.

Or alternatively, the district commander will say this isn't gonna work, this isn't gonna address the problem at your property.

Then that owner is allowed some time to get it right and go back and represent a plan.

Um, so let's say they give a plan, it's good.

We allow them time to put those things into place, um, and what happens then, then we can't bill somebody because they're doing all the right things, so we have to allow them some time to see what's going on here, and if something pops off after they do all those things, we still can't bill them.

We have to say, hey, your plan isn't working, let's go back to the table and try to resolve this and put some more things in place.

When does it get to billing?

When somebody doesn't submit a plan and they say forget it, we're not gonna cooperate.

Uh, when somebody submits a plan but then never implements it, so they don't install the fence or the lighting, um, when somebody just completely ignores all of the steps that need to be taken, or they appeal because there is appeal process, due process rights to the ordinance, and they lose, then they go into billing status, and billing isn't for every time police respond there, it's only for nuisance type calls, and it's only substantiated nuisance type calls, and so this now you can see it takes a very long time to get to this punitive stage.

Um, and then they can we can bill for police service at that time.

So uh that's a very long story for a very long ordinance, um, and it is very complex because there are a number of social factors that go into this.

If you're doing the right thing and trying to abate the nuisance, we're going to work with you.

If you're not and you're ignoring it and not doing anything, well, then it becomes punitive, but we do have to allow a significant amount of time to go by to get into that billing stage and a number of steps to pass to get to that stage, and so when you you see we might not do a lot of billing, it isn't because it is a punitive ordinance, it is because there's due process involved, and we have to get to that point, and oftentimes when police come knocking and say there's a problem, there is the desire even for bad people to say we're gonna fix the problem.

And then we don't look further um in certain cases because if somebody's working with us that's then resolving the quality of life issues for a neighborhood.

So I just put that all on the record to say nuisance isn't as easy as we want it to be for the bad situations.

It is a process.

We do use that process we know there are ways to grow.

We've added some additional steps um to do that work and we're happy to work our district captains work with common ground on any problematic locations.

We get that information from a number of places and happy to get that from common ground as well and work through those issues where they've identified some concerns.

I I'm not there's a lot of information uh so I want to ask a couple questions.

One what what is what are strategies to improve what's going on because if you have a landlord who um let's say depends on DNS to tell them there's something wrong with my property 'cause you've been written up they follow through on abating the problem through DNS or they get a nuisance letter, they're really up to no good, but they're they're gonna put in a fence.

They're gonna put in a light.

How do I mean what does it take to to sift through that so it doesn't feel like they're doing things under our nose because that's exactly what happened.

And I'm on my third kind of big landlord or they've had drug empires, right?

Churchill, the Gomez family and now you heard the paper reporter saying it's there like this is we got part of this is what what can we do to improve this to really get down to to this not happening in our communities 'cause they're getting away with it to a certain extent and we we need improvements to this process it seems to get the billing.

I I know it's possible, right?

I had two apartment buildings.

They were I think billed nine thousand dollars.

They're out of business now from being property managers.

I mean for if they get to nine thousand dollars there's a lot of damage is happening on Madison Street, so how along with telling us what the process is what can we do better to kind of get to the root of some of these issues because some of these guys are gonna wait with a lot of and the damage until we get to accountability so much happens.

And then if people leave it's even worse.

Well I still say that the best thing is communication.

I know that our district is very uh out there in the community, crime safety meetings being there for uh particular neighborhood walks making themselves aware of again the multi multiple issues they're talking about in regard to these particular properties.

As I say nuisance is one tool uh we have other tools or you know investigations for these uh criminal access going on your property.

We do have a robust working with our partners in regards to find out there's other things that we can address in different ways whether it's through DNS, DCD uh do the city attorney's office there is no uh I guess a uh pill that will take care of all but we can continue to work with each other, brainstorming I know it's like again I forgot about the work that Safe and Sound does but there's so many other different ways I always say is uh I want to say skin a cat but you know there's a multiple ways to be able to again uh address those who are chronic in actually making uh the uh neighborhood a uh unliving nightmare for not only the residents but for those who uh come in and try and do it.

Listen I I I want to thank you for taking a hard look right and saying look we we're gonna get better at this monthly review of these absolutely calls for service.

Um that's you now what happens you know if if you're not there or six months go by how do how do we ensure that that is always happening.

We can count on that a year from now, two years from now, we we know that this is always going to happen.

So we can look at the uh again our rules of engagement, because I'll be very honest.

I had it back when I was a district commander.

Uh, you know, we have a you know 2020, 2021 and twenty twenty three with some hard years for us.

Uh just we think that mean we I I used to work in the homicide unit and we were uh beyond in regards to homicides in our city.

So I will be admitted that sometimes you take the eye off your ball.

Okay.

I mean, there's so many things that you know, fortunately is luckily in our rear-view mirror that gives us more of a breath to look at other things that's been again quality of life issues.

But 2020, 2021, 2023, 2022, we were dealing with some non-fatals that was, you know, again, and in the stratosphere doesn't make it an excuse, just try to level set this conversation though.

That sometimes again, those particular type of tools that we have used have been again either forgotten or we need to make sure that we're keeping an eye on the ball from a standpoint of our uh uh the executive command staff and commanders.

I agree with you.

I think um better communication and I think sharing of data, right?

I mean, some of the reasons I would you either question my nuisance letters is because the nuisance letters that I had on file didn't match the complaints, right?

Like for me, that was a perfect way to say, hey, there's something missing.

Are we not addressing calls for what we're hearing in the community and but I don't know what you guys have to look at versus the complaints I get, right?

And so the data sharing, how we share data, you talked about the pre-nuisance letters.

Correct.

Do you keep can you do you look at those and say, Look, I I did 50 pre-nuisance letters and we haven't had any calls for service after that?

Is that data like you collect, you share them to say, look, this is how well the pre-nuisance letters are working, or if a prenusance letter didn't work, then there's a prom property.

How do we go back and make sure that maybe they should have got a nuisance letter to begin with instead of a pre-nuisance one?

So I will tell you like the pre-nuisance stuff uh that happens at the district level, and it sometimes may be a conversation and not a formal letter, and uh oftentimes it is a letter, and so the districts are tracking that data and that information and those properties um uh within the district and keeping their eye on them.

So I don't know exactly what their processes would be at the district, but I do know they do keep tally of all of their pre-nuisance properties and their nuisance properties, and we're now asking them to take an ongoing continual look at the data that's coming out from our calls for service system to ensure they're staying on top of that follow-through on those designations.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, um, other one more just to meet thank you.

Um thank you so much and um um thank the community for um for being here.

Um the question that I have is that um is around the word um substantiated, right?

That it has to be verified.

And I think this is the part that um I particularly struggle with because you know, my residence, I'm just like number one, call the police because I I can't roll up.

I will sometimes, but I can't roll up.

Um specifically in reference to because many of these like a drug deal in progress, these are not one or two or three priority levels, they're like they're five or six or you know, I think it's only six, but they're at the bottom of the totem pole.

So by time an officer gets on the scene, it it's done.

You know, it it's folks have gone there, gone their merry way, but residents, you know, whether they've taken, you know, some of them will take photos and videos.

How do we address that or combat that?

Because again, you all have to substantiate it and verify that it's happening.

So if it's a low priority and we just and I know simply we just don't have the people power to, you know, to get out immediately to you know, verify, substantiate these sorts of incidents.

How do we overcome that?

Because a lot of residents get frustrated because they're like, I've called, I've called, I've called, I've called, and they don't get there till, you know, very late, and it's already said and done with.

So what are some strategies or how do we best address something like that?

So continue to call because that's very important to show a record that there are complaints coming in on a regular basis about a particular property.

Another way is get involved and get connected with your district.

So above and beyond calling, you tell the district, listen, I got these problems at this house in my neighborhood, and it's happening at 10 o'clock at night, um, every Saturday, and and here are the trends and here are the patterns.

Here's what I'm seeing.

And once you get that information and that intelligence to the district, they will be following up so that even though they might get there not because something else is going on, and they don't get there in time to substantiate at that moment, the more details you can provide as follow-up, that's gonna get them there at a point in time to substantiate that um what's going on.

An example I'll give is uh when she was a captain in district three, there was a drug house and uh house of prostitution across the street from the school.

And I was really troublesome for the neighborhood, and there were calls for service, and oftentimes with drug dealing, you don't can't get there in time to substantiate it.

But those calls and follow-up from the officers at the district in substantiating some of the drug activity and even what they saw when they went to the property, their observations built a case for the nuisance litigation to bring uh something by state statute.

So uh the calls matter, but the follow-up matters significantly because it can still be substantiated.

Um it may not be immediate, like all of this, unfortunately, it takes some time, but any and all information a resident can provide to us, day date time, descriptive details, is super helpful for us to then be able to substantiate something.

And so just uh add on to assistant chief Steve Johnson or the patrol bureau.

So with that substantiation, uh when the citizens are calling in, those are those data points that now my commanders can utilize to start uh assigning officers to locate and and do some observation type things.

Um when it comes down to that substantiation aspect, that's now when we may do an operation and now we are that complainant, not alleviating that citizen from, you know, you gave us the when when where, so now we will do an operation and figure out all right, we would do and put an officer at that location and make that observation, make some arrests.

So now that's a sense substantiated not only from the citizens' standpoint from putting us there, but now we have our officers on scene conducting investigation, now make that arrest, and now that's most definitely verified.

So I just want to, you know, uh, when it comes down to those certain calls, that verification aspect is the critical piece and that number of calls that um that that we have to have in order to put that place in nuisance.

And can residents um provide information such as videos or photos, um, and if so, can they do that anonymously?

Well, they can provide that information, and and then that's when we uh each district has what we call our uh VCRT uh violent crime reduction team cars, and uh most likely most of my commanders are tasking those officers to conduct those follow-ups when you when we get that information.

I I do want to add in some cases, we don't if a citation is issued right to somebody, let's say there's a call, I'm gonna give you an example, a noise complaint.

There's a party next door, and it's 11 o'clock at night, it's super loud, and we don't get there in time.

We may follow up and say, Do you want to serve as a complainant so we can issue a municipal citation?

If it's anonymous, and that person says, No, we can't issue a citation and then subsequently substantiate it.

But if they say yes, absolutely, I've got video and all this stuff, that can be used in municipal court and accounts.

So yes, you can be anonymous, but also there are circumstances where you may not want to be because that then helps us substantiate, if that makes sense.

And I definitely understand that.

I just know that some of the residents that um you know want to provide some of this information.

Some of them just fear retaliation, right?

And um, and not just retaliation from the individual, some of them also fear retaliation from um the landlord, right?

Because again, those calls for service as going against um going against the property.

Um, so I think we just have to figure out how to um be able to address some of these situations as as well as how do we again make sure that we're protecting um our residents.

Thank you so thank you so much.

Chair recognizes uh Alder Woman Dmitrievich.

Thank you so much.

Can um can residents use the police to citizen online reporting portal for these types of crimes?

No, that is only for crimes where there's no suspect information, and that uh is would not be substantiated.

So those are for let's say your garage got burglarized, and you have no identifying features or clues or any type of evidence about who did it.

Uh, that's what you would use the online reporting portal for.

Those cannot substantiate nuisance designations.

Okay.

I'm having a little trouble with the data because the data anecdotally from many people here and what we hear in the neighborhoods is that there's an increase in this type of activity, and then we see a decrease in the letters by Aldermanic district.

So like the stories and um the experiences are increasing, but the letters are decreasing.

What's in the middle there of the input and output is our community's experience.

They're telling you, and they're telling us, and many of them call us, because they're waiting hours for non-emergency phone calls.

And so this has been a problem, and with all due respect, we're at a time where the state of Wisconsin has mandated the increase in police officers, and they're not understanding how I know we're not there yet, we're still trying to get the classes, but please understand the experience.

They're seeing that we're hiring and we're using more of our precious budget dollars, but we can't keep up with these non-emergency phone calls.

And so, in the end, who in the world could sit on the phone for hours to report this?

It doesn't, it doesn't make sense to me, and I think that's where the frustration is.

Would you be willing to dedicate some sort of dedicated phone number for this?

If we can't do a portal, we've got to be creative systematically and find a way to get these types of phone calls.

Um, what ends up happening is I I know that there's higher crime higher level that we have to d dedicate resources to, but when pe what I hear a lot is these non-emergency, it's just it's kind of like a um a disincentive that then leads to disenchantment and disenfranchising.

I guess I'm feeling poetic here, but the point is is like people aren't going to call anymore, as they said, because they feel that their call is not going to be answered.

It slants your data because you're thinking people aren't calling.

So we've got to fix this.

This is what people are asking for and and I'm looking for some sort of response there.

So more than willing to work with the Department of Emergency Community, more than willing to work with the Department of Emergency Communications to find a way to figure out what might be a platform for dealing with these particular type of concerns.

I know that this is uh an ongoing issue for as long as I've been in an officer in regards to how do we continue to balance the you know resources with the needs and making sure that we're leaning into it, but uh absolutely hear what you're saying, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening.

Um, I know there's a lot of uh elders that want to speak as well.

Can we just specifically focus on if it's available to talk about legally?

But on this S2 properties, I'm trying to understand how hundreds of complaints were filed and phone calls.

I hope they were all answered.

I mean, there was a highly sophisticated stash and trap campaign where people were drugs were trafficked and humans were trafficked, and I don't understand how it got to this point.

Like, how do we get to this point?

Were there was there nuisance letters offered before that?

Like how many nuisance letters did S2 get?

Seven.

Okay.

So someone remembers seven, but like the public's trying to understand how we got to this point, and how can we make sure that it doesn't happen again?

Okay, we can't talk about it because we're in a lawsuit.

Okay.

Well, I'm asking a question, but I guess you'll have to answer it in public.

Good afternoon, Evan Gwakey City Attorney.

Uh I just flag for members of the council, member members of the public that are here and watching that this meeting and this item have been noticed for one of the exceptions to Wisconsin's public meetings law that allows the common council, city of Milwaukee to convene in closed session to discuss uh potential litigation as well as uh the deployment or detection prevention of crime.

And so some of your question, Alderwoman touches on items that I would be far more comfortable to answer in closed session because of the last point that you just made.

Um, and and you know, uh uh the several members in uh of that organization have been federally indicted and are facing criminal prosecution in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by the United States Attorney's Office.

Uh what was publicly available in the indictment in the complaint was that there was a joint task force, that this was a long investigation with federal agents as well as local law enforcement.

It it's fairly substantial, and we can go into more details uh in close session.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Uh Alderman Ballman.

Uh I think you mentioned since 2020 you've issued 500 and some newsletters.

Did I hear that correctly?

That's correct, sir.

Okay.

Out of those 500, how many resulted in uh citations being issued?

That's the information, pardon.

I don't have the information with me at this time.

Okay, do you think we have that?

Is that um I believe their DNS tracks the billing status because they're the ones that actually bill on our behalf.

I don't know if you have the data with you.

Like that's meaning deputy commissioner for neighborhood services.

I don't have that, but I'd be happy to pull that annual uh because I have a funny suspicion, it's not a lot.

And that dovetails to my next point, and that is the actual billing amounts tend to be relatively nominal.

I mean, when I've seen billings, it's $100 here, $150 there, and to a large deep pocketed landlord, that's cost of doing business.

Which gets to my third point, and that is I see, at least with the nuisance letters that have come my way involving the forest aldermanic district, an increasing number of landlords just ignore it.

They do nothing.

They don't even respond.

And then what happens?

They're back in the building status, right?

And I was curious if you haven't had any any comment on that.

It's great, you're sending out 500 letters over over five and a half years, but the real punch here, the real kicker is the citation.

So you're correct in regards to the rules of engagement.

Remember, we're in the police department, we follow the rules.

I like the opening comment about if you want something different, then you gotta change the law.

Yeah, and so there's opportunities whether it's from the city level, state level, to do something in regards to what we find is shortcomings.

What do we do with some of these cloud nuisances?

We take them to court.

Again, I talked to you with familiarity to you, and also automatic stamper in regards to that we were able to use some of the information for going after these particular locations in court where there's injunctions, and we able to shut people down, which again, that one gas station that we worked together many years ago on the corner of Juneau and 35th Street is still closed.

So there is other ways, but it's a process, it's not a quick fix, it's not a again wave the wand, only through our stubbornness to say that we're not accepting these behaviors going on, whether it's drug houses or there is bad businesses, but it's not something that overnight becomes an easy win for our community because there's still problems going on at the particular location, which is why I say that nuisance is a tool.

Just as it was mentioned from you know, AC Johnson and also uh chief of staff Huff.

We also still are working with task forces.

We're still doing arrests and citations because we understand that just that particular item is not enough.

I've been there, I've seen it.

You can check the roles and see me out in front of a house where it's prostitution going on across the street from a school, then I'm doing a press conference saying this is what happens when you are again a chronic problem, but it didn't happen overnight, sir.

And so you're absolutely right.

If there are things that we find is shortcoming, the police department is empowered through you all to enforce law.

And so there is not enough in regards to the actual costs.

If there's not enough in regards to the teeth, let's work together, either at the local level or at the state level, to make those changes.

We're willing to work with you, sir.

I understand it to a certain extent, but it seems like a lot of these issues are largely paperwork problems.

I mean, the issuance of a citation would basically involve, according to the summary of how the ordinance works.

Yeah, a determination that there's been a certain number of calls for service after a nuisance letter has been issued.

Yes, sir.

And then they'd be declared a chronic nuisance.

That seems to be a paper activity.

And then it's issuing a citation, which is a paper function.

Correct.

So I mean it's kind of gets down.

We've had a discussion about the PA 33, not to change the subject, but it's the same.

I mean, to a certain extent, our ability to hold businesses and business individuals accountable to largely depend on what evidence we have in front of us.

And if there's we've had this with with tavern situations where an older person will say, Well, I've been hearing for years from dozens of people that there's problems with this tavern, and yet we go look at the record and there's one PA 33 for a number of so some of this seems to be a paperwork problem, and I don't know how you address that, because it's individual officers being pressed for time, having other things to respond to, and maybe the paperwork isn't always getting processed to create the records necessary to get to the severe, the more severe punishments that could actually get landlords' attention.

No, and and we've been very open, police department, city attorney, DNS, we've asked everyone, please help us improve what we can locally, and if there's some state change that too.

But yeah, I mean, even from what I understand in our meetings, um, sometimes there's lots of chances, lots of chances, lots of chances, please fix kits to court.

Then you think court is where it's gonna get tougher.

Then it gets to municipal court, and there's more chances after that there.

So we're we're trying to narrow this down to be as efficient as possible.

So we've so we're asking for help.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh thank you for your testimony today, MPD.

I wanted to ask um around the nuisance properties, what about because sometimes we have constituents right that don't call non-emergency for a variety of reasons, but they let us know as the alders.

Can we inform MPD and would that um affect that those three?

Would that be considered one of those three touches?

So, yes, alders, please give us that information, but you just passing along information is not a substantiated call for service, however, it prompts us to take a look at that property in hopes that we can substantiate it.

So if a resident comes to you and says there's this issue at this particular property and you forward it on to us, uh, for your uh district, district two, uh CPU team gets that information, and then officers are assigned to follow up on that information, and so it could result in a substantiated call, or it could not, depending on the outcome of that follow-up.

Okay, and I'm sorry to interrupt just for additional context.

It was mentioned briefly earlier, property owners when they received the nuisance designation may elect to appeal that designation to Arba, and they can, in essence, challenge the designation to say I should not, I was wrongly labeled a nuisance.

So if you have three incidents that make you a nuisance, and they challenge the first of the three, uh the city attorney's office provides counsel and will argue and defend the status, but we have to prove those allegations, and so it kind of to take chief of staff Huff's point further.

We can't simply call alder woman Zamarepa to testify about what constituents said she or heard happened, right?

That we get these layers of hearsay built in that aren't going to be able to satisfy um the burden of proof that we have to uh to prove that they are nuisance, so that is kind of the core of why we need we're calling it substantiation.

Think of it as we got to prove what happened because the property owner can challenge the designation or can appeal the designation.

Thank you, Mr.

City Attorney.

Mr.

President, I just wanted to make a point, especially because we have so many constituents in the room, that um Justice City Attorney Aguike pointed out I certainly we certainly want to hear from our constituents about problem properties, but unfortunately it isn't sufficient.

Justice City Attorney Goike pointed out we really need constituents to call these events in particular when they're happening.

Um, because whether or not they show up immediately, I know sometimes there's frustration because it's low on the priority level, so police might not come out immediately.

That data was still recorded and could count towards getting to that getting to that threshold where it can be declared a nuisance.

And so I take this opportunity with so many Milwaukeeans in the room to challenge our constituents to join us in this effort.

I appreciate the dialogue and um President Bedez's leadership and MPD being here at the table to discuss the AD 10, but we really need constituents because I can't tell you how many times we hear a complaint from a constituent, we connect to see what the calls were for service were around this suspected problem house, suspected nuisance property, suspected drug drug house, what have you, and there are no calls from anyone, and it's so hard for us then to do our work to get this property declared a nuisance if we don't have constituents helping out and making that call, keeping a little pad of paper next to you so you can jot down any notes so you can discreetly write down the specific address.

These things are so crucial, and and then calling it into that non-emergency number, right?

414 933 444.

I I really want to stress the importance with so many Milwaukeeans in the room.

We have got to do our part so that we can make sure that we are tackling these issues in particular with these huge out of state landlords that I know you've been um targeting, which I I appreciate that work and that advocacy.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Chair recognized Alderman McCoggs.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

Uh and forgive me if this has been covered, but um you can't hear you.

You classified the nuisance as uh three calls, 80-10, there's three within 30 days, right?

Who's whose um whose job is it to recognize when that threshold has been met?

The districts, uh, the district ultimately the district commander, but each district has a CPU, a community partnership unit or CLO community liaison officers dedicated to keeping track of those nuisance designations.

And how do they keep track?

Um well, so are you saying who's looking at the calls for service?

Like particularly that is the thing that we're supplementing the work that we're already doing there, uh, based upon our conversations on how we can improve.

So we've now required all district commanders to pull a report every month that's available to them.

What properties in their district have three or more calls for service across the board and instructed those CPU CLO units?

They have to review them and see are any of those nuisance eligible?

Are they nuisance designation calls?

Are they DV calls so they don't count?

Going through manually, taking a look at those properties, and then every month the district commander is going to be reviewing that now and saying, okay, these are now eligible for nuisance designation, we're going to make this nuisance designation.

Or alternatively, if they say no, we're not, even though it's eligible, they have to give the executive command staff a reason why they're not going that route.

And so that's actually new.

That was a report available.

Um, as the chief talked, we had some challenges for a few years, a lot of staff turnover at the leadership level.

We're bringing that, it is now a directive for our district commanders to do that review every month.

Mr.

President, I would ask that maybe there be an open communication file of reporting of that annually or twice a year maybe.

Sure.

Yeah.

My district.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh chair organized all the Ms.

Spiker.

Um, so in my district, um, we don't have as many perhaps as others.

Um we have uh and I'll start to know uh CPU and CLOs um at our district.

Um but I'm thinking in certain districts, if you're requiring manually reviewing every parcel that has three or more calls, that's going to be extremely labor intensive, and we'll take them away from other things they have to do.

So has there been any thought given to employing technology to do a first pass, a curation?

There's this thing called AI, I understand out there, that uh might be not the final determinant, but something that would flag it so the CPUs just aren't waiting in paperwork.

We are interested in looking at anything that we can use from technology-wise, but we always want to make sure it's a balance.

Now, where if there's any type of technology is out there that can do that, but we will look into that and be very happy to have it be embraced by our leadership to help us out to make sure that we can use this for that particular reason.

Yeah, I would I would definitely take a look at that because otherwise we have this great promise.

Common ground, we've made an agreement that hey, we're gonna now flag everything that has three or more calls.

So that will create hope.

Um but hope without a plan for how to realize it translates into disappointment very quickly.

Um so I want to make sure we have a commitment that goes beyond when we have the lights and cameras here and make sure this makes a meaningful change.

There has been, according to the data that was provided, a fairly precipitous drop in nuisance letters, uh nuisance designations.

Um, it would be good to know what the explanation for that would be, but um merely having a bigger pool from which to draw those um isn't gonna do the job by itself.

So um I think Alder Coggs's idea is a great one.

Uh, happy to entertain that file in my committee just to see what progress we make with these nuisance designations.

And then a last question here is um one explanation might be I think you referenced chief uh kind of pre-nuisance letters.

So it could be that those are just scaring the hell out of everybody and they're responding right away, and so there's no need to go to the next stage.

But do we have any data or anything we're collecting to show whether these pre-nuisance letters are having any sort of effects on those that get it, or to Alder Bauman's point, if if some people say it's cost to do in business, maybe they don't react at all when they get the pre-nuisance letter.

I'd be interested to see if there's any way to track that.

We can, and actually, this is only anecdotally, but normally those particular type of sit-downs because of the show of the collaboration between our government partners, usually is enough, and they put forth truly impactful abatement plans.

Again, I'm very proud of the commanders behind us in regards to ensuring that there is that type of engagement.

And so, and seeing that there is pre-you know nuisance letters and then just working letters, you can come to that conclusion, but we can look more into to get that actual one-to-one so that you can have a better understanding how it's working how it's impacting in regards to our community.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

President.

And may I just add Alderman Spiker, that all of our district commanders are available to you to have these conversations in real time.

If you ever want to check in on what nuisance properties are in your district, what pre-nuisance properties, I uh we offer to you that our district commanders are always available to have those discussions with you and keep you apprised.

And if there's ever any issue, please let us know.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, hey.

Uh can you clarify the anonymous process?

Sure.

Well, it all depends on what you're calling about, right?

So uh if you're calling about a noise complaint and you say you want to remain anonymous, you can, but we don't know who to follow up with uh afterwards to substantiate that say through a citation or get more information so that we can come back and make observations.

Um you can request when you call in to the non-emergency line to be anonymous.

Alternatively, you can provide information at uh the crime safety meetings or go into the district and say, I've made these observations on this day, date and time.

I don't want anyone to know who I am, but I'm letting you know police.

We'll follow up on that information, and that's another way you can stay anonymous.

So if you call in anonymous, we don't have much to go on to follow up, um, but you can also do it by reporting information directly um to your district.

So if you call in something to our non-emergency line and you don't get a response right away, that happens.

We still encourage you to follow up with the district.

Hey, I made this call.

I know somebody didn't come, you know, timely, but I want to give you this information, and that gives us the ability to substantiate that activity as well.

Okay, so in the past, the residents have called, but the issue is officers knocking on their door.

So can we please remind officers after uh resident calls anonymously do not go to their house in fear of retaliate retaliation?

Uh knocking on their doors, asking uh about the complaint.

So that's kind of the issue I'm kind of getting sometimes.

All right, thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh a little more.

Just just really quick on that um point that the alderman is asking.

Um, as a as the public, can the public call in?

So if someone, let's say they're not anonymous, say they called in about a particular issue, um, can uh can the public call in to say who, can they ask who that individual get information about who that individual was?

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Usually through open records.

So only through only through an open records request.

But yes, you do open records or if there's a public complaint, you know, paperwork out there, but uh not just by calling us.

There's not uh again part of our process to allow revealing any of that information, personal information.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, McCoggs.

Um, and several several of us, I don't know, the president and Ottoman Chairman had talked about this, but I'll just say since we're talking about nuisance properties, I hope as you look towards the future and uh changes and improvements that you can make that one of them um could be that if the property that you declare is a nuisance happens to be a Airbnb, that you also notify the platforms on which they sit.

Because while the state may limit what we can do punitively to them, um the platforms can choose whether or not to continue to allow them to be on there.

So if there was an automatic that if we declare a property a nuisance and it happens to also be an Airbnb, that we also notify the platforms, maybe there would be more of them that would get kicked off of those platforms.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

We're gonna move on uh to um Alderman Bauman moves that we hold this to the call the chair, hearing no objections to order.

Item number two, file two five two, two four three communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to collection assessment and reporting of part two crime data.

You guys got a big splash today?

You got a computer?

Okay, thank you.

Yes, I have to do that.

So I was in the emergency one with my chat.

Yeah, I'm sure if you'll pack the back of it.

Okay.

Could you could you please move quietly out?

They're gonna close the door now if you gotta wanna go.

Bye now.

So we're sure.

Anytime you're ready, please.

Oh, okay.

Um so uh to this committee, thank you uh for the opportunity to present something.

I want to give you a little bit of a history.

So Alderman Perez uh came to the department and was talking about issues related to nuisance properties, but also the fact that we need to show the public information about calls for service, outcomes, and arrests that we make.

And so his original request was if a call comes in, how do constituents know the outcome?

And we still don't have a way to track from call to the outcome of a uh uh case or or anything like that because it relies on other system partners like the DA's office and the court system.

But what we can provide is calls for service and the call for service, just a cursory overview of the outcome of that call, and also arrest data.

So anyone can look up any state statute or municipal ordinance and see in the last six months how many arrests the MPD has made.

And so I am pleased to have Lieutenant Krauski and Kendra Christiansen from our OMAP team who have developed these public dashboards, able to speak to what the public is able to see, and we thank Alderman Perez for the request because this is actually really good data to be providing our public.

Well, and before we move on, let me add a little historical context to that because it was kind of technically at the last budget hearing that I asked the chief at budget time to please help us look at part two crime more publicly, because we get these OMAP reports and they were like for the month, and I we'd see a couple dots on the on the on a map here, and to me it wouldn't reflect what people either telling me, the complaints we're getting, the the stuff even at the crime the monthly crime trend meeting, like and it was a lot of the tracking of what the FBI does for the part one crime, and I thought the community and all of us need to be better informed about about part two crime because people were seeing those stats, but it wasn't being reflected in the neighborhood, and we're hoping that now.

Um, so I want to thank you guys for meeting us where we're at now.

Hopefully we can make this better.

I gotta thank Dave Gettling from LRB who was really instrumental and on our end on the LRB side, really pushing us to think about this in a big way.

So I think this is it's awesome, the little bit I saw.

Hoping you guys can put this out there and figure out how we get better at the part two crime and how the community can see those quality of life calls for service connected um to what they see every day in our neighborhoods and Mr.

President.

Yes, super briefly on that uh public safety.

We've heard a couple of different reports from the policy forum, which shows the part two crime um tickets and such have dropped off a cliff and a rest and all that.

So that happened during COVID, but it continued after.

So um, happy to hear the reporting, but um that was something that we documented a couple different times as the precipitous fall and and part two crimes.

So I don't want anybody to get the impression that the quality of life crimes aren't important because we don't look at them and we don't ticket for them anymore.

So thanks.

Uh good afternoon, everyone, Lieutenant Markrowski from the Office of Management House and Planning.

And first off, I just want to give credit.

Actually, it should all go to Kendra uh and all the crime analysts.

They're the ones who created this.

This is way beyond anything I can do.

So I definitely want to get another credit description.

That's why she's here, right?

Exactly.

Um hopefully you also know that we also have three other public dashboards that are also available already, the part one crime dashboard.

We also have one for our traffic safety unit that shows all the citations they've issued and all the crash data for this city, and also for reckless toll uh data as well.

Those are already out there.

So and these will hopefully be coming very shortly in the coming days.

So our CAD dashboard actually you can look up the past 60 days uh worth of calls for service citywide.

Um as you can tell, you can look it up by any different event type.

So you can start to type in, or you can scroll all the way down and just see that specific event type.

We also, to make it easier, too, for your geography.

If you're curious about just your police district, your aldermatic district, the neighborhood you live in, it'll automatically filter to whichever uh thing you select.

And as you can tell, this actually shows the distinct count of all the different calls for service.

Our new hexagon system has what's called like event subtypes within like a actual call for service, so it actually even shows those as well.

So you can see the trouble of the subject.

There could be with subject, with family with juvenile, so it shows that.

And then the map shows kind of a hexagon.

Um we don't want to give like the actual addresses for places for privacy reasons for people, but as you can tell, the darker the color, that just means that there's those more of those calls for service within that area.

This will actually also show by priority level, so we have seven priority levels.

You can select that, and I'll show in a few seconds, it'll filter just to that.

And then with whatever you pick as well, it'll actually show what the ultimate disposition of.

So in this case, a good time to try.

With trouble of subject, as you can see, when you select it, everything now automatically updates.

So it'll just show trouble of subjects on the map, which of those the priority level, and then it shows kind of the overall dispositions and we hover over it, it'll show you uh advice.

If we were unable to locate the complainants, if it was filed, the police officers filed some type of reports, um, if a citation was issued, uh if an arrest was made, so and so forth.

So and again to show once we click off that, if you are just interested in your neighborhood or automatic district, uh Mr.

President will go with you at 12.

And now as you can tell, it automatically updates and the map will actually just show as well the area as well right away for you.

So it's too dark for my taste.

Yep.

So but the nice thing, like I said, you can select anything on here and it'll instantaneously if you're just curious about priority one calls for service, it'll update everything on this to just that.

So and this is something with the OMAP analyst, we should be able to update this uh basically every time, but weekends and city holidays.

They just have to do one minor thing every day that takes about what kind of 30 seconds.

They just have to refresh all the data.

But this will show the last 60 days all the way up through the previous day right away.

So it's gonna always be current and up to date.

Lieutenant, could you talk a little bit about how detailed you can get with some of the part two clients?

So for instance, I live on 13th in Greenfield high traffic area for sex trafficking or mobile drug dealing.

If I want to look at this map, what would it tell me or not tell me?

Yeah, would actually go into the next one.

That's gonna be the arrest or uh that so these are.

But someone looking to figure out, am I neighbors calling?

Would just be able to tell them that.

Yes.

So yep, you'd be able to start to zoom in, you can see, and you can look at your neighborhood.

You can uh look at the last 60 days, like we said, and you'll be able to get a feel for overall how many different types of calls for service.

And like I said, we included all the event types so people can scroll all the way through.

Oops, sorry.

And the nice thing is if the department of emergency communications adds a new call type, this will automatically update as well.

They don't even have to notify us.

This dashboard will automatically include those new call types.

Like when we included the street takeover call type, that now is automatically in there.

So if if we see an uptick in any specific behavior, we can work with the call center to be able to emergency communication to be able to create another call type to get very specific about that specific issue.

Yep, absolutely.

And once they add it, it'll automatically be in this dashboard the next day once it's activated.

Mr.

President.

Uh all of the stamper.

Yeah, are you able to see the status of 80-20 on this data?

No, it will not have the nuisance uh ordinance um with that, unfortunately.

Okay.

But to find out that status, you just gotta call.

Yes, that would be called the district commanders.

And that's not eligible because of part of the argument.

No, the so the distinction with like the 80 10 um ordinance is that it's not in and of itself like a citation or an arrest type of thing.

There's uh, you know, this whole process, and um, so it's not somebody can call in to say this is an 80 10 call.

These calls, these types of calls make an eighty-10 qualifier data.

Gotcha.

Okay.

What if what if looking at this constituents have questions to get a little deeper, right?

Um if they say what does it mean to see that um 50% or 60% were advised.

Does that necessarily mean nothing really happened?

They they showed a police officer showed up, had a com had a conversation with someone, didn't feel it rise to the occasion of a citation or an arrest.

What what do people interpret from some of the data on here?

Well, for advised, each situation is distinct.

So advised could mean an officer shows up and the parties are having a dispute, and maybe somebody's like, ah, I don't really want anything to happen here, but I was angry, they have that conversation, or they show up and it might be some type of landlord tenant trouble where there's ways that we can enforce certain things, but for the strictly civil stuff, we can't.

So we might advise and refer them to seek resources.

So it all depends on the type of call for service, and it could mean a whole variety of different things.

It doesn't necessarily mean they did nothing, it just could mean they couldn't do anything.

We um we look at the part one crime.

We've we've talked about this, and maybe this will take us dovetail us into the next.

We look at it and we measure, oh, it's down, right?

We feel much better about what we're doing.

How do we look at the part two crime and measure what goes up and down in any category so that we feel the responses, the contacts with community, the coordination between key community?

We're making a difference in the part two part two crime.

Do you want to talk about the just part two crime and tracking that data?

Yeah, so part two crimes, it this is where it gets a little bit confusing.

Part one crimes are offense or victim-based crimes.

So that's where we have an actual victim.

Part two crimes, you can have that, but now it's only measured through arrests.

So there's a lot of part two crimes where society is the victim.

So it's a little bit different for the tracking mechanisms, but it is something that OLMAP can track with our number of arrests where we can put out reports and things like that.

It's usually looked at more internally because the list of part two tr uh crimes goes oh man, kind of what it's it's it's extensive, it's way more than the uh eight part one crimes.

You're there's dozens of them.

So literally, if we do a spreadsheet, you're you just hear continually scrolling with it.

So it goes from really high to really low with that.

But it is something that MPD can track internally to see if things are going up or down.

Is there a way to use this data that maybe there's uh a different approach to resolving some of these issues when you whether you're writing tickets and nothing's happened or you've made arrests that then they become different strategies to coordinate with community resources, maybe health department, things of that nature that then the data tells us, hey, what we're doing isn't working.

How can we try different strategies or approaches to solving these issues in the neighborhood?

So we don't have the ability uh to track anything beyond our arrests.

So, for instance, the DA data, what they process, what they don't process, what they recommend to the court, and all that stuff that's DA specific data, and we can't tap into that and so track to say, hey, we need to do something different, um, because we can't track that outcome.

We can only track the arrest itself, uh, which will be the next dashboard that we showcase.

Um, I'm just trying to be creative with the information we're getting.

And this will be the uh new arrest dashboard that we're working on.

So again, we try to make the uh very similar all of our dashboards so the public as they go to different dashboards, it's works the same functionality, it's very simple.

It's like an iPhone, you can't break it, so you can pick whatever you want.

Um again for this one, you can actually pick by statute.

If you really know the ordinance number statute, A plus GL, you can look it up that way, or I think the thing people use more is you can actually start to type in and you can look at every single different citation or uh Wisconsin statute that you want to look for an arrest.

And if you want to, you can break it down by if it was a felony, a misdemeanor, or if a citation for the arrest.

And this one we were able to put in more data.

Um, obviously, we have about 250,000 calls for service a year, so that data gets really extensive.

Arrest is much smaller, so we were able to provide six months of data for that.

You can actually select whatever arrest date that you want.

Um, unfortunately, due to limitations with our jail management system where this comes in, we can only break this down by zip code.

So, but it does show it by zip code, and again, you can select um, as you can tell, everything starts to update instantaneously once you select a particular zip coder area, it'll update the chart here at the bottom to show so you can see over that six month period of time how many different types of arrests were made for that.

And again, if uh as well too, if you're curious about a specific, we'll just select disorderly conduct, it'll again automatically update this bottom chart to show you what those look like.

So we try to make this as quick and snappy and as easy for the public to understand as possible.

Uh, but this will give you six months full of all arrest data with the city with that.

Uh, understand that yeah, okay.

Once you arrest someone though, the result is what a clearance or non-clearance?

Um, for part one crime, arrests in it of itself, does it I you can talk about this.

Yeah, so for this, this will show all arrests.

So this could be for a part one or what would be considered a part two.

So this will show all the different types of arrests for both part one and part two.

So an arrest does clear a part one crime, correct?

Sir.

Okay, I'm trying to find out the result of the arrest.

For example, us all this need assistance to the judges by police making arrests and then letting them write back out.

Do we have the data to show that we're making arrests?

But nothing's happening.

We have the data to show we're making arrests, but the rest of the data on what the DA's office does with those arrests, what the court does with those arrests, that doesn't belong to us.

So the DA has their data, the courts have their data, and we don't have access to their data.

Uh we only have access and we can only report out on our arrests.

So you guys can you can't match up data.

You can't match up data.

But you arrest somebody, what happened to this guy?

How's he that we begin?

I I think for each arrest that whoever is wanting that information would have to then follow up and track with the DA's office, um, and then subsequently the court.

Is it Mr.

Chair?

Uh, is there a reason that it's not more connected?

Just different entities, agencies, and um we don't we're not the custodian of their records, vice versa, and so there's no um no way we can report out on what they're the custodian of.

If you're arresting charge are different, correct?

Correct.

Yes.

Yes.

How would it be all the woman cogs?

Is it done yet?

I hear you.

Um, but I I fail to believe that there's not a way.

Um for especially going back to the five I was saying earlier about the other stuff.

Technologically, for those who have permission or access or ways in which access to information can be granted.

I I fail to see that there's not a way that stuff would be traceable that way.

Um I know we obviously haven't done it, but I don't think that's impossible to do.

I know we don't have their data, so like we can't tap into what the DA is charging, what they're not charging.

So if we could come up with a solution, it would require some type of connector to all of those things, and the agreement of those agencies to do that connection.

Maybe it's not you all, maybe it's the DA.

Who's the should produce that information?

You see what I'm saying?

But either way, I think it should be a way that can you know, thank you.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

I agree.

Any other questions?

You have the data for multiple arrests on someone.

Correct.

Yes.

Correct.

Yeah, they can be detained.

Um this does include juvenile data within that.

So the strolling car situation involving a lot that often involves juveniles that would be reflected in this.

Yes, sir.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

We appreciate the communication.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh all in the spiker, the president.

Um, so can you send out the URL for this so that we can we don't have an actual assigned URL for it?

We wanted to show it to you first.

Uh we do want to roll this out publicly and would like to work with the council in figuring out the best way to get it out there on the public's radar so that they can begin accessing and looking at this data.

And yeah, I mean, you mentioned this in the meeting, but uh for the listening public.

I mean, you said we're one of few cities doing this.

You want to talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, we're not aware of, and I don't want to speak too far off the cuff, but because we did try to just use Google and look, but it doesn't seem like a lot of cities, some will have their part one crime, some have arrest, some have CAD data.

But I I have not been able to find a lot that have the level of transparency that we have with our uh data with it.

So I think you're gonna see us start seeing a lot more cities doing this in the future, but I'd like to think that we're at the forefront with as much as we're gonna be transparent about with our different dashboards.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh with that said, Alder, um the woman uh Dmitrievich will.

I think we'll hold that to the call to chair if we ever need to come back to this item number two, file two five two two four three hearing no objection so ordered.

Moving on to item number three, file two five two one one one communication from the office of the city attorney in the department of neighborhood services relating to the corporate ownership of rental properties.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair.

I'm the wiki city attorney.

I'm joined by assistant city attorney Nate Adamson.

Um I'll start just very broadly.

The title of the file uses a corporate designation of property ownership.

We do not, it's not uncommon at all that a properties are held in some kind of corporate name, an LLC limited liability corporation.

But we don't work backwards by corporate type.

We're going street level, what are the complaints and conditions on the ground?

Um we we don't know, frankly, we don't care what the corporate structure of the property is.

We care about what the conditions on the ground are and work on an intervention that's appropriate.

Um I and then again broadly, earlier this afternoon the conversation about 80 10 was really great in this committee.

Um these tools that we did discuss and are discussing in this file are are really remedial in their nature.

They're about abatement or cessation or stopping or fixing.

They are not punitive tools, not you know, criminal, like a it's not meant to be punitive, it's meant to be corrective.

And so when we bring actions against property owners, it is often in circuit court, it's for injunctive relief.

Stop doing the thing.

Stop abate the nuisance, and and even in municipal court, when orders are written to fix the thing, your porch is falling apart.

And property owners have the ability, and it's it's not the case in a uh speeding ticket or in a criminal case that you can kind of earn your way out of trouble by abating the nuisance.

The the these prosecutions, these cases really end.

The end result is compliance with building code, compliance with abating the nuisance.

The chief and the chief of staff for MPD spoke at length earlier about developing plans, you know, abatement strategies and then executing them.

So really the whole goal here is follow the building code, keep your properties in order, and we don't have any problems.

Now, when I before I was a city attorney, I live in the fourth aldermanic district, and I fell in love with the city attorney's office when some of the assistant city attorneys about 10 years ago, we had a problem property on the corner of 27th in Kilborne.

I think in one year it was 400 police calls for service in one year, and some of the dialogue that happened earlier that was bringing back memories because the problems didn't stop.

And ultimately circuit court action was taken, and through my role at the time as a resident and uh member of the state legislature, I got to know some of the lawyers, and I thought that's a really cool job.

I want to do that one day.

Not thinking I'd be city attorney, maybe an assistant city attorney anyway.

The role that we play in this process are is to kind of come in and work with our clients and troubleshoot.

Is the intervention happening successful?

If not, can we think of a different intervention?

If municipal citations have gone uh unpaid, do we is there a long history of this behavior?

Are the are the grounds met to bring a circuit court action or working with MPD?

Is AD 10 appropriate?

Is the is it time to issue a citation?

Is working with them in uh assembling the defense of an appeal if that happens?

And so we're kind of involved in all of the different conversations that have happened today 80 10 uh uh applying the building code in chapter 200 as well as uh circuit court action.

Um, and it's been great.

We've rebuilt what we call the neighborhood revitalization team.

Deputy Julie Wilson, uh ACA Adamson, ACA Housel, ACA Anger at Municipal Court, who does the actual prosecutions of building and zoning code violations that are usually heard on Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Uh, and we work as a team.

We meet uh with DNS regularly, we meet with MPD as well to essentially do internally what you heard um police districts doing.

What what are problem properties, what interventions have been successful, what interventions have not been successful, how do we do we need to ratchet up?

Do we need to back off?

And and through that process, you know, we are using complaints from neighbors, from residents, from you all, from our clients, DNS and MPD.

Uh, and it has uh I will say we started this process, unfortunately, uh in the city attorney's office that that was a team that was really disbanded previously, so we've really we've rebuilt it.

Uh I think we've built great relationships with DNS and MPD in um are actively litigating cases against uh property owners that we have alleged to be nuisances and we are committed, I am committed as the city attorney to continuing to bring these types of cases where the facts lead us.

The last thing I'll say, and then I'll I'll let DNS speak because nobody asked Mike a question earlier.

Um more definition of nuisance for you all.

So in 80-10 of our ordinances, our nuisance ordinance that we spoke about earlier, that had it's a very long ordinance, and paragraph by paragraph by paragraph, it itemizes in detail the types of behavior that constitute a nuisance.

In state statute, uh chapter 823 is broadly nuisances, and it lists some nuisances, but its definition is far less defined, far broader.

And there are pros and cons of each system, but I just want you to understand that in a state case, if we're going to circuit court, we do not have the same criteria of three calls within 30 days or two more sub serious calls within a year.

That is unique to 80 10 in our ordinance, and bringing a case in circuit court can involve all of that, or maybe there's no police calls for service, and the nuisance is something else.

Um, you know, noxious odors or uh environmental contamination or just the condition of the building itself.

So it's very broad that has its pros and cons, but it is a tool that we can build should the facts present itself, and and really it's meant, in our opinion, as a tool where compliance is not being seen through municipal court prosecution through AD 10.

Um and you know, we we've are using this tool and will continue to do so as needed.

Um before you move on, you say that you use a tool because you don't see it in municipal court.

What isn't happening there that you have to we have to go to this level?

Uh it's the progression of non-compliance, an order is written to fix a few problems that uh you know, property is not code compliant, that the that site that ultimately that order is not corrected, the department of neighborhood services is reinspecting the property on a monthly basis, and we're continuing to not see progress.

We get a conviction on a citation written for the failure to comply, the citation forfeiture is not paid, we are putting that on the tax rolls, and it's just not the nuisance is not being abated.

Throughout that time, there is a monthly reinspection fee.

There are it is costing someone money at that point.

Yes, and as was discussed earlier, many property owners do get into compliance uh without uh lawsuit being filed, and under state law there is no definition of if you're three months overdue or nine months overdue, or three months if it's a falling apart porch, or nine months if it was drug-related activity.

It's it's far broader of a definition.

So it doesn't have those same kind of regimented um timelines and quotas or um minimum standards that we have in AD 10.

So it's a little bit broader.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh all the person, somebody about I did just want to also throw out there, and I see assistant city attorney Adamson here at the table.

I know we've worked together on um we have some nuisance properties where the landlord pays all of the citations, you know, which is what we try to implement to get um accountability to get them in line, but uh some of these guys have the disposable income to pay repeated citations when we're trying to do the good work of addressing these nuisance properties and getting them into compliance and increase people's quality of life.

We got folks that are like up to date on their property taxes, pay all the fines, and they just meanwhile their property continues to fall further and further into dis or disarray, you know, of course, decreasing the quality of life for our constituents.

So I don't know if that was gonna be part of your presentation, but I I believe I worked with attorney Adamson on something like that in the past and trying to get compliance out of these folks.

There are tools available in circuit court, should the court determine that the property is a nuisance, uh that the court can appoint what is called a receiver, and the receiver um can, in essence, step into the shoes of the property owner to abate the nuisance.

They don't own the property, they can't sell the property, but the property owner that has not abated the nuisance through those other enforcement actions really no longer has control of the flow of rents, and those rents paid by tenants uh or debt borrowed against the value of the property go to uh a fixing the the abating the nuisance.

And so it is a very heavy hammer that exists for those chronic non-compliant property owners that you've said, and I think Alderman Bauman in the earlier file uh spoke about it as a cost of doing business, and so part of you know supplementing our enforcement action is if there is our if there are property owners that simply just do not care what the debt is or what the pile of citations are, the last thing they'll do is fix the roof that needs to be fixed, then that's where the circuit court interact uh intervention is really designed um and and we would seek the appointment of a receiver to interrupt the flow of rents to fix and abate the nuisance.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Oh, the one more.

Thank you.

Um thank you so much, um, attorney Goikee.

Just along those lines um of the receivership, right?

Um give me an example of um if we if we move to that process, are we talking about this is something that's you know, to get into a receivership, we're talking about three years down the line five years down the line what is the length of time that we're looking roughly I don't even know if we can use that as a general sort of statement but I'm just thinking about some of our without going into any details but you know some folks that may fall into that category right like what is the and again I know this is the the heavy hammer at the you know at the end of the tunnel but what time frame because that that word has been tossed around a lot receivership how can we how can what kind of answer can you give our constituents so when you go to law school and you get a law degree they teach you to answer questions like this with the following words it depends okay that's a very lawyerly answer because it depends on what the facts on the ground are.

If there are life safety concerns and neighbors or residents are their the quite literally their life is in jeopardy there are faster interventions than if it is the chronic non-mowing of weeds or shingles falling off the house but the house is intact.

I mean if there's a hole in the roof and rain is pouring in that is a different problem than you know overgrown weeds now oftentimes it's many different things taken into a totality of the circumstances.

So I I can't give you a at year five got it it's it's triggered because it's going to depend on uh on the facts now the the other determinant of that is the property owner and and there are times where the property owner says okay I'm gonna be compliant and we never get to that point.

Maybe municipal court did wasn't successful that those citations and those orders weren't successful but a circuit court action is and it never that doesn't even get to five years.

So what their um their cooperation and collaboration and and their efforts to abate also can determine you know the posture of things are they engaged are they trying?

Are they making some progress what what are the individual circumstances that we're dealing with got it thank you.

Chair recognizes all the women thank you Mr Chairman um just kind of for the record to increase the fines for the nuisance violations or the amount of violations it takes to have kind of an intervention are those all stipulated in the state statutes or can we do something locally?

Good question.

I mean look if the rules aren't serving our people then we need to change the rules uh so the state has set broadly what the building code is we have um codified it we have uh penalty structure that we have created by ordinance it is not uh decided by state statute we certainly would advise and we'll take a look at any efforts you are the policy makers and you have set most of the fees and fines that the city levies and seeks collection on and could in your discretion I mean there is a point in which it might become unreasonable but for example the citation under chronic nuisance 80-10 as Alderman Bauman referenced earlier it is a minimum of one thousand dollars and a maximum of five thousand dollars it's a fairly substantial fine or forfeiture and that is in in that is in the code as it exists today.

Okay I mean I don't know I'll have to take a deep look at it and talk to my colleagues but I think it could use some updating we're similarly looking we've seen an increase of sales to minors for tobacco and alcohol and there's legislation right now out there to like triple triple the fines um you know sometimes we just need to come with a different strategy and see if that'll be a deterrent um to some of this activity because like you know what we're doing here um I can tell is is not necessarily serving the people.

So that's something I'm gonna look at.

I actually thought most of it was caught up in state statutes um but perhaps it's not, and then we could take another look at it.

So I mean, you know, rules are on the books, but like again, things change.

There's just the whole economy is different than what it was and um we may need to update some things.

So thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

I think the comments should be made I mean receivership actions are very fact intensive, and very expensive litigation and discovery intensive.

And our our ordinances are much more bright line tests, if A then B follows quite naturally and simply uh the state statute lays out a very broad remedy, which largely lies in the discretion of the court to decide whether it applies or not.

Is that a fair statement?

Yes, it's uh fair statement, and it you you are accurate.

It is a a tool, our ordinances are designed to fix those issues that we see on a routine basis.

The porch railing is falling apart.

If that is the one violation on that property, a receiver is a very heavy intervention for that one non-compliant feature of a property.

It may be multiple porches and multiple problems, or maybe the problem on that property is far deeper than just one.

We've had receiverships that have fallen apart in the sense that the rents collected are insufficient to actually make the repairs required.

So that so receivers are reluctant to take on these cases unless the city essentially guarantees it they'll get paid.

And we've had those situations, correct?

I mean, you may not have been here for those, but uh I know I was.

No, I was not here, and um I think Alderman Bauman, you're referring referring to a couple of receiver actions, large receiver actions that were taken about 10 years ago.

And um, you know, your your comments are accurate that you know the the design of a receiver is to use rents to abate nuisance.

So if there are no rents, there's no funds.

Uh it is a it is very tricky to make the the economics of a receiver action work.

Uh, but it is a an important tool that you know we certainly are willing to use in these instances.

Because the alternative, of course, is that you do nothing and and that those interventions that have not worked continue to do not to not gain compliance, and then you know that is not acceptable either.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Dinaissa, did you want to add anything to um no?

I just want to echo uh Evans' comments about you know the partnership between our teams, and I think um he illustrated it well that the the work that we do, the work that they're doing with us, and that all the ruins and repa pointed out, these these problems that you know we've exhausted the tools that we have to reinspect, charge reinspection fees that are chronically noncompliant, and if we just run out of traction and we've taken it as far as we can, and that's really where we need their help, and we appreciate the partnership.

Okay, any departing words before we go?

Okay, no, all right, thank you.

Uh with that said, all the person some Aripa was that we place this on file item three, file two five two one one-one.

Hearing no objection, so order item number four, file two six zero zero six two communication from the office of city attorney relating to the likely effects of the Louisiana versus Calissis.

Uh this is sponsored by Alder Woman Cogs, don't I mean Chambers, Alanis Stamper, and Alder Woman Pratt.

Alder Woman Cox, would you like to take the lead?

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

President.

I think we all are taking aback when we um heard that um about this case and a decision that was made by the courts.

Um, and I think we all have witnessed um over the last several weeks, um, particularly in some southern states, uh, the impact that this uh change um and the the findings in this case have had on the desire um in those days to change maps and to impact um elections.

Uh so it was uh my goal along with the co-sponsors to um discuss in more detail what impact, if any, um, this decision could have or does have on Wisconsin um and our elections and our maps uh here.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Alder Woman Cogs.

I'm joined by ACA Andrea Fowler uh to discuss the matter very broadly, just to back up so that all members have a foundation of knowledge here, April 29th of this year, the United States Supreme Court on a 6-3 decision released well they released their decision in the Louisiana v.

Calais, I'm gonna say Calais, just because they're French.

And bringing a substantial change to the interpretation and application of section two of the voting rights act section two of the voting rights act.

I'm not going to read all of it but just in the really kind of key and pertinent point was used by congressional map makers, state map makers and local government map makers, in identifying and protecting districts of opportunity as often sometimes the word opportunity was used.

And really the thrust and the goal of the voting rights act there was to prevent redistricting to be weaponized as a way to disenfranchise voters of color and that districts could not be manipulated in a way to prevent voters of color from selecting a candidate of their choice.

And so that has been the law although always moving this is a heavily litigated area of law and every year we get a new decision.

And and so what Calais does is basically throws that uh by the wayside and I'm gonna let um ACA Fowler get into the details.

What I will the last thing I'll say before we redistrict again in a few years will follow the census track of the 2030 census and new data on our population and where they live um I expect there to be a number of refining cases to take Calais and apply it in the context of local government state uh government and uh in congressional maps and and then you're right we've seen uh Southern states Louisiana um I think Texas Tennessee Tennessee um using this decision as a a reason to redraw their maps in advance of the November election um and they're doing that to try to it often overtly for political partisan political gain which um may be allowed to say it is allowed yeah it is allowed it is allowed now specifically um I would be happy to walk through the the changes to the test that the court uses um to determine whether there's been a violation of section two I think the upshot if I were to really cut to the chase is that we don't know how this test will work.

A lot of legal scholars out there have said the same a lot of people have opined on this decision and I think if you were to boil it down to a couple things it's that the court has uh doubled the Supreme Court has doubled down on the concept that political um districting is not judiciable.

I say that we're wrong I apologize you can't sue on that basis anymore as long as there's a political reason.

So if for example um a district is created to protect an incumbent or even to protect a political party that's not something that the court is going to take up anymore.

That's not new but that was really crystallized in this decision and that is one of the reasons that now many people believe that a section two complaint is unlikely to succeed the test is now much more difficult um to meet because not only do you have to show that a district that you could create a district that meets the political requirements of the legislature that's redistricting you have to show that any discriminatory purpose was overt and that it is not intended to correct past discrimination and that test is most people believe virtually impossible to meet, which is why many people are saying that while the court um said that they preserved section two, it really undercuts the usefulness of that of that portion of the voting rights act.

So this is the law of the land for for us as as we if when the time comes after the next census to redistrict, we will have to follow the Calais ruling and its progeny when they are released and whatever our courts, the Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court decide.

Um and it is it is a big and fundamental shift when for those of you that were here as you redistricted that conversation, um, and I was not here for it, but I uh understand in looking back on the record had we uh I mean section two was a thing, so you are looking to court decisions to decide how you could lawfully redistrict in compliance with section two, and now we've really uh the Supreme Court.

We the Supreme Court has really um upended um section two law and we will have to follow it, as will the state, as will our uh congressional districts.

And if I could add a little bit to that, I think if if there is an upside to this, and I guess that's difficult for for uh it can be difficult to find, but the application of this new test is a little bit different um in Wisconsin than it would be in a state um where there were a large number of minority majority districts.

We have one um in Wisconsin, so the immediate effect of this change will probably not be significant.

Um it will really depend more on the whim of the legislature and the governor's office.

So we will see how that will shake out, but uh I think political redistricting is probably gonna happen more and more throughout the country, and that is something that is unlikely to change until I think what the sponsors are worried about is what has happened in cities like Memphis.

Well, sure.

And Nashville, where you had a black majority district representing basically the entire city of Memphis, and then they proceeded.

To cut up Memphis into three districts, all of which were majority white.

Yeah, it's theoretically possible in Milwaukee County.

Yeah, it's theoretically possible.

Theoretically possible.

I think, you know, we would we would see how the cases would shake out.

Um we have some time until the next census and then some time after that, before that trickles down into actual redistricting, at least required redistricting.

So um I wish that I had a more a better crystal ball to tell you how this would shake out.

I don't think anybody knows exactly how this new test is going to be applied and whether you know people will creatively figure out how to make it work for them or not.

In advance of today's meeting, I did ask some national organizations if they would be able to send a representative.

This was great reading, but um I frankly I asked the ACLU, they argued it.

They had the staff attorney argued in the in the Supreme Court and they did a uh a great job, and then afterwards I think had some really great uh public statements.

And um I I have not been made aware by anyone that I spoke to that we think that that type of challenge is coming to Milwaukee or to to our maps right now, if and when that changes, I certainly will um make you aware, and I would just ask you do the same if you know before me.

Um there may not be a formal role to the for the city to play, but we would certainly act as a conduit to provide all of you updates on uh what's happening, any litigation, etc.

There uh Mr.

Chair.

There are states like Maryland that passed their own that in the wake of this decision passed their own uh voting rights act of twenty twenty-six.

What is your thoughts on efforts um like that and whether or not those would likely um be upheld legally?

That's a really good question.

I don't have an answer right now.

I think I would want to see what the immediate reaction to those uh to those state laws were.

Um it's hard for me to envision on the spot how you can navigate around this decision in a way that is of substantial benefit in preserving some of the fundamental goals of the voting rights act.

However, I think it's worth trying.

I certainly, I mean, just it's easy for me to opine that, but it's it why wouldn't you try?

I think um, you know, as time goes on before the next uh redistrict, um, that it would not hurt uh for us to look at some of the states that have uh try to do some creative stuff like Maryland to see what we think um may be possible if need be um here in Wisconsin.

What I don't want is for at some point uh there to be all this movement towards um doing stuff similar to what's been done down south, and we have no strategy, no thought, no whatever, um, to deal with it.

Um, because I just saw Treasurer Cogs walk in, and I remember as a younger person being told about the facts he, Polly Williams, Gwen Moore, and so many others had and the lawsuits they helped bring at the state level um to help to ensure uh representation in districts um for African Americans.

So we all know that this uh decision by the courts like slaps in the face of their work and so many others um throughout the years.

So is my thinking that one we all need to be aware of this and keep it on our radar, um, but two, um just continuously looking at the landscape uh for tools and and maneuvers and things um that may be able to help us navigate if and when um it becomes an issue um here in Wisconsin.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any further comment?

Mr.

Chair, let's spike.

I had one question.

So from looking at these cases, it looks like, you know, in nineteen eighty there was the mobile case, I think that said VRA, you're only legal if it's an intent test, not a results test, and so they changed the VRA in 82, so it would be a results test.

This basically throws out uh they said they weren't, but in effect, it means you have to have discriminatory intents and you can't pass it off as um political gerrymandering.

So if you hid if you have discriminatory intents towards uh uh racial minority group, if as long as you say it's partisan intense, you can basically cover those tracks as well.

I mean, I think you boiled it down to yeah.

I mean, I could go through the tests uh specifically step by step with you if you would like, but you sort of hit the nail on the head.

You have to show that any district that you create could not would not run a foul of the political intent of the legislature creating the district, and that is it's it's almost impossible to achieve so in uh section two um challenge.

So, yes, the previous, you know, they have preserved section two, it's not gone.

They haven't overruled it, but it has been so substantially changed that utilizing it is incredibly challenging.

And as far as so we as a council determine our aldermanic districts, um, the county determines their districts, all that must comport you can't cross assembly, you know, boundaries.

So if there were mischief, it could happen at the state level if there were a power that be that wanted to do it.

But at least given that the county and city control their own redistricting, that's not I'm asking, is that then less of a threat because we could hide behind partisanship, but as long as we don't, um as long as we try to district fairly, the one thing we do have to watch out though for is we can't run a file of the equal protection clause.

That's the whole thing that's pushing us away from any sort of um creative redistricting.

So could you speak briefly to what the equal protect now it used to be VRA and Equal Protection Clause kind of had uh a sort of tension that was look at in court?

Now with the VRA basically nullified or um neutered, um what does it mean that the equal protection clause is there for our actions?

Well, the equal Protection clause was the basis that the Supreme Court used to render this decision.

So um essentially what the court is saying is that you cannot district on the basis of race.

Full stop.

Full stop.

Okay.

Yeah, I'd like to recognize uh Treasurer Cogs.

Treasure Cox, did you wanna make any comment?

That's a good question.

Please.

I just heard about this A.

And I have some uh several questions.

In the past, well, let me go ahead and state from the beginning.

I am a product of redistricting in my tenure in the legislature.

So it became something very interesting to me as to how I got into the legislature.

And I followed it in the uh 80s, 90s, 2000s, and the uh 2010s.

Uh is my understanding correct, uh that under section two uh the states that were affected were southern states.

I mean that's certainly the area of the country we are seeing coordinated immediate coordinated reaction and intervention.

Um I don't I I don't I can't go so far as to say the only places, but where we are seeing redistricting under Calais for congressional redistricting, and then even a little deeper, I think is coming, uh, are southern states, yes.

Yeah, my standing was uh section two, primarily uh dealt with states uh didn't demonstrated um discrimination uh in elections, sure, yeah.

Yes, sir.

So historically speaking, section two along with section five sort of work together.

Section five is the section that required a state that was going to redistrict to receive um pre-approval before they did that.

That is a section that the Supreme Court um seriously undermined a number of years ago.

So when we combine Calais with that prior decision, um many would argue that the voting rights act has um significantly less effective.

So are you saying that because of the Galilee decision, um northern states are similarly affected?

I think the the primary difference is the composition of the the the voters and the political affiliations of those voters.

So what many of the commenters are saying is that in the southern states uh political affiliation often falls along racial lines, um, generally speaking, so when one would try to create a district that would be protective of um African American voters, they would have to show that those voters would be likely to vote Republican, and so that makes that process extremely difficult.

So Calais reverses previous rulings of the Supreme Court.

Um how does that work?

Aren't they reversing their own rulings?

This court has been doing that quite a bit.

Yeah, the the concept of stare-decisis uh fidelity to precedent has not always been honored, honored less lately.

Uh, and then just to to, I think continue what on your earlier question.

I think a tragic result of the segregation in many northern states and cities with a lower African American population than some of the southern cities, states would that that you're seeing the redistrict re of 20, thirty, 40 percent statewide uh African American population spread out throughout the com throughout the state in a much different way than uh the state of Wisconsin, for example, and so you have very different shaped congressional districts, and I think that may where ACA Fowler is talking about commentators just looking to the map and with the segregation that we have in Metro Milwaukee, like m maybe not being not that there couldn't be a challenge, but couldn't be a successful challenge, is maybe the better way of saying it.

You would agree with that.

I would agree with that, yeah.

So in layman's terms, um partisan gerrymandering is okay.

Yes, but racial gerrymandering uh is not at the same level anymore.

It it faces a level of scrutiny in courts that is almost unsurvivable.

So if someone came and had statistical information uh that could prove in some other state um that they were the nine people of color, their right to vote uh and they had it, they had the statistics, then they would have a case.

They would they would still face uh an incredible challenge.

They would have to show that they could create a new map that would meet the political requirements of the legislature.

So in your case, um in addition to the statistical information, you would have to show um pretty clear proof of an intent to discriminate against someone because of their race.

So they would have to show that these districts were created not for political reasons, not to show up the the incumbents in their legislature or their seats in Congress.

You would have to show that they were only done to disenfranchise voters of color, and that that is difficult.

Um you would also have to show that you could create a new map that did not disenfranchise voters of color that would meet the political requirements of the legislature, essentially meaning that those voters of color in the South would have to be voting for Republican candidates.

So, Mr.

Chair, lastly, um, is our Supreme Court basically saying that irrespective of the history of denial of voting rights for people of color in the South specifically, um, that currently there is there doesn't have to be a remedy that helps people of color, especially in the South, whose ancestors have been discriminated, denied, suppressed uh their representation to vote.

Our Supreme Court is saying there's no current remedy to that.

I think, sir, that one of the components of this decision that is very difficult to hear is that the court has said that they are interested in addressing current discrimination, but they are not interested in addressing the results of prior discrimination.

So this decision, while there is still a remedy, there could technically still be a remedy.

Getting to that remedy is as city attorney Goyki said virtually virtually impossible through this test.

However, it's a new test, and challenges I'm sure will arise under it, and I'm sure there will be many creative attorneys out there trying to find a path through this.

But currently we have a problem of time.

Okay, that's in my last eight minutes, Mr.

Chair.

Um, normally redistricting only happens at the beginning of the decade.

It is not completely unusual for it to happen for various kinds of corrections in the middle of a decade, but it is gone hatewire.

Uh, and it's gone, hey, wire for partisan uh leanings.

Um, and they say they're not interested in looking back, but if you ignore your history, Mr.

Chair, uh, you're bound to repeat the same things that happen.

Jim Grove can be revived again in the South and also in the North.

Our Supreme Court is on dangerous historical grounds.

And I just wanted to leave that with you.

Thank you.

Yeah, we're I think the immigrant community feels the revival of the Jim Crow laws.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for sharing in your questions.

And I'll wear a tie next time.

No, no, you're good the way you are, man.

Uh any further questions or comments?

Anything at all?

Mr.

Chair?

Uh, Alder Person Samaripa.

Um, I just wanted to yes, thank you.

You raise a good point.

In particular, I wanted to bring up our Latino community and um the many times over the years that we have seen them try to crack um our supermajority um areas of the state and and the fight that we've had in this as well.

So I I want to thank Alderwoman Cox for introducing this communication file and treasurer cox for being here to provide his comments.

Um I would like to be added as a co-sponsor, uh, if that's okay with the author.

Yeah, let the record reflect um all the other person being at as a co-sponsor.

I'll do the same.

I think it's an important uh topic that we must get ourselves prepared for in the next redistricting.

Yeah, so Mr.

President, if you can please add me as well as a co-sponsor.

Well, Alder Woman Moore also.

Thank you.

Any further comments before we go?

Okay, with that said, Alderwoman Cogs uh moves that we hold this to the call to chair.

Uh that is item four, file two six zero zero six two.

Hearing no objection so ordered.

The following files are no longer needed and will be placed on file, which is item five, file two four one five five four, an ordinance relating to the creation of an immigration advisory board.

Uh Alderman Bauman moves uh to place it on file, hearing no objections so ordered, and item six, file two three zero three three eight substitution or substitute resolution relating to the possible legal action to overturn certain provisions of 2023 Wisconsin Act 12 and allocating American Rescue Plan Act funds for the Office of Equity Inclusion and the Office of African American Affairs.

Um there persona moves that we place that on file item six, hearing no objections so ordered, and we have no further business before this committee.

We are adjourned.