Welcome to Judiciary and Legislation.

I'm Arder DeAndre Jackson from the illustrious 7th District.

To my right is Ottoman Bob Bauman from downtown.

And on the board we have Auto Woman Andrea Pratz.

We'll be drawn shortly by Ottawa Westmoreland and Ottoman Perez.

Item one 251 767.

Resolution related to the claim of Ginlin Liver and Reimer on behalf of Michael Rogers.

This will be placed on file.

No move.

All right, now we have a file on this one, the video.

Okay.

Which video?

Well, we didn't have the video.

So I have some.

Do you want to write the video?

I'll never just talk about last night.

You will have last year.

Okay, that's right.

Okay.

So I think it's now that we have the right up to a format here.

Alright, as we prepping the video, um, city attorney would you want to give us a prep on this one?

Certainly.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this is the claim of Barbara Robinson.

It relates to uh damage to a private retaining wall.

Uh the question presented by this claim is whether the city is liable for uh damage to a private retaining wall uh several feet from the tree in the right away.

We're joined by a member of the forestry department that has more information as to the facts and circumstances of this claim.

I will point out that the invoice submitted by the claimant uh covers more work uh than just the wall.

It also relates to the removal of some private shrubbery.

Um and so I I think the question of damages is over broad in any event, but uh with that I'll turn it over to the forestry division.

Uh Jeff Kluslow, urban forestry district manager for the North Area.

Uh, this is a corner lot on 84th and Capitol.

Uh we've only received one request for service in the last six years, and that was for the tree on Capitol Drive, not 84th Street, uh, the tree that's in question.

Um so we had no notification of this at all.

So our file has been updated with pictures and um things that we didn't have last time, so City Channel, you can play the video.

I mean that's it.

Is that it?

That was it.

Yeah, say only six seconds.

But we had a second.

What is that?

What's happening?

They're excavating next to the wall.

The city.

Is that our contract?

No, that's a private contract.

That's who she hired to fix the problem.

They have the other pictures.

Okay.

But is this video showing us though?

This is a retaining wall here, and this is the sidewalk.

Right there on the sidewalk, directly where this is, there's a big tree.

And if you look, the sidewalk has been pushed up like that, and they keep coming out putting that asphalt, and it shows about that much.

The roots from that tree caused this wall retaining wall.

There's nothing else that's damaged other than that.

The shrubbery that was out there with just three bushes, but they have no roots or anything that would have disturbed this wall.

So I had escaped.

I had all those roots pulled up from that tree, and they're probably growing back now.

I don't know, but that retaining wall was repaired, and there's other pictures.

And that corner is not 84th Street, it's 86th.

I'm sorry.

So this is this is common, this is feasible, this is logical.

Uh roots do grow up against buildings and retaining walls, foundations.

My experience they can cause damage, but it's very uh infrequent.

And streets was notified of the sidewalk being lifted, and they ramped it with asphalt.

It's on their, I believe their scattered site list right now.

And we know that takes up to five years for replacement.

Um they will, and uh when they excavate the sidewalk slabs, we're on site to determine if extensive damage has been done to the tree, and then we need to remove it, but currently the tree is in fair condition and did not need to be removed.

How far is the tree from this retaining wall?

Twenty to thirty feet.

Really?

Yeah.

I mean, I've seen roots grow from backyards all the way out into the football.

But they're not gonna be thick roots, they're gonna be as the further the they get away from the tree, the smaller they get.

Right.

And there were three U's in front of that retaining wall.

Uh Google Street View shows them several years ago.

Um, and their roots can as well get large.

So right now, without doing an excavation on our own prior to this being repaired, we have no idea what roots actually caused the damage.

If it was roots at all.

Because it could be many things.

It could be freeze thaw cycle, flooding.

I mean, I see a lack of causation here.

That's the city attorney's office's recommendation, Alderman Bauman.

Move denial, all right.

Any other questions?

Okay, on the floor is denial by Otterman Bauman for a lack of evidence in this case.

So move denials on the floor.

Um I think the different there's 20 to 30 feet.

I will definitely measure that when I go up there.

That's about 12 to 15 at the most.

Absolutely.

The roots are from there.

And I did call, I asked for that tree to be removed because of those big roots.

That's pushing that.

Anything that can push up a sidewalk like that, it did push that up.

There is no other cost for that.

And I will pay for that so I hear no objections.

So order, but man, this is not the last step.

This is actually just the first step in ordinance.

So you will so city attorney.

Uh Ms.

Robinson, as alluded to by the chair, the recommendation of this committee will be conveyed to the full council at their next regularly scheduled meeting on June 23rd.

If the recommendation of denial is adopted by this city council at that time, you will receive formal notice of denial from the city clerk's office thereafter.

As a matter of state law, in order to bring or maintain suit against the municipality, you must first uh present your claim, and upon receiving formal notice of denial, that is the last prerequisite uh that you need to satisfy in order to bring suit.

So if you uh ultimately disagree with the conclusion of this committee, and the recommendation of this committee is adopted by the full council at that point, armed with your formal notice of denial, you may file suit in circuit court if you see so fit.

I've got some paperwork to that effect.

All right, thank you.

Item three, two five two one five four.

Resolution related to the appeal of violated Chris stock for property damage.

Morning, Mr.

Chair, once again.

Uh, uh this is a somewhat unique claim before this committee.

Uh the question presented is whether Ms.

Christchak is entitled to uh reimbursement.

Um we are joined by a member of the health department who is familiar with the uh facts and circumstances and history here.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair and Committee members here in Chapinski, budget and administration manager for the Milwaukee Health Department.

Um in discussing this claim with the city attorney, there's two sort of sections to it that uh you should be aware of.

The first is uh challenge on the calculation of reimbursements for three trips um taken in 2025.

Um the city attorney found that those were filed too late.

Uh they were outside of the 120-day period uh required in state law.

Um those were discussed in person with the employee and their manager on September 29th of 2025.

They were provided uh in writing on October 1st of 2025.

120 days after that period is January 27th and 29th.

Claim was filed on February 6th.

Uh, these have been reimbursed and paid the employees disagreeing with the amounts.

Um the second part uh relates to flights taken for city business.

There was a conference in Salt Lake City, the employee was approved through travel requests to go Milwaukee to Salt Lake, Salt Lake back to Milwaukee.

They elected on their own to take personal vacation after their city business concluded in Salt Lake and included reimbursement for part of the flights from Salt Lake to St.

George, St.

George to Denver, Denver to Milwaukee on the way back.

That's personal travel and can't be reimbursed, unfortunately.

So some like that that's not just considered fraud or something like that.

Uh no, I think the health department uh supports our employees in traveling for credentials, professional development skill building, that's important part for public health.

Um, and when employees come to us and look for say an extension, I'm flying to Baltimore for four days, I want to stay over and visit my family there.

Um, even coming back direct as as would be with city business, we will allow reimbursement of that flight.

Um, but when you're adding on, you know, again, Baltimore, but I'm taking a trip to Orlando for vacation and then back to Milwaukee, we can't fairly pay Baltimore, Orlando, Milwaukee.

That's personal business, there's no public purpose there.

How you said it, Kryschak Kryschak.

Krychak.

Okay.

So um what are the so what are discrepancies?

Because they say they want to pay you back in accordance to the policy, but what what is the discrepancies?

Yeah, so I guess um to clarify, I was not seeking reimbursement for the full flight cost for my travel.

I was seeking reimbursement up to the amount that uh round trip flight would have cost from Salt Lake directly if I'd flown back to Milwaukee immediately after.

And um in the MHD travel policy, it specifically states that um the employee is responsible for excess cost due to a delay in travel or an alternate route, which I would consider what I took to be an alternate route.

Okay.

So how much we talk about?

That portion um for the Utah Conference was three hundred and eighteen dollars and forty-eight cents.

Oh, Mr.

Chair.

I mean, the total claim here is 4033.

The health department couldn't work this out.

This has to come to committee.

Uh Mr.

Chair, it this is not my claim that I'm bringing.

Okay, we got a claim for 13 dollars.

What's that one about?

Uh the I I submitted my my statement of expense to be reimbursed, and um when it was sent to the controller, they didn't understand that the finance um the fiscal calendar was different for the um federal pre diem.

So they deducted it because they thought that I had traveled within the year of 2024, so it should be the fiscal year of 2024's reimbursement rate.

Um, but that was the federal government had already released a new um per dum rate.

That is just how they base their prediums.

Committee members, if I may, to clarify um these uh first three-the ones that Ms.

Krashak uh is referencing were reviewed, sent to the compontroller and paid.

Um the calculations were made, and uh Ms.

Krychak disagreed with the reimbursement I went back and personally went through each one of those by hand and recalculated them um and there were some issues with the way the Comptroller say calculated the per diem amounts there were other issues with how Miss Krychak calculated amounts and when corrected and netted out um for allowable expenses it was actually a balance in the city's favor of seven dollars and some odd sense um and we agreed to let that uh let that go because to Alderman Bauman's point these are small amounts that may not be two items are not part of the yes they are um I was not given a final determination on those it's actually four items um those four items but you owe the city seven dollars yeah that's because um after you know then we can settle this case right now I don't owe them seven dollars that was um after I'd traveled and after I'd gotten approval from our HR um director and our my supervisor um to purchase a reduced rate um conference registration um it was said that it was not allowed to purchase a student membership in order to get the reduced rate even though it was cost savings of I believe it was like two hundred and ninety five dollars um so I was you know I had gotten that approval and was trying to be cost effective and save that that two hundred and ninety five dollars but um in his review Aaron thought that it was inappropriate to reimburse an individual membership for the student rate that was seventy dollars so he deducted that from the net cost across those four trips um I do think that each trip should be considered on its own.

So you save 200 bucks by paying the 70 bucks I saved yes essentially I saved uh so what's the total amounts you can say the total amount of is 433 dollars and ninety two cents you understand what's going on here I'm lost by all I I think I understand the Salt Lake City thing.

I mean your argument is that you were entitled to reimbursement for a round trip Milwaukee to Salt Lake City correct yes I was uh allowed up to that amount and you went one way to Salt Lake City for a business conference and then on your return you decided to take a detour for personal travel but you figure you're entitled to what would be the normal cost of a Salt Lake City to Milwaukee trip is that correct?

Yes and that's what I believe the policy is makes sense to me a little bit.

Alderman uh thank you for that um the only thing I would offer is that the ordinances uh and the comp controller typically only reimburse actual paid costs you need to have a cost paid with a receipt I can't pay back the theoretical cost of a flight that wasn't actually taken so we reimbursed for the leg from Milwaukee to Salt Lake.

We didn't pay anything subsequent to that it was after the conclusion of the conference in city business and uh was not direct back.

So I I have concerns the health department has concerns about reimbursing employees personal travel that was connected in some way to city business as I said before we really try to be reasonable and accommodate our employees um in this case this felt like we were going past that and into reimbursing with city funds for personal vacation.

So the um the three hundred and eighteen dollars you're saying that's what it it would have cost to get yes that is the the only the amount of what a direct flight back would have cost it was an extra 75 dollars that I paid out of pocket to take an alternate route.

I haven't looked through this whole thing but is it where I know it's a lot of documents.

Where is that?

Is is that documented somewhere?

So that would be a hundred and sixty-five pages of it.

Um that would be in the SOE Salt Lake City.

Um I don't have a full document list of like they're not combined when I submitted them.

Um but it would be item.

So the city paid for her to get to Salt Lake, and that was it.

Correct.

Nothing further.

Correct.

No.

And I did provide receipts showing the actual amount paid for my travel.

That's what she's saying.

You're saying that in the file, there's somewhere that will state what it would cost to get from Salt Lake back to Milwaukee.

Yes.

That's what I mean to see.

Uh that might.

Sorry, they all look the same.

So I get it.

So I guess what would the difference be from the flight back to Washington?

The difference here, Alderman, the amounts, as I said, aren't aren't the important part here.

It's what the travel was for and the fact that the ordinance requires us to reimburse actual costs.

So a theoretical cost, again, if if I fly that trip Baltimore Orlando to Milwaukee, it could be theoretically cheaper than going Baltimore to Milwaukee, but if I didn't actually fly Baltimore to Milwaukee, I can't get reimbursed for that.

I can only get reimbursed for what I actually paid for and have a receipt for.

And the comp troller's office is very strict on that for good reason.

So one would be responsible for the trip back, but you're saying regardless of where it was from, won't be responsible for the trip back to Milwaukee, technically.

Um, because there's no city business conducted after in this case, I think it's October 17th.

So the 18th through the 22nd, Miss Krychak was on vacation in different parts of Utah, came back through Denver.

Had she gone Milwaukee to Salt Lake, Salt Lake back to Milwaukee, and then taken a trip, we would have reimbursed the flight back to Milwaukee from Salt Lake.

But in this case, again, where's the boundary that the council and the ordinances set in terms of can you go to Salt Lake and then spend two weeks in Seattle and then go to British Columbia and then come back?

Are you entitled to any reimbursement for that flight if it's not for city business?

That's that's where I struggle here.

Okay.

If if I may, Mr.

Chair, um I I think the question posed here is whether the the trip establishes some sort of entitlement with without using the benefit, you know.

And in in other words, if there's uh an appellate argument scheduled in the Seventh Circuit and I look up and find that a particular hotel room in downtown Chicago costs $300 a night, but I actually stay with my friend, is the city going to pay me the three hundred dollars that the hotel room would have cost?

And I I think we all agree that the way that the reimbursements work that costs that aren't incurred can't be recovered.

I would take issue then with that the policy does state that I'm only responsible for excess costs.

Um and I would very much consider this to be within that definition of an alternate route.

That's the only thing I'm thinking that you know that what the city attorney's analogy is not quite accurate.

I mean, the comparison would be if once in Salt Lake City she met up with a friend and the friend drove her back to Milwaukee for free, then she would not be entitled to three to the return trip.

She paid to get back to Milwaukee, she just took a detour.

Sure.

I I think uh and and I apologize, but but I I think we can all understand that that flights don't have a set cost, whether you fly on a Friday or a Saturday or a Sunday, I mean I mean, all of these things are variable and so the reimbursement policy makes a conscious choice uh that that you can be reimbursed for actual incurred costs if if there weren't costs incurred to come back from Salt Lake City because you chose to take other steps beforehand, I I think that poses a problem for the reimbursement policy, and I I think moreover um it it poses a problem if we were to treat this differently than all of the other reimbursements that are considered by the controller's office.

I would say that I know other people who have been.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um if I can offer one more thing, the employee cited the travel policy, the um part they cite is on travel for on page one.

Uh the travel policy, the MHD travel policy says that all costs for city travel must be for city business, and on page three, it says all expenses for city business must have documentation and receipts of actual paid costs.

Uh on a page 11 and 12, they say we say that uh employees are liable for costs incurred for convenience or personal preference, as well as any cost to be found ineligible.

So there is a section of the policy that could potentially be read that way.

Um we'll be cleaning that up in future iterations.

But again, that's the health department's policy.

The comp controller and department of administration have additional guidance that apply, and as I cited before, the code of ordinances requires payment of actual costs, not potential costs.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

What?

Where are the Chicago receipts for?

So there was this is um accumulation of five um separate claims that the Chicago one.

Um so the Chicago one was the first one that we were talking about uh at the beginning.

So they use the 2024 GSA per diemes instead of the 2025 rate, so they reduced the payment by 13 dollars.

Aaron agrees that that was done incorrectly.

Um and the reason it's being denied is that uh I was not given an answer, you know.

I I had sent numerous emails trying to get this fixed, um, and that travel occurred on October 22nd, 2024, and I was not given an answer that I was not going to be reimbursed until October 1st of 2025, almost a full year later.

Oh, so that's the thing your claim was beyond the hundred and twenty days.

I would disagree that it was behind beyond the 120 days because I wasn't given an answer until October 20 uh October 1st, which is when I would say that 120 days starts.

I just so we're clear, February 6th is more than 120 days after October 1st.

Mr.

Chair, all right.

I'm looking at the request for I turned it in.

I'm looking at the document request for travel on behalf of the city we're walking for her going to Salt Lake City.

It is approved by Aaron, and it lists uh registration fees of one hundred dollars.

It lists the lodging cost of what four hundred and twenty-six dollars, and a list airfare of five hundred and seventy five hundred and fifty-seven dollars plus and then a ride share of a hundred and twenty-one.

So the the total transportation authorized was five seventy-eight.

How much of that have you been reimbursed?

Um you were paid you reimbursed for a one-way fare?

Um for Utah?

Yeah.

Yes, I was reimbursed for the um it would have been.

Well, actually, I have not gotten paid at all.

I wasn't uh no, because I um I wanted to wait until I could, you know, I they were requesting that I sign a document stating that I wasn't seeking reimbursement for the return flight.

Correct.

So you have an amount ready to give, so you just already we just need Miss Krychak to sign that.

What's the amount?

Uh we've got a hundred and sixty-five pages here.

I just wanted to make sure you guys had as much information as possible.

You could go to legal.

You can write.

You still work for the health department?

I do.

Um the amount I have for reimbursement pending for Miss Krychuk, and I just want to make sure, Mr.

Chair, this is the correct amount.

It's one thousand and thirty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents, uh, and that has been pending since February of this year.

So, what is your numbers?

Um, I believe that is what that that is the SOE that they sent me.

No, I'm saying that's that's the agreed amount that they want to pay you.

What is what are you at?

Where are you at?

My amount would be.

Sorry, I have the document that they had said.

What's your amount one more time?

1036 dollars and I believe it's 98 cents, Alderman.

Because the expenses approved by you were 1,258.

Correct.

And Mr.

Chair Aldman Bauman to that point.

Um the travel request is an estimate.

It's not a hard budget.

Um so if flights get more expensive, lodging gets more expensive, there's a delay on the way back, we pay over the amount.

It's more to demonstrate that the costs are eligible.

Uh it would be 1,355 and 35 cents.

1,355?

Yeah.

And 35 cents.

We're talking about 200 bucks.

Yeah.

Uh 318.

Is that the cost of the travel?

That is the cost of the flight home.

Okay, what at the appropriate time I'd like to make the motion um to offer what the health department's offering.

Um because it for what I'm hearing and from what I know, in order to be reimbursed, there has to be some kind of paid expense.

I do have a paid expense though.

I have receipts showing that I took flights to get home.

It just they're not responsible because it's most more solid.

Correct.

Yeah, at the appropriate time, I'd like to make the motion for one thousand thirty-six dollars and ninety-eight cents.

Uh that's motion on the floor.

Any questions, any objections?

All those things as I wasn't here.

All right.

That's one, two, three.

That's four eyes and one abstention.

CD turn.

Or do we have to do it?

Well, I guess um.

It's not technically a denial, but it's but that's an offer, she's got to accept it, right?

If she she could deny it, then we keep going.

Right.

I also would add on that there have been other employees to have traveled and and done similar um situations.

Can't really consider that.

Okay, I don't know about those situations.

Only know about this one.

Thank you for this interesting case though.

Yeah, I I think Mr.

Chair, in so much as the the offer from the committee is not covering the delta that the claimant's seeking.

I I I think formally this is functionally a a denial, and and so I I will uh relay, as I did in the last case, Ms.

Krychak, that uh the the decision of this committee is not the final decision.

A recommendation will be made to the full common council at their next regularly scheduled meeting on June 23rd.

Uh if adopted by the full council, you will receive formal notice of denial, after which uh you may pursue litigation pursuant to state law for the approximately three hundred dollar difference between what you're seeking and what the health department uh makes sense has been offering to pay.

All right, I'll I'll withdraw that motion.

I understand the motion.

What motion would you like to make, sir?

I'd like to withdraw the motion that I that I made.

It's accepted.

Hearing objections to order.

I want to entertain a new motion.

Move for denial.

Move for denial by Armor Westmoreland.

Um, no objections to order, but one abstention from Armor Perez.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Richard.

Sorry, what about the other four claims?

This this is just the first step.

You have to.

Yeah, but there was four other claims on there.

Um, so I know we addressed the Utah situation, but like the the command denying the claim and then you continue on with uh the departments right now.

But it sounded like we were only deciding on the Utah.

They weren't the committee's taking the whole claim.

So you're just the whole took it as a whole.

Okay, but we didn't discuss several of them.

But it's one claim.

It's one claim, yeah.

Yes.

It is one claim.

If if there are other things that that you you wish to bring to the committee's attention, and obviously I defer to the chair, um, my understanding is is that what we've discussed is that several claims were were untimely and there was a dispute as to a particular flight, which the committee has heard about, but if there's there's anything else again with the chair's uh acquiescence that that you want to bring up now would be the time.

Well, I know it was claimed that I I you said that I didn't turn in the um claim until February first, which February first was a Sunday, so I think it's unlikely that I turned it in on a Sunday.

Um I had definitely turned it in prior to the hundred and twenty days.

I'm and I have a witness who came with me.

The stamp from the city clerk's office, which is the same data set that we use to determine the date of the claim in every claim.

This particular claim is date stamped February 5th, 2026.

Mr.

Chair.

All right.

I'd like to uh make a motion to um pull back my uh motion and uh make another motion to hold.

All right.

Motion on the floor is to withdraw the motion.

And on that motion.

On that motion, so so the the basis for denying these three of these four claims for the minimum amounts is she didn't make the claim within 120 days.

Yes.

Well, the statute of limitations is always a consideration in all of these claims, all their environment and the city attorney.

No, I I get that.

And that's when we're usually dealing with third parties, not non-city employees.

I would think does the health department agree with those three claims as to the amount.

Um Mr.

Chair, as I shared earlier, um, not only did my staff run them, the comp troller also went over them prior to payment, which is standard practice for all city payments.

Um at Ms.

Krychak's request, I sat down with all the documentation for all the claims and recalculated them by hand, triple check them.

She is correct.

The first one, she was owed $13.

There were others in that group uh for which she was over reimbursed, including the membership uh that the health department has a policy of not covering for employees um and not as a travel expense.

Um so on net, I think the amount is seven something dollars over reimbursed to the city again, to minimis, and uh these have been in play for well over twenty-four months now, uh, and we're ready to move on.

That policy was not updated until I believe it was February first of this year, so after I had done that travel and paid for the individual membership with approval from my supervisor and our HR director.

I made the motion to pull it back, but I I gotta reconsider it first, right?

Yeah, we consider it first.

No, okay.

So now we're considering as a whole.

No, motion on the floor is denial.

All right.

We already did it.

We already did that, yeah.

So okay.

We're good, yeah.

Okay.

So all that being said, the recommendation of this committee will be conveyed to the full council at their next regularly scheduled meeting on June 23rd.

Thereafter, if adopted by the full council, you will receive formal notice of denial and you may pursue additional litigation in the state courts if you see fit.

All right, thank you.

Item four, two five one six three three resolution related to the claim of Cooper Horn.

Morning, Mr.

Chair.

Cooper Horn.

This is the first time.

Yes.

Move to hold.

Move question on this one.

Go ahead as a matter of law, do we have any liability?

Any exposure for this kind of situation?

It would be the city attorney's uh position that we are not liable as as to this incident.

Hvusly corresponded that that relationship has broken down.

He's no longer representing Mr.

Horn.

Alright.

Um, but to your to your specific question, the notice of city attorney's office's position is that there is no liability evidenced in this claim.

Alright.

And it's really a workers' claim, I better shouldn't.

It is.

Uh there is some some complication to this matter.

Mr.

Horn did file a separate claim.

Subsequently, traveler's insurance also filed a subrogated claim.

I believe that second claim was was significantly untimely.

Um in any event, we seem to have no claimant.

All right.

Motion on the floor by Art Mesmoreland is moved to hold on appearance.

Hearing objections so ordered.

Item five, two five one nine one five.

Resolution related to the appeal of Mayola Aris.

Orisa for property damage.

We have another one on here is the first time.

First time non appearance, move to hold.

Move to hold by Order Westmoreland.

Here are no objections, so ordered item six two five one six two six.

Resolution related to the claim of Hinha M F.

Uh Nether.

Hey.

Can you say your name?

Aham.

All right, city attorney.

We are we have item six now.

Item six is the claim of AM.

AM.

Oh I see the numbers are reordered.

I was looking at the wrong list.

My apologies.

Uh this matter uh concerns whether or not the city through the departments of public works is liable where there was no prior notice that a manual and then is lodge.

Um I don't see a representative of the DPW in the room right now, and I wonder whether we might have a brief second call to uh get a representative from the DPW down here.

So we'll move.

We'll move to hold.

Could you stick around?

We're gonna move to hold it right now so we get DPW up here.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

So all of us want to move to hold temporarily.

So we come back to it.

Hearing objections, so ordered.

Item 7, 251628 resolution related to the claim of solving Solvacha Knox.

This will be moved to hold.

So call to the chair by Ottawa Bauman.

Hearing no objection so ordered.

Item 8, 251630.

Resolution related to the claim of Lawrence Howard.

Lawrence Howard.

Yes, I'll be trying to first order.

Okay.

So the first time our Art of Perez moves to hold.

It's first time not appearance.

It will be noted.

Item nine.

241 546.

Substitute resolution amending the City of Milwaukee State Legislative Package for short-term rentals.

Audiment, Ottawa McCyes wants to move the hold.

So I'll move the hold.

Audible Perez moves to hold.

I will chair.

Hear an objection so ordered.

Easy one today.

Oh item 10, 260105 resolution approving the settlement of the claim of Tiffany Lewis Hall.

So 10.

We could uh we're going to closed session.

We got a street something.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chair, uh ACA Headley is planning to join us in regards to item number 10.

I believe she is on her way now.

All right.

It might make sense to discuss that matter in close session.

Yes, sir.

So we only made it for the one file waiting for streets.

Can we get any buttons?

Uh, sorry.

It's only been three minutes.

So, let's take a tip in the recess as we wait for our colleagues.

Does it be filling in the uh, the third?

With the thing, but it's like a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of the minimal skin with the thing.

But in the way, the thing is a blue and the key and key on the ball, the uh we've got an example, you know.

Don't we want to win with the meaning of the building all the way?

Um, then we can do it.

Um, how do I do that?

Um, I find it.

But uh the uh, we can't do it.

Um, uh, uh, uh, uh, but uh, uh, we want to make one uh, uh, we're gonna move the uh What is it?

It's not all the Item reconsidering item six two five one six two eight resolution related to claim of Alumni.

There he is.

That's okay.

Okay.

Thank you for sticking around, truly apologize for the delay.

City attorney.

Good morning, and thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The question here is whether uh the city is liable where a manhole became dislodged without prior notice to the city and was timely reset when notice was received.

You're joined by Mr.

Sanders on the board who has more particular information about the facts and circumstances of this claim.

Do you have this uh case pulled up?

Yes, sir.

All right.

So now the manhole cover was off and reported, and what's the timeline on that from the report to when it was back on?

Um we received the report on August 24th and replaced the manhole cover back on the manhole, and the fit barricade in on August eighth, we did repairs to the manhole.

So the manhole, the sewer is in.

But my dad actually was driving it that day, so that's why my dad was with me.

Um, the manhole was reported that it was the sewer top was off, and then someone came to come and fix it and then a couple hours later a car drove by the it popped right off again, and then hit my dad, like hit the parked car went on to the driver's side and wheeled its way around.

So this is not to drive it in the manhole, this is the mail cover hitting the car.

Yeah, like the top of the sewer is what hit the parked car.

The car was parked, we have a store in 24th in Capitol.

So the car was the car was parked there, and that's what happened.

We weren't driving or anything.

The car was just parked, and then this is do you have actual um estimate here or yeah, yeah.

So this is to make you haven't had it working.

We had work done.

Do we did the car get is the work done on the car?

Not yet.

No.

So six thousand dollars is you have the pictures.

Uh yeah, I have pictures.

We don't have enough file.

Did you submit him?

Um, there's a little bit of a little bit.

I don't know if I've submitted the estimate with the pictures.

No pictures.

Is there a way I can submit them?

Can we see them on their phone?

Oh yeah, yeah.

Can I just give it?

Okay.

That's fine.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, sir.

So I have a question for DPW.

Um the manhole was reported to have had an issue or be off.

You had a crew come out and replace or put back the manhole.

What was the actual service that was done?

They replaced the cover back on the manhole frame.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I can't hear you.

They replaced the cover back on the manhole frame, the manhole lid.

Okay.

And then the the um it's been noted here that after you guys did that, a car ran over it and it came off and then damaged a parked vehicle.

So did you guys have to come back out and put the manhole cover back again?

Yes, sir.

I believe we did because then we um ended up repairing it.

So you w okay.

So you're saying you're repaired at the second time and not the first time?

Yes, if the if the cover came back off again, that's when the cover usually ends up getting repaired because there must be either the frame is cracked or there's or the frame is warped so the cover won't sit right.

So it may have bounced up if another car came by and bounced it off, but if we seen that that's when we put it in for repairs, and that's when it was put in for repairs on um August 8th.

Okay, I don't have the dates.

Was that the first time or the second time that you came out?

What that it was put in for repair.

It could have been the first or the second time, but I do know that it was put in for repair.

So I can't you know say that the cover may not have came back came off again or okay for some reason it came off when um you know traffic that went by, hit it again and it popped off.

But I would guess that at that time it was put in for repair.

Well, I guess my point is you go out there the first time, you put the manhole cover back on.

I'm assuming at that point your crew should verify whether it's secure or not.

It someone else comes and runs over and flies off again, and then the repair happens.

Why not do the repair the first time?

So the cover may just have come off if they didn't know that the cover was loose, like it would come off again, they may have put it in um for it may have went in for repair the first time, and there may have been a barricade.

I would have to get more information on that.

There may have been a barricade on it.

There may they may have placed tar in the lid, and the lid may have came off.

You know, it's the report that I have says that I know that it was put in for repairs on August 8th.

Um this particular manhole cover appears to have come off on August the 4th when it was reported, and it was put in for repair on August the 8th.

Um the amount of times that crews went to that location at this time.

I only have one report.

So if there was another report, I would have to look for that information, but I don't have that at this time.

Okay, because the the claimant here says that this happened on the 4th of August?

Correct.

So you put it in for repair after the incident happened on the fourth.

If I may the City Attorney's Office investigated this matter, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is that the manhole cover dislodged at approximately 6 p.m.

on August 4th.

At 6 47 p.m.

MPD received a call regarding a dislodged cover lid at 6 52.

MPD arrived on scene, and secured and rerouted traffic until DPW could respond to that location.

DPW responded later that evening on August 4th and then performed additional repairs to finally solve the issue on August 8th.

I I believe that's the full chronology of events.

Do you have any disagreement with that timeline?

Um, is it okay to have my dad speak because he was like the actual person that was there?

I don't want to like assume anything.

I'm sorry.

It's just my car, so I have to be.

Sorry.

Can you introduce yourself?

So is the timeline accurate on how everything played out?

Is everything he said just right?

Yes.

Why is the same day come and fix it?

That was why it's coming out.

That would the big old.

So the sewer dislodged twice.

In the video, actually, you can see that there's another lady and she was like, Oh, came out again, and then um she's the one that actually called the police, and she got caught nobody, yeah.

Well, the phone was not my dad's phone.

My dad was taking photos, and then the lady gave the phone to my dad to like report what happened.

So, how do you get involved?

James Lewis Milwaukee, police police risk manager.

Um, I'm involved because we are in the denial letter as having arrived on scene, so I did review the body cam footage.

I don't disagree with attorney Muchi's timeline.

Um, when we arrived, there was not a manhole cover on or a lid on the manhole.

There was a cone placed by it.

It looks like a good Samaritan may have placed that cone there.

Um the reports that we got on scene where this lid had popped up, they put it back that it popped up again and it rolled down the street.

Uh, we held traffic.

So that that's really it.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, just a question on the estimate.

Um the damage is where on the vehicle.

It's on the driver's side on like the I don't I don't know car parts, unfortunately, but it's like on the bottom part, but the driver door, correct?

Of the driver door, but it wheeled around to like around the um around the tire.

Okay, so I'm asking because I see I saw the pictures and I also see on this estimate there's some work being done to the front bumper, front lamps, fender, um I saw the picture of like the initial damage under the driver door on the bottom of it.

Do you have and go that way?

Okay, do you have pictures also of the front bumper, the front like of it of the other damage?

Did you guys play the video at all?

You only showed us damage of the video.

I only showed us damage of the rocker panel.

Oh, that's what that's called.

That's called the rocker panel.

Okay.

The same thing the three time a week this happened.

The hole is coming up three times the same week before it hit biggie glass door.

Or told us, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Oh, yes, sir.

Um, Jason Sanders' uh sewer service manager.

DBW, yes, I do only see one report.

So we only went to this location one time when the original occurrence happened.

One car hit the manhole and came off, and at that time we broke that location up for repeater.

We did not go to that location twice.

Because there's an estimate I'm only seeing the the actual damage is the rocker panel.

That piece of I agree, there does that.

I'm having trouble with this estimate.

That's a question for my donor.

He's saying he's only seeing the rocker panel.

And that's I do.

I I did I did see a um was there a dent on the upper part of the door?

Upper part of the door, and then a small dent on the front bumper.

Yes.

Yeah, I did I did see that.

Get out.

You can see the black thing, the black or not or that.

So just make sure we're clear on the law here.

The only way the city can be found liable in negligence is if we had notice that we didn't respond probably to the defect.

Is that correct?

That's correct, Alderman Bauman.

From the city attorney's office's perspective, this is not unlike a pothole claim where the city did not have prior notice.

So the recommendation of this committee to the full council will be for denial.

That will be addressed at the next city council meeting, which will be held on June 23rd.

Under state law, in order to bring suit in state court, you must first present your claim and receive a formal notice of denial from the city.

And at that point you may pursue further litigation in state courts if you see fit.

Thanks.

So basically the claim was denied is what you guys are saying.

Yes, this is the first step here.

Yeah, here.

This is the first step.

Okay, and the reason is why?

Because you guys you said because you said that I mean the city didn't respond in a timely manner, so I guess I'm confused to how the you know it's denied.

Sure.

People don't just bring their card there and expect for a sewer pothole basically to just come out of the ground.

Okay.

So uh as a matter of state law, uh as most recently amended in 2011, uh municipalities including the city of Milwaukee are are not responsible to guarantee the conditions of the roadways uh 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.

The city's obligation is to timely respond and address issues that come to their attention.

So for example, if the city were to receive notice of a pothole or a manhole cover that is dislodged and were to fail to respond to that incident, and then somebody else sustained property damage, the city might be liable for that.

The uh claim as as explained this morning before the committee is that someone was driving along the roadway, dislodged a manhole cover, which which subsequently struck your car.

The dislodgment of that manhole cover was not something that was predicted by the city.

The city came out and appropriately responded as soon as notice was given that the manhole cover was off, and so it is the position of the city attorney's office that the city's response was not negligent in this instance.

Um, and it is the recommendation of this committee that uh the claim will be denied because there's no negligence shown by the city.

You certainly uh may pursue litigation in in the state courts as as we've outlined.

Um you alternatively may have a claim against your your auto insurance, um, but in order for the city to be liable, the city would have had to have notice that this manhole was loose or otherwise a problem before it was dislodged.

And the facts presented this morning do not suggest that.

Okay, so four days is a timely response, I guess.

So I mean there's a huge hole in the street, so that's like that's a timely that's a timely manner to go and fix that.

Or the police department.

So we have to uh we have to move on.

Uh the injury that was caused to your vehicle was caused immediately when the manhole was dislodged.

I agree that there was a four-day period of time before that manhole was was fully fixed, and and if your injuries had occurred during those four days, we we would be having a different discussion.

But what we're talking about right now is damages that were caused immediately when the manhole was dislodged, and whether or not uh the city was on notice and and was negligent in failing to prevent that manhole from being dislodged, and it's the recommendation of this committee that we were not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Ottawa Westmoreland moves us into closed session, hearing no rejections, so ordered.

The judiciary and legislation committee may convene.

It's a closed session on Monday, June fifth, 2026 at Rule 301B.

City Hall two hundred East Wales Street.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin pursuance of the section nineteen point eight five one G.

Wisconsin statute for purposes of confirmed with the city attorney who may render verbal or written advice with respect to litigation in which the city is or is likely to become involved, and then may go into open session for regular agenda items.

Otherwise, other one on pride.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, I think I'm phone.

All right, thank you.

Um, And I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

No, no, no.

I won't be able to do the dog.

I mean, I think that was a little bit.

Oh, the type of I think what I think.

Welcome to Judiciary.

Legislation for our final item.

I don't think two six zero one zero five resolution of proving the settlement of complaint entitled Tiffany Lewis versus City of Milwaukee.

City Attorney.