Okay, uh good morning, everyone.

My name is Vincent Bobbett.

I'm the chair of the Ministry of Review Board Board of Appeals.

This is our hearing set for June.

Trying to think of the date now.

I want to make sure we got the right date.

June 24th.

And we have with us other than myself, we have uh board member Liz Hammer and Alex Bruzan.

Uh Mr.

Buzan is there in the room, so he's able to monitor the proceeding.

How this happens is that the city goes forth with their case, which they must prove, and then there'll be an opportunity for the appellant to then explain to us their side of the situation.

Who is going to be appearing for the city this morning on Chase Hoffman?

That's that's me.

Who is that?

Oh, sorry.

I'm I'm Chase.

I'm here.

And Chase, who's appearing for the city?

Uh, no, no, the representative from the city.

Oh, gotcha.

Okay.

Joanna, do we know who's going to appear on behalf of the city for the Chase Hoffman?

Um, I see Mr.

Peter Larry's on the, I mean, I'm connected.

I do see his why why are we doing it in this room, by the way?

Um, everything else is occupied.

We have um another committee meeting in 301B, and they're using that 301A as an overflow room as well.

Okay.

Because I know we tried to schedule in the other room where we don't have it's so disjointed.

So, how do we get the city's witness?

Uh he's sitting at the table right now.

Yeah, but I can't see him.

Mr.

Hoffman, can you speak?

Mr.

Hoffman, Mr.

Hoffman.

Yes.

Is Mr.

Hoffman on the chairs or where is he?

He is at the table.

Okay, where is Alex Bruzan?

I'm here now.

Now I'm on the screen.

Okay, I'm I don't see the city's witness.

You talk about forestry?

No, he's talking about him.

Mr.

Chair, I think we're looking for somebody from forestry, not DNS.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I'm just here for DNS.

That's what I thought.

But for DNS, Mr.

Laritson, are you here for Chase Hoffman?

Don't you want to read?

What was it, Fourth Street?

No, uh different sources.

Do we know who's supposed to be here for the uh Chase Hoffman appeal?

I'm not aware that if nobody was showing up.

Okay.

Okay, we're gonna pass the case for 15 minutes.

And our policy is if they don't show up within 15 minutes, we will entertain a motion to dismiss.

Uh we have a appeal of Ryan.

Joanna, you're gonna have to help me with the people are raising their hands and all this other stuff.

You're gonna have to help me with identification.

He's he's coming up right next to Alderman uh Jackson, right there.

No, I see Alderman Jackson, but the individual that just raises his hand, is that Mr.

Capish?

Mr.

Fleas, sir.

Yeah, you gotta excuse me, the audio is terrible.

I now want to recognize that uh Alderman DeAndre Jackson has joined us.

And I take it, sir, you are Ryan Cafish.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, would you please swear the witnesses in?

Do you certainly affirm with your right hand?

Do you sell the apparent of the pain and penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin?

That testimony you're about to give.

It's a truth, double truth, and nothing of the truth.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, sir.

And who will be appearing for the city?

I'm trying to send the link to Mr.

Brennan.

Mr.

Chair, I just spoke uh briefly with Ben Brandon at Forestry, and he's just waiting for a link to the meeting to hop on for these uh cases.

I just resent him the link.

Joanna, in the future, we gotta make sure we have that other room because this is not working.

I'll see what I can do, sir.

Well, is there any way we can sign up?

So that doesn't we don't get bumped, or is that not possible?

Other committees unfortunately do take precedent, so yeah, but I'll see what I can do.

That was the room that I was aiming for to begin with.

Okay.

Good morning, Mr.

Brandon.

Good morning.

Mr.

Brandon, are you here today for the appeal of Brian Cafe?

Is that 26035?

Yep, that is.

No.

Alright, you skip.

All right.

Uh yes, I'm ready.

Would you please raise your right hand?

There's only a permitted the paints and penalties for perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

I also want to welcome uh our vice chair, Kendrick Gandalf who's joining the meeting.

So we now have the full board present.

Uh you may proceed, Mr.

Brandon.

Okay.

Um file number two six zero for four.

Uh this address was 5725 South Honey Creek.

Uh record number was PWCF-26-01078.

On February 3rd, 2026, the property was inspected and sighted uh for uh sidewalk um snow.

It was sent to contractor on the same day on February 3rd, and on February 4th, it was cleared by a city contractor.

The fees associated with this are a $50 posting fee, uh 280 dollar contractor fee for 22 linear feet, uh 75 admin fee and 24.85 cents in taxes.

Uh the total is 429.85 cents.

Uh included are the inspection uh and citation photos as well as a contractor before and after photos.

Mr.

Cafe, have you had an opportunity to view the photographs?

Yes, I did, Chairman.

Okay.

Are there any questions that you have for Mr.

Brandon?

Sure.

Um can I wasn't able to identify where the notice was posted since we never received the notice.

Can you tell me where that was?

Uh you there is no net notice.

There's no notice necessary.

It it was after 24 hours in violation, or uh it was in a violation after being uh uh after the 24-hour abatement window.

So since it's a public uh risk, it's no notice is necessary, it just gets uh a violation uh sent to contractor and then a bill goes out.

So can you explain the picture that shows a notice posted on my mailbox?

Uh again, I didn't it wasn't there we had a lot of snow melted.

So can you explain the notice that was posted on my mailbox, please?

It's a courtesy.

Okay.

Uh is are you aware that according to uh 18 USC 1725?

Nothing should be placed on a mailbox without postage.

Uh if so, uh the purpose uh or the individual or business can be fined.

Uh the business can be fined up to ten thousand dollars or organization.

Uh while I may have violated an ordinance, the city has violated a federal law.

Uh I know that law very well, as I'm a postmaster.

Um, suffice to say, it would be unfair for me to find the city ten thousand dollars posting something on the side of my mailbox.

Uh hold on, Mr.

Hold on, Mr.

Clayfish.

This is an opportunity for you to ask questions.

Are you uh let me uh let me if I may do the question, Mr.

Brandon?

Are you aware of any uh regulations regarding posting on mailboxes?

No, okay.

Next question, Mr.

Clayfish.

All right, so can you explain?

Also, I would find it hard for so the city guy came out on the third, you said took photos, which I saw, which are time dated and stamped, correct?

Correct, all right.

Why is it that the contractors came out and they have a whiteboard?

There are no photos time dated and stamped.

Uh since I was home that day, uh and offered to clean my sidewalk because I was out of town for work.

I'm homeless.

Hold on, Mr.

Clayfish.

This is an opportunity for you to ask questions of Mr.

Brandon.

You're testifying, and you'll get an opportunity to testify, but keep your questions or something he can answer.

I was trying to get to the point of why the contractors do not have time-stamped photos of uh and they just hold up a whiteboard.

Would you show how long you took to do the work?

Would you know the reason why, Mr.

Brandon?

That's that's the requirement.

Okay, what's your next question, Mr.

Uh Clayfish?

It's a requirement for a board, but why are we using time stamped photos to show the accurate time that it took?

If you know, Mr.

Brandon, do you it's sufficient?

What?

It's sufficient.

Okay, uh next question, Mr.

Clarfish.

Alright, he mentioned that it's official.

Wouldn't we agree that telephones today with time stamped photos is more efficient than a whiteboard?

It would be more accurate and a true representation of the time it took.

I don't believe that's necessary.

I do because uh well who wanted to testify, Mr.

Clayfish, this is a question and answer period.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm trying to get I'm trying to get to that point.

Well, just ask the questions, and you're getting an opportunity to testify.

How long did it take for them to clear my my sidewalk according to the white board?

Looks like about 45 minutes.

I can't zoom in on uh paper copy, but so what I was able to see, and again, I just if you can if maybe you can validate it as well.

It looks like they started at about 10 30 and finished at about 11 15.

Would you say that would be accurate?

Yes.

When you looked at the pictures yourself for for the amount of snow that was on the ground, would you say that that would probably be an accurate time to do with a snowblower?

An hour and 15 minutes.

Based upon the picture of the contractors took when they before they started and after.

Yes.

Would you say that that would be an accurate representation an hour and 15 minutes?

Yes.

Okay.

Alright, that's the only question I have for that.

Okay.

Uh any questions from board members of Mr.

Brandon?

Okay, Mr.

I have a quick question.

The 15 minutes, uh, Mr.

Brandon.

The fee associated.

I just want to make sure I understand the fee structure correctly.

So I understand the posting fee and the administrative fee, those those particular fees, but the fee for the removal is that based solely on linear feet of sidewalk, or is that like is there regard for amount of snow?

It's already linear feet only.

Um it's a it's a competitive bid, um, and uh contractors bid on an increments of 60 linear feet.

So every 60 feet it goes up, okay.

Any other questions from board members?

As a result of that question, do you have any follow up questions to Mr.

Brandon?

Mr.

Black question.

Uh who determines um what's uh in violation of the ordinance, how is it determined that I was in violation?

It comes in as a complaint from somebody in the neighborhood who says that after 24 hours you still didn't clear your sidewalks, so an inspector goes out, uh verifies that that's the case, takes photos, and cites it.

Is there is there anything on record about how many times I've had a complaint?

How many times have I been uh cited for snow in the last 10 years that I've been there?

I can certainly look that up for you, Mr.

Brandon.

Uh Clayfish, we're drifting a little bit away from what we're here for today.

We're here for this specific incident on the I understand Mr.

Chairman, but I believe that it's it's important to know again.

I needed to know how I'm found in violation, and also how many times because when you asked me to go ahead to the next part where I have to explain it, there's gonna be relevance there since um, well, he did explain he did explain to you that a complaint was received, the inspector went out, and that the clock start ticking.

I understand, and that's my next question.

Was have I been cited before for this?

That I that that I'm not gonna he's not gonna answer that.

We're drifting away from what it is.

We have the photos, we have them saying an inspector went out there, Mr.

Clairfish.

It's now your opportunity to tell us what you want about your appeal.

All right, thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

So like I said previously, I was out of town for business.

I worked for the United States Postal Service.

I'm a postman.

I was out uh conducting training.

I own the house with my mother who uh is retired and an elderly.

Um so yes, we received a light dusting of snow.

I was not able to get there in time to clean it.

So when it was posted on the third, now I understand I read the city ordinance, run back.

I understand that it's uh a courteousness to post something, like I mentioned before, there's a clear picture that they posted something on my mailbox on one side, which is kind of odd because anytime the city comes by for any other work, it's posted on our front door.

I mentioned uh eight title 18 USC 1725 because it is a federal law.

Again, I violated an ordinance.

This is a federal law.

The city's not allowed to post anything on side of them on a mailbox.

They are subject to a fine up to $10,000 for that.

Feel free to look it up.

18 USC 1725.

Now, when the contractors, and as I use the air quotes for contractors showed up, I was home that day, and I said I was not aware of it.

I'm home today, I'll take care of it.

I asked how long it took because one, they were only there for 15 minutes, yet they posted on a whiteboard, they were there for an hour and 15 minutes.

One pass up, one pass down.

Now you have a member of the city there that just said, Yeah, that's based upon the photos.

Yeah, it should have taken an hour and 15 minutes.

If you look at the picture the day that the guy took the photos and left me the notice, you can clearly see there wasn't much snow.

You move to the very next day they cleared it, you can see there's drastically a reduced amount of snow.

There is less than a quarter of an inch.

One, when I offered to do it, they said, sorry, we're here, it's too late.

Which I find as ridiculous.

I asked for the fact of whether or not I've been notified in the past for snow.

As you can see in the photo beforehand, when we had the huge snow in January 20 and 21st, with approximately 1.7 inches we got.

You can clearly see in the photos that it was taken care of.

I've never had notification.

The city has never come over before.

What has happened in the past, as you can see by my house, I literally had just spent a ton of money relandscaping and fixing up my house.

I had so many complaints called into the city by some neighbor saying I was building an elaborate fence and retaining wall.

I had the city out numerous times during my construction and the landscaping at my house.

Clearly, I have a disgruntled neighbor who doesn't like me.

I don't know why, but it's happening.

To find somebody five, almost five hundred dollars for a first-time offense is ridiculous.

And also to send a bill to somebody with no itemized breakdown of how you came to that amount.

The only way that I was made aware of the breakdown is by appealing, which costed me another 25 just to get an itemized breakdown.

There is a process broken in the in our city with the snow removal ordinance.

I again in my appeal letter, I said, you know what?

I'm fine.

If you want to find me the 75 taxes and fees because I failed to get it cleared, even though you can clearly see it was going away because of the temperature.

I'm fine with that.

But to charge that amount of money is extortion of our people in our city.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Even if they used a shovel, it wouldn't have taken them an hour and 15 minutes.

And to say that that's the most efficient way, that is why, and I'm gonna make it a joke even at the post office's expense.

That's why we're losing money.

That's why the city, the thing that that's the most efficient way possible when phones take time dates and stamps, the contractors are ripping people off, and the city is allowing it, it's it's not right.

Okay, um, any questions uh from board members or Mr.

Kaufish?

Okay, we're in committee.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Ryan Caffish for uh the snow removal fees.

Do I have a motion?

This job a motion, and is that Alderman Jackson?

Yes, sir.

What is your motion?

Do we do remove uh administration fees or is that possible?

Yes, it is that that is what we call a uh a motion that's acceptable.

Right.

Um as he agreed to do it, but at the same time, it wasn't properly noticed, and the administration fees.

If we remove those, you should be able to.

Yeah, I have a motion from Alderman Jackson to uh grant the appeal in part and deny in part.

The deny is regarding the contractor fee of 220 feet removal, but to grant uh eliminating the $50 posting fee and the $75 administrative fee.

Do I have a second?

Do I have a second?

I would second it.

I have a second by Mr.

Yandell.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, so ordered uh Mr.

Clayfish, it was 429.85 cents, and now we're eliminating 125.

If my math is correct, you will be responsible for paying $304.85.

Uh you'll be getting written notice of our decision, and if you wish to appeal, the directions will be on that appeal.

And thank you for showing up today.

I will I will note that I uh I'm gonna make some comments.

I will note your objections to the whiteboard that we need to be able to read that.

I will also note that one thing you have to take in consideration is there was a lot of icing there.

If you take a look at the pictures, not only is the snow cover, but then once it was icing.

Uh I don't know if that's a reason why the contractor, but they do off of linear feet.

So at this time I'm gonna be calling the next appeal.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Have a good day.

Is uh Chase Hoffman with us?

Yes, okay, and where is Mr.

Hoffman?

On this side of the table over here.

Are you Chase Hoffman?

Yes, I am Chase Hoffman.

Okay, good morning.

Good morning.

Would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in by our uh clerk?

You tell me if I remember that the main time penalties are perjury at the state of Wisconsin and the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and antibody truth.

Yes, thank you.

And Mr.

Brandon, you are going to testify on behalf of the city.

That's correct.

Okay, and I will acknowledge that Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in before he testified in the last case.

Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Okay, for the address 3672 South 20th Street.

Uh, this record was PWCF-26-00597.

On January 27, 2026, the property was uh inspected and cited um for snow removal or or for a snow sidewalk snow violation on the same day it was sent to contractor for removal, and on January 28th, it was cleared by a city contractor.

The fee is associated with this record are $50 inspection fee or posting fee, uh two dollar $210 contractor fee for 160 linear fee, a 75 admin fee, $15.5 for tax, and a total of $354.95.

Um included are the uh inspection uh violation photos and the contractors before and after photos as a result of the testimony of Mr.

Brannon, Chase.

Do you have any questions for him?

Uh where would those photos have been sent?

Because I didn't receive any photos.

I only the only like communication I received about the whole thing was I talked to the person who was outside clearing the snow because he scared me because someone was outside my house at night just doing something, and uh then he told me I would be receiving something from the city.

I got a bill, but I don't recall getting any sort of photos or anything.

Miss Polacco, are you able to show the series of photos to Chase?

Yeah sir okay Chase we're gonna allow you to to look at the photos take your time and when you're done viewing them let me know.

That's not my own time interesting 3672 sub 20 minutes.

Chase Hoffman is contracting contract okay yeah what did it yeah no like I said I was letting my dog out and I just my dog was staring at someone I was like what's happening?

Um okay those no I and so in in that instance yeah I guess I didn't have a notice either I my neighbor actually came to the sorry hold on a second chase have you had an opportunity to view the photographs yes I did see the photos yes okay do you have any questions of Mr.

Brandon?

I don't think so I understand that no hold on a second chase if you have no questions what would you like us to hear about your appeal?

So I guess yeah to to elaborate on the whole ordeal um my wife and I had been ill for a few days uh and we had just been kind of going about our business I didn't realize uh that there was even much snow out there at the time um and so like I said just letting my dog out my dog sees something I I noticed that there's someone on my sidewalk chipping away at some ice and so I went out and talked to him and then my neighbor comes across the street and he says oh did you get a notice too and I was like no I did not see anything uh and and I understand I did see that you know the notice is a courtesy I understand is not necessary but it was again very surprising to just have someone show up in the dark and clean up my sidewalk uh and then like I like I said getting that bill uh for that much was surprising as well um the contractor I mean obviously he doesn't know necessarily but he did say he's like oh yeah it's like a $50 bill or something and I was like well that's not terrible but obviously getting a 300 something dollar bill was a little bit more shocking and so I just was you know appealing in the sense that I was unaware of this ordinance it was a very specific circumstance that this all came down with and it it's just it's a lot of money for for us right now we're we're relatively new homeowners and um things are a little bit tight so I just was trying to see what we could do that'll make it a little bit easier for us.

As the as the result of the testimony from Chase do other board members have any questions for him.

Okay we are in committee at this time I'll entertain a motion I'm sorry Mr.

I had a question for Mr.

Brandon is that Mr.

Bruzan yes what is your question um I just had a question about how the linear feet is calculated is that is it you know like let's say a homeowner had cleared half of the sidewalk and then the other half or you know half of it had melted and didn't require to be cleaned is the is that the linear footage is that given to you by the contractor, or is that data that's pulled from the city?

Um it would be pulled from the at the time of inspection, um, the inspector when they write up their report and um create the record, uh will look um using uh the county's GIS system will measure the based on the photos and what is in violation, they will measure the uh the length of the sidewalk um just with the the measuring tool, attach that to the record that gets sent to the contractor, and based on the before and after photos.

If it's you know, if if if say the the homeowner shoveled the front after the fact, but then didn't shovel the side, we would reduce the the linear footage.

But if it it looks relatively the same, like no work was done, then we stick with the original linear footage.

Um but it's uh to answer your question.

Yes, if some work is done, we don't um count that into the linear footage.

Thanks.

As a result of the question, uh, Mr.

Brandon and the testimony of Mr.

Chase.

Um board members have any other questions for either witness.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, I don't have a noticing.

Um everything else we do is notice this falls on the front door.

Why would the snow is not being noticed?

We this is two times in a row now, they don't feel they were probably noticed because it's a public safety risk, it's it falls under um, there's an exception.

Um that was literally we we uh it this has come up um a few times now in previous uh uh appeals hearings.

Um when the issue or when it was um sorry I'm trying to think of the uh Mr.

Attorney Dobbs actually um gave some information about this previously, but there was a an exception to sidewalk snow violations that there is it uh it since it's a health or a public health risk, um, or safety risk that the violation just occurs instant instantly and it gets sent to contractor.

There's no like we can't wait for a letter to go out to the property owner, and even if we posted something on the property, it still needs to immediately go to um contractor.

There is no it's already past the 24 hour abatement window.

So way out there inspecting or taking the pictures, they can't drop the notice on the door?

They can, but it wouldn't.

I mean, that's we are required to send it to contractor immediately.

No, I'm just talking about the notes portion of it.

Yep.

And like I said, but it's a courtesy for sure.

But it it wouldn't it wouldn't affect whether the property was in violation or it went to contractor or any of the fees or anything like that.

It's it's kind of it's based on the the um the the way that it's it's spelled out for us to enforce.

We uh uh physical notice is not only not required, but it's not it, I mean that's not something we we stopped doing it, basically.

Mr.

Alderman Jackson may enter may or interject her with a quick question from Mr.

Brandon?

Mr.

Brandon, if they would go out and the sidewalk is cleared, so they get assessed a contractor fee.

The contractor fee would not be assessed, no.

That's what I have thought.

So the notice administrative fee would still exist that uh that's correct.

So the the inspection fee is uh it happens regardless of if there's a physical copy of something left at the at the property, and that's spelled out in the ordinance as well.

Would the administrative fee say the same if it was cleared?

I actually have that language.

I don't believe so.

I think that only happens if there's uh work done by the contractor.

Okay.

Uh as a result of uh the questions to Mr.

Brandon, do we have any follow-up questions from board members?

One question, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Yandel.

What ordinance are we looking at?

Is the first question, and then the second question is Is there any sort of uh snow depth requirement?

Can it be a quarter of an inch?

It has to be three inches.

Is there some depth of snow?

It's 116-8.

Sidewalks to be kept clean.

And there's no minimum depth.

It's literally fair pavement.

Standard.

So if there's just ice on it, it you know that it's it's slippery, it's icy, but it's hard to measure a depth there, it's still considered um it could be in violation.

Any further questions from Mr.

Brandon?

Uh Chase.

Do you have any do you have any questions?

Yeah, I have one more question.

Uh just in regards to uh kind of what the alderman had brought up and what you guys were talking about with the notices.

Um, like I had said, my neighbor did receive a notice, and he had time then to clear his sidewalk, and they didn't do anything.

So I mean, not saying again, but I I do think the notice gives that person time to take care of it.

So if I had seen a notice understanding that that was a problem, I could have taken care of it.

I think so noted.

I will say there was a notice on this property.

You can see it in the photos.

I do that.

In the picture of your house, there's a pink slip on your mailbox.

That's the notice.

Uh Mr.

Buzan, did you have some questions?

I might have cut you off, I wasn't sure because with this arrangement's a little bit more challenging than if we're in that room.

Mr.

President, I still haven't seen the photo of the mailbox with the notice.

I could find it for it.

Okay, thank you.

It's kind of flapping in the wind, but it's it's there.

Uh, I'm looking at the third inspection photo.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, I do see something in the mailbox.

Did you want to take a look at that?

Uh Chase.

I've been looking at it now.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, we are in committee.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Chase Hoffman.

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Chair, I have a problem with the linear footage.

On the inspection pictures, there is at least four squares that are empty.

Snow.

So what is your motion?

Um, I was supposed to say I did last time.

Inspection um, spectre fee and admin fee.

You want to waive the inspection fee and the administration fee?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I have a motion by Alderman Jackson to grant the appeal in part and deny and part deny in part.

The uh motion is that we would grant the contractor fee of 210 dollars, but we would uh not require the appellant to pay the fifty dollar inspection fee and the 75 dollar administration fee.

Do I have a second?

A second, a second by Miss Hammer.

Do we have any objections to that motion?

Very non-so ordered.

Chase, we granted your motion in part and denied in part, so you will not be required to pay the inspection fee or administration fee.

Awesome.

A written notice from us about the decision and your right to appeal.

And uh have a nice day and thank you for showing up for your hearing.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Happy rest of your day, guys.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna call the appeal of Shauna Tisdale.

Is Shauna with us this morning?

I believe she's online.

Hopefully, she can cue it up.

Let's cue her up.

Mr.

Chair, I apologize.

That's a different person.

I do not see Shauna.

Okay.

At this time it's 9 42 a.m.

This was scheduled for 9.

I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, motion to deny based on non-prosecution by appellant.

Okay, I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Any objections?

Very not so ordered.

Number four, the appeal of Susan Antani for snow removal fees at 3328th North Bremen Street.

Is Susan Antani with us?

Good morning.

Good morning, Miss Antani.

You've been watching our hearings.

I have this is very interesting and very informative.

Is uh Mr.

Brandon, are you going to be the witness for the city?

Okay, Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in to testify out, so that will hold for this.

Would you please raise your right hand?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon.

Mr.

Brandon, would you please proceed, sir?

Um for the address 33 29 North Bremen.

Uh this record was PWCF-26-01822.

On March 19th of 2026, the property was inspected and cited for uh sidewalk snow uh on the same day on March 19th, it was sent to contractor.

When the contractor showed up, the property was cleared.

So there was we consider that done by owner.

So the only fees associated with it with this is the $50 posting fee.

Um once again say that by ordinance um that stays regardless of if the property is cleared or not.

Um and included in this record are the um inspectors um inspection photos of the violation.

Okay, this was an uh just on a side note, this came up on a previous just the previous hearing.

So we can see that there's been no contractor fee, no administration fee, no tax, but the posting fee of $50 is what we're here today this morning.

As a result of Mr.

Brandon's testimony, do you have any questions of him, Miss Antani?

I only have two.

Uh I joined because this is the first time I've received anything like this at this property or any property.

Um the question is what time uh the pictures were taken.

And is this as in you mentioned in a similar um case?

Is was this called in by someone?

Are you able to answer that, Mr.

Brandon?

Yep.

Um it was uh complaint-based.

Um, so this would have been um it's anonymous, so uh an anonymous complaint was made.

Uh that's what initiated the inspection.

Um, I can find if if the exact time is something you would like, I can um look that up real quick for you.

But um it's not um I don't see yeah, I'm just gonna be curious.

I can certainly do that.

Yep.

If you just give me a one moment, please.

No worries.

Uh on a side note, Mr.

Antana Tani, I I think it was posted on that metal railing.

I see a pink slip there.

Did you see that photograph?

Uh I did.

My tenant sent me that photograph, which I sent back to you.

I just wanted to know if you I just wanted to know if you saw the photographs.

Yeah, I just don't think it has the time on it.

But maybe it did, so I'd have to look back at that.

Maybe it does.

No, it just says the date.

Uh yeah.

Sorry.

Um, so the complaint uh was made on March 17th, so two days prior.

Um, interesting.

Okay.

So, so and then the inspection was at.

Oh my gosh.

Come on.

Sorry, usually it says right here.

The 19th.

It makes sense.

Okay.

Okay, as a result of the testimony of Mr.

Brandon.

Any further questions, Miss Antani?

No further.

9 32 a.m.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, 9 32 a.m.

Yep.

That's on the 19th.

That's correct.

Any questions from board members of Miss Antani?

Okay, Miss Antani, there's your opportunity.

Did you want to add anything to your testimony or the questions that were put forth in the testimony of Mr.

Brandon?

Yeah, I mean, I have not really much else to add.

I can see that most of it was cleared from your pictures, and um by the time the tenant sent me pictures, there was no snow anywhere because it's 45 degrees that day.

Um I was joining mostly because I was curious as to why uh that why it was called in.

I had another trash call in on this house, so I think it's tenant neighbor related issue, and I would wanted to join just to find out more of the story.

So I really don't have any other questions.

Okay, we are not seeing I had not seen these pictures before until this morning.

Your pictures, uh I had only seen my pictures, so I logged in a couple weeks ago and they weren't there.

So we are we are in committee at this time.

I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Yandel.

I moved to deny the appeal.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny the appeal of the $50 posting fee.

Do I have a second?

Second, second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections to that motion?

Hearing none, so ordered Miss Antani.

I want to thank you for coming this morning.

We did deny the appeal, you'll have to pay the $50.

Um, if you have any problems with that, you'll be getting a written notice and it has your appeal rights contained within the notes.

Not a problem.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time I'm gonna call the appeal of David Golpke and Kip Menser.

Are either of these individuals with us this morning?

No, sir.

It is uh now 10 a.m.

This was scheduled for 9.

I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

Mr.

Chair, move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

A second, second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

We are now on the appeal of Jerry Lee Pate for Snow and Ice Removal Fees.

Is Jerry Lee Pate with us?

It is now 10 a.m.

I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

I move to deny for non-appearance.

A second, second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections to that?

Hearing none, so ordered.

We have the appeal of Scott Simon for snow and ice removal nuisance fees at 5700 West Stack Drive, the 11th automatic district.

Good morning, Mr.

Simon.

Good morning, everybody.

Have you had an opportunity to see the hearings prior to yours being called?

No, on here, yes.

Oh okay.

I just want to know.

Uh who will be testifying for the city?

Is it you, Mr.

Brandon?

And Mr.

Brandon, yep.

Mr.

Brandon has been previously sworn in to testify.

Mr.

Simon, would you please raise your right hand?

Do you sound the affirmative that hangs a penalties for perjury of the Senate Wisconsin?

That the testimony you're about to give is the truth, though, truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, Mr.

Simon.

I if I recall, were you the individual who alerted us to the fact that you had a lot of video footage?

Yes, that's me.

And what I what I recall is when I talked to our administrative assistant, Miss Polanco, that with that notice and with this request and with this room that we're in holding this here is because some somebody uh up was more important than one of these other hearing rooms.

I guess if you don't have an objection, we can still hear the case, but if you wanted to present all that evidence, this form would make it very difficult.

We could reschedule if you like.

Um, I don't know if I'll need to reschedule.

I can explain what's in the videos.

I could also show you on my phone if this is a decent chair.

Mr.

Simon, excuse my interruption, Mr.

Chair.

I have the videos that I can do a screen share for the committee to reveal.

And the videos that have also been uploaded to the file.

I was just about to say that.

I thought I gave them to Joanna.

Okay, that'd be great.

Uh yeah, uh, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

Uh to start out, uh, I just noticed that the uh the air, there's a heading error on here, it copied over the the previous um file number, uh, and it didn't change it over.

So um, but everything else is correct.

It's uh for file number two six zero five five.

Uh addresses fifty, seven hundred West Stack Drive.

This was for record PWCF-26-01915.

On March 18th, the property was inspected and cited for sidewalk snow violation.

On March 18th, it was sent to contractor for uh uh snow sidewalk snow abatement, and on March 18th, it was cleared by a city contractor.

The fees associated are $50 posting fee.

Um, the 210 contractor fee for 130 linear feet, um, 75 admin fee, 19.95 cents for tax, and a total of 354.95 cents.

Um attached is the inspection photo as well as the contractor's before and after photos um showing the front and sides of the properties.

That's it, okay.

Uh Mr.

Simon, do you have any questions from Mr.

Brandon?

Uh yes, I do.

So it it has already been brought up by the previous appellant uh about the timestamp photos versus the white whiteboard photos, and in the inspector photos, there is a timestamp on it.

Um, but then my question is because there's no time stamp photo on the actual contractor's photos, and they use a whiteboard and they actually write on it with the dry erase marker.

Is it possible for the contractor to put a different time and date on there other than what it actually was?

I'm sorry, uh surely it's possible.

Um it would be I mean, kind of giving you uh a sense of what uh we see on our end.

Uh we saw the violation, we sent it to a contractor.

The very next day we get the before and after photos.

So even if the whiteboard isn't exact, it's clearly clearly your property with the snow uh still still on it from the same snow event.

Okay, but which would hold up better from an evidence standpoint.

I mean, I'm not an attorney, you're not an attorney, but which would hold up better from an evidence standpoint.

Um timestamp photos or whiteboard photos on a determined time.

Still think they're both sufficient, but uh we could look at the metadata on their photos as well.

Okay, well, I mean, if you can look at the data, why wouldn't they just use that then on the contractor's photos and have it timestamped or something instead of the whiteboard?

I know you're definitely it's kind of irrelevant.

I I I don't, you know.

So, so what and you said this before, but what happens when it like a contractor shows up in the sidewalk is clean?

Usually there's not a they have to take photos.

They will take photos, and if there's no snow there, there's nothing that they can charge us for work.

So we uh resolve the record as done by owner, and then there's a $50 posting fee associated.

Okay, next question is if a kid if a city contractor or a contractor was there, was really there from 8 43 p.m.

to 8 59 pm on the on March 18th, as is being alleged.

Um why did nothing show up on the tenant's ring camera, which is motion activated.

There was no activity out by that sidewalk area, which would as is seen in one of the videos is clearly visible.

If there had been activity during that time frame, I can't I can't uh uh I wouldn't know about your ring camera, how it's set up, where it's pointed, what it's acting you know.

Well, the videos that I show the the three videos that are ring camera videos uh that are included in the file.

The first one shows the initial walking from the garage area, and I'm not sure how they're numbered in the file, but there's one where my tenant is walking from the garage with his shovel, and it's not close up, obviously, but you can see him walking.

The area of concern that is the spot that was that was needing to be cleared or allegedly cleared is right beyond that fence, kind of towards that yellow garage across the street.

So that's the area of sidewalk.

So that's him going out, and that's the time frame.

Um, and then the other ring camera or the next the next video shows him meeting with the other tenant that I have because his shovel had broken and he actually went and borrowed their shovel then.

So that's the second video just showing that.

I don't know if you want to bring that up or not.

You know, I mean, and yeah, so that's the other tenant borrowing her or taking her shovel to him by the fence.

And it and the timestamps is 6 50 p.m.

at that one.

If I'm seeing it correctly, yep, 1850.

So that's when he's out there, that's when they're exchanging shovels, and then the last video from the ring cam shows him setting the shovel down, which we said he set it over the fence to give it back to the tenant just to indicate that he had finished.

So his time of finishing was um 708 pm.

That's that last when he sets the shovel down.

So that that angle right there would have picked up, and then if you there's another ring cam footage that shows tenants leaving then at 709, and um, I guess that's just I guess that's just part of the question is why would that not have shown if the city was out there or if a contractor was out there doing stuff?

Why would that not have shown on the motion activation of the ring camera?

You kind of already answered it.

You don't have to, I'm just bringing that up for the record.

Uh, next question would be why was I cited 210 for 121 to 180 feet for clearance linear feet?

When the video evidence that I did include of me pacing it off clearly shows that it's about 100 feet.

It was measured.

Um, I can send you uh the uh measurements, um, but it was measured.

It also goes you would have to go because you have a corner property, you go to the bound you the actual physical uh or not physical, but the um property line on each side and all the way to the street on the corner because you have to open up that sidewalk.

Well, that was also your the other tenant clears cleared that part of it.

The before photos show nothing was clear.

Your before photos start do not start all the way to the corner, though.

They start from that the edge of uh hold on, Mr.

Simon.

You're arguing.

No, okay.

I'm just saying that, but the question is to testify it's it's it's a question and answer period.

Okay, my question is why was I assessed like about 20?

It's not like it was five feet, give or take, it was a good 20 feet extra from what I pasted off.

And I have footage, and I also have video footage from when I actually took a tick measure, but I wasn't able to provide that.

Hold on a second, Mr.

Simon.

Mr.

Yandel.

I think that the question is argumentative, and I don't know that we've I I hear questions based on alleged evidence that hasn't been entered in as evidence based on him walking around.

I I guess I just don't see the relevance of all this.

I think the question needs to be a little bit more pointed to Mr.

Brannon.

How is the linear footage calculated?

I think that's a question.

Mr.

Brandon, are you able to answer how the linear footage was calculated?

We use the Milwaukee County GIS uh maps and we use the measuring tool, which is just great linear footage, and we measure the from property line to the sidewalk, and or uh property line to the street on one end, and then property line to the street on the other end, and we subtract one of those where they overlap.

Well, let me do a follow-up question here.

If you well, Mr.

Yandell.

So, in other words, um, if there is 20 feet, that is doesn't need clearing, that still would go into calculation on the contractor fee.

Did you hear the question, Mr.

Brown?

Because I didn't hear any answer.

It got very loud, I couldn't hear it.

Well, okay.

What I'm saying is that after you did this calculation, if a portion of that has been cleared, that still is charged as the linear feet for that property.

It is charged for the linear feet of the property.

Uh well, what I'm saying is he says 20 feet was cleared.

Sure.

And he got charged for the whole he got charged for a portion of it that didn't need to be cleared.

Well, I'm not saying 20 feet was cleared, I'm just saying that the measurements were didn't add up to 121 feet that I have.

So that's yeah, for some reason, we're getting a lot of interference.

I don't know.

Any further questions, Mr.

Simon of Mr.

The last one is do city inspectors often um wound up or exaggerate or footage.

The inspector wouldn't be necessarily the one that uh calculates that.

Uh, this is in tandem with a forestry technician, and there would be.

I mean, honestly, if there was any rounding, it would be rounding down, they wouldn't they would never round up.

Um, but it would be like if it's 131 feet, they might say it's 130 feet, but that's just because there's always that amount of like there could be a mouse click error um of a foot, but never 10 feet, never 20 feet, anything like that.

Yeah, Mr.

Simon.

Any further questions?

I think the questions any questions from board members of Mr.

Brandon.

Yeah, just try a quick question.

Um, I feel like I remember there being some type of provision.

If there was ice on this sidewalk that it was salted, that that would meet the requirement for clearing or am I mistaken about that?

Well, what I understand what the testimony previous is was that they go right down to the bare cement.

Okay, if there's ice, there's clearing that has to be done.

Okay, that's correct.

Uh any further questions.

Uh Mr.

Brad, Mr.

Simon, it's now your opportunity to tell us about your appeal.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um, so our our tenants know at the property there that it's it's in their lease that they are responsible for snow removal, and there's never been an issue with them at this address or any of our properties in getting their snow removal duties done.

We received the letter at our main residence detailing the violation and the fine that we had been assessed the 354 95, and the approximate day we received the letter was in early April.

Um, the letter letter was dated March 25th, 2026.

So upon receiving the letter, we were shocked to say the least, and we had a lot of back and forth with the city about like which number to call who to talk to.

Like this was the first we had heard anything about the violation.

So I tried explaining that there was no warning, no problem mentioned from the tenants.

So why did I receive the bill?

We were about to leave on a family vacation right at that time out of town.

Otherwise, I would have done more of this detective work before leaving.

But I decided to send in the check for the payment just to make sure it wasn't later, and it met the deadline of 30 days.

I believe you guys already have that and cached it.

And then upon returning from vacation, I finally was able to speak with the tenants further, who were also busy and out of town before around the time that I sent the check-in, and then new information at that time had come to light.

So the tenants swore that they did the snow removal that day.

March the 18th, and I trust them just because we never had any issues with them.

I have no reason not to.

They split it up.

One tenant does one part, one tenant does the other.

One of the tenants was very ill in bed that day and had not done their portion yet.

And then a small posted, this is what I'm preparing for this now, was put on the door, so there was a notification put on the door at 1 32 p.m.

on 3 18.

And that's per Nicole Walter, the city employee.

She explained that once posted, the property is is already in violation, which I'm not arguing that.

I haven't gone back into the weather history records to look and see if when the snowfall actually ended, but I'm not going to argue that part.

Um but the post it was put at 1 32 p.m.

Our one tenant removed it when they got home from work to post it because they had already done their part, and then the other tenant was just told and got out there and did it, and that was the one you see in the videos.

So even though very ill, he got outside and finished the portion in question that is in violation between the times in the ring camera's footage of 6 46 p.m.

and 7 08 p.m.

on 3 18.

So ring camera footage with this time stamps that we have in the video confirms that that the tenants set the shovel down at 7 08 pm.

So the city is saying that the contractor and they uh heard called Walter, his name was Jason, was there that same night at 8 43 p.m.

to clear the sidewalk?

Problem here is that the city's pictures they have, and we already went over this.

Have the whiteboard with the dry erase on it, and it's just written simply.

And I don't know if that's if that's all they always have done it, but I don't think that really qualifies as a very like evidence-based like this is legit or not.

But the pics at that time showed a sidewalk not cleared and and or not shoveled.

So they have pictures, yes, of like a not cleared and then a post picture cleared.

Uh, but again, it's written on finished 8 59 pm, not digital time stamped, just dry erase written on the whiteboard.

So the obvious question is how would the picture showing an uncleared sidewalk be possible at 8 43 p.m.

if my tenants had just gotten out there and done it at 7 08.

Next bit of evidence would be the ring cameras.

Once again, they are a motion activated system.

So cars drive by, they turn on record, people walk by, they turn on record.

The ring camera footage has the activity from the tenants during that time frame.

But then the tenants leaving the house is also at 7 09 p.m.

motion activated, and then the next recorded motion was a vehicle at 9 06 p.m.

So there was zero activity or motion recorded between the times of 7 09 and 9 06 p.m., which then that also includes that time frame of the 8 43 to 9 to 8 59 window when the city is allegedly saying they're there.

I had also asked to speak with the contractor that did the work.

I just wanted to know, like, hey, look legit.

Nicole Walter said that Jason was his name, had been there to do it, and she said she would have him give me a call, and then I never received a call from Jason.

So aside from that, I mean we already talked about the footage.

I don't think the footage is relevant if they weren't actually there to do the work, but the footage I think we were over-assessed on footage.

That was the other thing where I have the video evidence of just pacing it off, and it's like it's nowhere near 121 feet.

It's around 100, maybe 105 at most.

And um, I don't believe that's like I said, as relevant, it's mostly just the time frame that they're saying they're there, so that's why we appeal.

That's why um I included the fee.

That's why I don't think we have a problem with the administrative if we're already in violation.

Yeah, unless that's all that can be done.

But I think in this case, there's a there's a huge question mark as to were they actually there because the footage and the ring camera evidence is just not there for them being in that in that space at that time frame.

Okay, is there any questions from board members of Mr.

Simon?

Okay, we're in committee.

At this time, I will hand the mic over to Mr.

Yandell because I'd like to make a motion.

I'll take uh I will take the gavel, Mr.

Chair.

You can make a motion.

Okay, at this time I I would make a motion to grant in part the appeal of Mr.

Simon at the denial part.

I would grant his appeal to uh not be responsible for the 210 dollar contractor fee, but that he would be responsible for the 50 posting fee, administrative fee, and any associated tax.

Okay, we have a motion by uh uh for uh granting in part and denying in part.

Uh Mr.

Simon would be responsible for the posting and admin fee and taxes, but we would grant the appeal as the contractor fee.

Do we have a second?

A second.

We have a second from Miss Hammer.

Uh, do we have any objections?

None so ordered, I'll pass back the gavel to uh attorney Bobbin.

Mr.

Simon, we grant that your appeal in part and denied in part.

You'll not be required to pay the contractor fee due to the evidence that you submitted to the board for our decision.

Thank you very much.

I did have one question.

If I already paid and sent in the check, though initially, like I said, because I just didn't want it to be late.

How does that work?

Then with the city, is it gonna be a refund check or Miss Joanne?

Are you able to answer that question or do you need to further research that question?

The only payment that our office receives is the $25 administrative fee for the appeal.

If he's paid any other fees to other departments, um, I'm afraid Mr.

Simon would have to reach out to those departments because I'm not aware of their processes.

Okay, I'll double check, but I could have sworn the check was cashed, so um, I'll double check on that, I guess.

Well, I think we also I think we also have to notify the city treasurer because if anything is remitted, they would be the one doing so.

Uh Joanna, could you please check into that for Mr.

Simon?

Mr.

Simon, are you asking about the 25 for the fee for your appeal?

No, uh the actual 354.95 cents for that for the citation.

Because like I said, we were leaving on a family vacation, and I just I didn't want to the one-month lap the time frame would have lap or would have come while we were on vacation.

So I just sent the check in like before I had gotten all this evidence from the tenants.

So, okay.

I will research into it and then I'll get back to you with more info, okay?

Okay.

Yeah, I have your email.

Thank you very much.

We'll be here.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Simon.

Uh, like you said, your check you believe has been cashed.

Double check on that as well.

I will do it.

Yep.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh, we have number eight, the appeal of Anthony Jones for garbage and litter nuisance fees.

3268 North 34th Street.

Uh, Mr.

Jones, are you with us?

Yes, John, he's here in the room.

He's coming up to the table.

Good morning, Mr.

Jones.

Good morning, young man.

How you doing?

Good.

Thank you for being patient.

We are now calling your case.

Who will be testifying on behalf of the city?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Laurie Gallup, Department of Neighborhood Services.

Okay, would you please both raise your right hands to be sworn in by my our clerk?

Do you sell the information of the paints and penalties or perjury?

The Senate of Wisconsin that the testimony you both are about to give is a truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes.

I do.

Okay.

Miss Gallup, you may proceed.

Uh we are here for their solid waste violation that was issued on the property at 3268 North 25th Street.

Uh our violation order number is GBG C O-26-0037.

Uh we did issue the violation on February 27th of 26.

In your packet, we have provided you with the detailed breakdown of the charges.

Uh we did have a contractor fee uh that the city occurred of $613.

We had an administration charge of $120, and then a IT surcharge of $11.73.

Uh part of your packet uh does show a posting at the property.

It also does give you the hard copy of the order that actually is mailed out uh the same day, and then the photographs of my inspector dated February 27th, along with the posting of it on the door.

Uh and then at that point in time, we did send this out for contractor.

Uh you will see the photos of before uh very large amount of debris was at the property.

Uh, and then the after photographs showing that the property was free and clear of any scattered litter debris or solid waste.

Okay, Mr.

Jones, have you had an opportunity to view the photographs that the city presented to us?

Yes, okay.

Uh, do you have any questions of the city's witness?

Yes.

Well, I don't have any questions.

The fact that uh I've owned that property for 20 years.

I've never not paid a city ticket or fine or what like that.

Only reason I came out here today because I've been there since nine o'clock.

So maybe the party, my disabled, I'm 65 years old.

And I came today because the bill was 700.

And if you did you see any photos of my son, it's supposed to submit it for my proof of the yard being cleaned with different dates.

Did you get that?

I I didn't have any evidence for me about the yard that was being cleaned.

I took photos or something like that.

I only think I do with these phones, hello goodbye.

I'm from the old school, so all this technology, I'm gonna try to do what you're doing on here, but I probably want to got disconnected.

So I came on out here with my wife, been married for 43 years.

I've lived in 50206 for 50 years.

So Mayor Johnson always talking about he covered 500.

I'm still in 506.

Okay, bullet holes in the house and everything else.

I called in one time from a couch, stole by my garage and the city.

I said, I don't know who dumped the couch.

It made me pay for it because I called it in.

It's a couch.

Uh if you look at my property, I live on North 21st Street, 06.

I got two vacant properties on both sides.

My problem is section eight.

Since I back at home, only thing I did with was section eight tenants.

The last tenants there was section eight.

And when they don't get their way, they get married to tenant and throw stuff in the yard.

Why would I keep dumping stuff in my yard if I know the city's gonna charge me to pay it up?

I've never not paid a city fine.

You can look at my record.

I'm not late on no bills, I'm not late on no property, anything they sent me, I just pay pink slip, green snip.

Because I know I section eight tenants is, and that should be a law right there.

It should be some kind of punishment for the tenant that don't abide by the rules.

I was talking about bad landlords.

Every landlord is not bad, including me.

So I think I should be weighed a whole 700 just based on my history.

You can look at the five.

I've never not paid a city fine.

My property tax is up to date.

I own nobody nothing.

City water bills are going up, but we know how to get to ears, so you should take it out on good pay and landlord.

Like the guy was saying here earlier.

I know what you said.

He said, Hey, look at my ranking.

You can go buy landlords and be the good landlord, not just buying the city fine.

It's not a barata properties, or that I'm spending money right now, I just spent two thousand dollars renewing the house from the last tents.

I got different pictures on my phone right now where they tore up the whole house.

If you tell a uh person that the city's paying their rent, they're paying a rent, they can't keep the house clean, no drugs, no dog.

They don't care about that.

You rent a property out to one person, you got a whole country living in your house.

And you know, they know the police ain't coming to the ghetto, so they do what they want to do.

Okay, Miss McCoy's Mr.

Jones, I have several questions for you, if I may.

Okay, how long did you know that all that garbage was in a rear portion of your rental unit?

When I came when the city sent me the ticket, the tickets are telling me they got a lot of second.

Did you make any effort to clean up that garbage?

Yes, I have.

I paid people that's working on the house to clean it up.

And then the people next door cut through more trash on it because they're mad, they're angry.

Matter of fact, if you go back, you can see where I called in the next door neighbors, got picked bulls running loose.

He let this dog come into my yard, shit, and then go back home and clean it up.

Okay, Mr.

Jones.

Did you have a security deposit for the rental of your your unit?

Yes.

The damage of the house, how much was the security deposit?

1200.

Did you couldn't you have used some of that 1200 to help remove all that garbage there?

Sir, the house was damaged so bad.

It cost me five thousand dollars just for that.

So the security deposit is very minimal, and they know that.

So you're telling me if I get kicked out of your house for 1,200, 900, whatever the rent is, I leave all my shit in your house, you clean it up.

Every single house, it's been section eight tenants.

Okay.

Every one of them did the same thing.

I don't know why.

I'm just saying, why would I keep paying people to clean up trash on all these children with 1200 for rent?

The water building is got high, uh, property taxes got high.

Everything is coming up on some income.

Okay, Mr.

Jones.

Mr.

Jones, hold on a second.

As a result of my question to Mr.

Jones and the testimony of Ms.

Hammer, do other board members have any questions of Mr.

Jones?

Okay, Mr.

Jones, we're in committee.

I do have a question, Mr.

Chair.

Is that Mr.

Yandel?

Yes.

Yeah, what is your question?

I just want to make sure I understood the testimony.

So I see a picture here by the city of a lot of trash in the backyard.

And was it correct that Mr.

Jones said that he got the notice?

Or Mr.

Jones, I'm sorry, is it correct to say that you got the notice?

You had it all cleared, and then there was more stuff.

Uh there you go.

There you go.

You got it right.

You got it right.

I got the dates on my phone right now.

The people that tore my house up so bad because no punishment.

All they gotta do is go to another landlord, Section 8.

Section 8 gives the clock people, they never find the tenants.

They never find the tenants.

Like the guy put on them tires out there with Tonya.

I've been in those six all my life.

And this is why I got the picture of everybody knows report.

If you can let the mayor of the city know, please.

But people to run around with the right lights on, go to 100 miles an hour.

I can't believe it'll have a couple policemen.

This is all you do.

Why would you rather have the bright lights on?

Even bus drivers and policemen ride around.

When the police got behind you, that was the bright lights.

Now everybody's riding off their bright lights on a hundred miles an hour.

If you don't believe me, come out at nighttime and you'll see.

It's ridiculous.

We're not that bad of a shape.

Y'all was talking about Juneteenth, Summer Fest.

Hey man, stop these kids.

Make a punishment.

500 fine.

You got the right lights on, eight boys beyond.

That's like a missile, and you come in there for you.

What are you supposed to do?

I think somebody crashed and wrecks.

There's no punishment.

Oh, okay.

Okay, hold on a second.

Any further questions of Mr.

Jones?

Mr.

Chair, you need some clarification.

I have two different addresses.

I have 60 3268, North 25th, and 3268 North 31st.

Which one is the correct answer?

25th.

25th.

Any further questions of Mr.

Jones?

We're in committee.

At this time, we'll entertain a motion regarding the appeal of Anthony Jones.

Mr.

Chair, I apologize.

Um, did we have testimony?

Uh did Mr.

Jones submit any evidence that he paid anybody to do this work.

Uh not that I heard during testimony.

Okay.

I paid people, I had contracts coming over there right now.

I got videos in my phone trying to set it down to you and all that.

I couldn't do all that stuff.

But I paid people, that's why I said that my son sent you any pictures.

You have any pictures from there's a picture in the file.

Okay.

You see the date on that?

What's the date on that file?

Does it show the date?

I don't think it did.

Don't show the date.

Just one, right?

But I have no reason to lie about any of the stuff.

I've been there all my life, man.

I've been on 21st Street for 50 years.

But I went when I moved to 21st, white people still live in the neighborhood.

I bet you not one white person now we're near the neighborhood because we're the worst city in America, oh, six.

Well, I'm still there.

I got a bullet hole in my house.

Just walk into the house.

I can show you right now.

But I get tired of here in the realm.

Well, Mr.

Jones, we want you to stay there.

And this problem that you are being billed for is not new to the city of Milwaukee.

We have a great deal of anonymous people dumping things, but in this particular case, I'm gonna comment that it looks like a lot of the refuse was from your tenant that you told us had vacated and caused you all of these problems.

Any further questions of Mr.

Jones?

Okay, we're again we're in committee.

I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, uh where is Alderman Jackson?

Where's the fee located?

Where's the what?

The fee, the amount that he's being charged.

Uh Ms.

Gallup, what is the amount of the fee?

The total amount is $744.73.

And could you break down that cost for us?

The city occurred a contractor removal fee of $613, our normal administration fee of $120, and then the IT technical surcharge that's applied of $11.73.

Does that help you, Mr.

Jackson?

Okay, uh, yes, Mr.

Chair.

I was trying to look at the numbers and see the best way to cut it in half.

I know that we could have waived the administration fee and the IT fee, and as you can see, with my prior motion on the case, I move to grant the entire removal of the contractor fee because of evidence that was submitted to us that led me to believe that maybe it was remediated versus then incurring a contractor fee.

But that motion is up to you.

Oh, yes, sir.

Whatever way the best cutter they have, total.

I'm looking to do that.

Well, what is your motion, sir?

Motion to cut everything in half.

Hey, no.

So your motion is out of seven hundred and forty four dollars and seventy-three cents.

We hold him liable for half of that, and which would be three hundred and seventy-two dollars basically.

Yes, sir.

Okay, I have a motion by Alderman Jackson to grant the appeal in part and deny it part.

My understanding is that the fee of 744.73 cents would be cut in half.

So it would be roughly 372.

That would be taken off of the 744.

Do I have a second?

Chair?

Mr.

Yandell.

I I I want to second it, but I I think that there needs to be some clarification, and I'd ask Mr.

Jackson if he would uh consider uh modifying that motion to uh random pardon denying part, grant as to the admin fee, the tech fee, and whatever the difference is in the contractor fee that would get us to 372.

So we're clear on where the where the where the money is being see what you said.

Um so if we if we eliminate the IT fee, the administration fee, that would get us there, and then the difference would only be maybe like 100 bucks for our contractors.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think it makes it a lot clearer on what we're doing that the current contractor fee is going to be reduced slightly, but much of the reduction is gonna come from well, not much, but some of it's gonna come from elimination of the admin and IT fee.

So do you second Mr.

Yendell if that he amends his motion?

I think we're we're talking about 241 dollars uh reducing the contractor fee by 241 dollars and then eliminating the admin and tech fee is uh what I'm suggesting.

Is that your motion, Mr.

Jack?

Alderman Jackson?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I have a motion by Alderman Jackson, seconded by Mr.

Yandell to waive the administrative fee to waive the IT fee and grant that motion, and then to then reduce the contractor fee, eliminate $141 dollars.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

$141.

Okay, do I any objection?

Hearing on so order.

Ms.

Polanco, did you understand what we did?

I got the motion, sir.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Jones, we granted your motion in part and denied in part.

Did you understand the motion that was approved?

Yeah, you're gonna leave me with one leg.

Go take one leg and keep one.

I got it.

Yeah, that that's pretty accurate.

You've been you've been listening.

Don't take much.

Thank you for coming, Mr.

Jones.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Everybody have a great day.

At this time, we're gonna call the appeal of Nicole Tanner for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3621 North Detonia.

Is Nicole Tanner with us?

She is not.

Okay, if this matter was scheduled for 10 a.m.

It is now 1028.

Do I have a motion?

I mean, it was set for 9 30.

I'm sorry.

Do I have a motion?

Chairman.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandau.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second, is that Mr.

Brusan?

Yes.

Okay, any objection?

Hearing non so ordered.

We are now on the appeal of Jordan Solinski.

Is Mr.

Sewinski with us?

At this time I'll obtain a uh entertain a motion for non-appearance.

There moved to deny for non-appearance.

A motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Any objections?

Hearing none so ordered.

I have the appeal of Stephen Brick.

Care of POCO 14LLC for garbage and litter nuisance fee.

3121 North 29.

Mr.

Brick, are you with us?

I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

Move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections?

It is now.

1030.

It was set for 9:30.

So order hearing no objections.

We have the appeal of Sean Hillary.

Encroachment nuisance fees is 6355 North 105.

Is Sean Hillary with us?

Yes.

Where are you, Sean?

I'm in right here.

Good morning, Mr.

Hillary.

And who will be testifying for the city?

Uh Mr.

Brandon has been sworn in.

Would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in?

This is only a promotion of payments and penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin.

And the testimony you're about to give is the truth, that'll truth and not be not the truth.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Brandon, you may proceed.

The address at 6355 North 105th Street.

This record was PWCF-25-09843.

Um November 19th, 2025, the property was inspected and cited um for a low-hanging uh branch that was obstructing the public right-of-way.

Um January 8th, 2026.

It was uh reinspected after uh the letter had gone out and uh homeowner was given time to uh abate the um right-of-way violation was still in violation at that time.

It was sent to contractor um on the same day on February 19th, 2026.

It was cleared by contractor.

We worked with a uh forestry or uh I'm sorry, an um uh tree care company on this uh to get the the limb removed, and so that's the reason for the the delay in getting them out there.

We had to um solicit some bids and uh send it out to uh uh tree care company there for uh encroachments like this, there is no posting fee.

Uh there's a $525 contractor fee, a $50 admin fee, and $36.75 for tax.

The total is six hundred and eleven dollars and seventy-five cents.

Uh included with this are the uh inspection photos that show the violation, as well as the contractors before and after photos um when Dorshack Dorshock Dorkshack landscaping or tree care specialist went out to remove the limb.

Um I also attached their invoice since it was uh uh bid amount that we uh had to go with, it was the lowest bid amount, Mr.

Hillary.

Have you had an opportunity to view the photographs for submitted to us by the city?

Yes, okay.

As a result of the testimony of Mr.

Brandon, do you have any questions for him?

Um, yes, this was my first hearing about the um the reinspection.

So I've never um when I've asked before about whether or not was reinspected, I was told that that didn't happen.

So this is my first hearing that it was reinspected.

So um the other question, the question I have for you is that do you have any record that I called into the city to report that it was abated because I had I submitted my phone record on the 24th, the same day that I received the the notice of the encroachment.

I actually, as soon as I got it, I went out there and I cut the branch that they described, and then I called into the city to say it was abated, and I don't know at what point it might give the testimony, but um after I called in to let them know that it was removed several months later.

I see a crew out there cutting the tree.

Well, hold on, Mr.

Hillary.

Let's let them answer the first question that you gave to him.

I do see the record um that you contacted the city.

You had some questions you wanted to say that you uh did the work that you were able to do.

I spoke to the technician that um the forestry technician that was responsible for uh this uh encroachment all the way through.

His name is uh forestry technician Andy Gearens.

He informed me that he did speak to you or speak to a homeowner there multiple times.

Um, explained what needed to be done, was there on site when the crew was there removing the tree, spoke to the homeowner at the time, and according to what I was told by the forestry technician, he said the homeowner said, Well, that seems like a pretty fair price.

So that's all the information I have.

Any further questions, Mr.

Hillary?

No, I don't think I pretty much is the testimony of um the reason why I was disputing it, but I don't have any other uh questions.

As a result of the questions and testimony of Mr.

Brandon.

Do any board members have questions for him?

Okay, uh Mr.

Uh Hillary, this is now your opportunity to provide any testimony regarding your appeal to us.

Okay, so the reason why I was appealing this is because um on the 24th, I received a notice, and the notice was specific on what I needed to do.

Um, there was a branch that hung down that you can see larger vehicles or clipping.

So in the instruction, it said remove the lowest branch.

So I removed the lowest branch, called into the city to let them know that it was taken care of, and that was on the 24th, and I submitted my phone record.

Um to the city of Milwaukee for seven minutes on the 24th after I had cut the branch that they had described.

So at that point, I thought it was a done deal.

So at some point in February, I believe it was.

They said they had an order to do it.

So I explained to them that I had already removed the branch that was described, but they were taking the larger branch, which was higher.

So even when I removed the branch that they described, I measured from the ground up to the other branch, and it was it was just above 14 feet.

So the clearance was supposed to be 14 feet.

The branch that was lower was probably um maybe nine feet off the ground.

So it was something that fire trucks and delivery trucks were clipping, and it was obvious, but the branch, the main branch above it, had a clearance of greater than 14 feet.

It was like maybe 14 feet three inches, which was enough to me to satisfy your clearance issue.

So I removed the low-hanging branch.

Once again, I called in, I showed the record that I called in, the crew's there.

So when I'm asking the crew why they're there, they explained to me that the city, um, they were contractor, and I explained it, you know, I'm not upset with you.

Um I understand why you're here.

So then I called the city again and he sent the inspector out.

So they had already removed a lot of the branches.

So the inspector, I I that's when I had asked him about whether or not Solan came out, and he did not indicate to me, nor did he give me any impression that they had reinspected past the phone call.

And I even asked, I said, Do you have any record of me calling in?

And he said that they don't record that, so then I showed him my phone record, and he explained to me that he believed me that I called in.

So my issue with him was that if I called in and you did a reinspection, you would have seen I removed the branch that you described.

So in his email, his concession was that he asked for the administrative fee to be waived, which I don't think happened, but from what I got from him, he understood my dilemma, and he told me about the um my appeal rights for it.

So my main thing is that I did what I was asked to do.

When the contractor came out, they went, they did not measure that lend that was there, they just saw the limb that was going over the street and cut it.

So there's no record of them actually measuring that branch before they cut it.

They just removed the branch because it was over the street.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Brennan, I got a quick question for you.

I have done a detailed survey of the photos.

Now that one branch that's hanging over the street.

Is that the branch in question that is unpacking traffic flow?

Sounds like he's testifying there was another branch that he removed that was lower than that one.

I have the field report that was mailed out.

Um it is to remove the lowest branch over the road to provide required 14 foot clearance for emergency vehicles.

The lowest branch is the one that's still present.

Um it's the branch going all the way back to the tree.

It wasn't like just uh a few hanging branches off of that.

Well, that branch that's on the before photo, the one that's going over the street is a violation.

Absolutely.

Okay, so the the photos that I submitted, um, I've actually um I circled them.

So I don't know if you have those ma'am, but they do.

Okay, I submitted photos of the branch that was hanging down.

That's being clicked by the cars.

Those pictures should be part of the appeal package.

So I actually highlighted those branches that were the vehicles were hitting, but isn't that the same branch that we're talking about?

You see what I mean?

The branch that you highlighted is the one they say is in violation.

I clarify it.

He's pointing to there's two different highlights.

There's a brown highlight and a white highlight.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's okay.

Okay, so the brown highlight is the one that they cut.

The white highlight is the one that was clipping the vehicles.

So that's the one I removed.

That was the lowest branch.

That when they described, so you go out there, there's that branch that's highlighting white.

That was the vehicles are clipping.

So that other branch, if vehicles were clipping that you see, it would be damaged.

So that branch is not doesn't have any indications being hit by cars.

The one in brown, the one that they cut.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I just can't find a brown highlighted one in my packet.

So the one is the main line, so they cut the the thickest, heaviest branch that's above the street that's going into the street.

Mr.

Chair, the picture by Mr.

He's referring to it's part of you have to open up the attachment on his appeal.

And the picture is like what number page is.

Thank you.

Page five exhibit A.

Under the under the appeal attachment of the file.

I have I have page five, but I'm looking at with the with the white highlight.

Yeah.

Where's the brown though?

The brown passage.

Just above the white highlight.

That the brown highlight is where is the branch that I'm referring to that they cut that's higher than 14 feet.

So even if you look at the white um highlighted, it forms a it's perpendicular to the the brown branch.

The I probably shouldn't have done it in brown.

Yeah, the brown doesn't come up too well on my photo.

Okay, well, it's still the per it's the it's the branch that's perpendicular to the road, or parallel to the road, and the white is perpendicular to the road.

Okay.

Any further questions from board members?

Oh yes, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Mr.

Brennan, did they measure again when they went out?

Or they just went out with an order.

Is that for me?

I didn't hear who you were talking about.

Did they measure again when they went out, or they just went out with the order?

The contractor?

Yes, sir.

They the technician was on site and literally pointed out the tree that he measured or the branch that he measured, but they didn't measure it.

Mr.

Brandon, I have a question for you.

I know uh sometimes in the tall grass complaints that we have that the tech will go out there and they'll bring like a measuring stick and they'll show that the grass is over eight inches.

Uh is there, or does the city have a similar requirement for contractors who are removing branches?

If it's supposed to be 14 feet, I don't see anything by either party showing 14 feet.

Um this one was kind of a unique case because typically when we're talking about encroachments, we're talking about bushes or um, you know, herbaceous vegetation that's growing into say an alley or a sidewalk.

So whenever we uh go into like the street encroachments, um it gets a little bit it it doesn't it's not gonna follow the same, you know, have a ruler necessarily showing the the the feet, also with uh 14 feet of clearance um we recommend cutting it back to 14 feet so that it's most uh heavy trucks and emergency vehicles are able to pass through especially uh trucks with a a bucket like uh a lift truck um but the ordinance states that it must be free uh and clear of traffic it doesn't state 14 feet that's something we did as more of a a catch all so that's why we don't really get into the weeds of putting a measuring stick on 14 feet if it's 14 feet one inch it could still clip a vehicle so it just needs the ordinance is it needs to be free uh uh and passable for all vehicles my challenge here is is you know the the challenge is when you get specific then people have specific expectations when you say it's a catch all then that that doesn't necessarily put people on notice for what they're supposed to do my other concern is that there's no measurements because the letter is specific it says 14 feet um there's nothing by the contractor showing that it's 14 feet there's nothing by the the homeowner showing that it was above 14 feet but we do have testimony by the homeowner and we don't have any testimony by uh an agent of the city who is present to confirm that it was actually a feet jackson did you have a question on Mr.

Brandon um I'm aligning with um with attorney candil is saying I'm looking at the truck that's here and there is clearance where the tree is at so without without having a measurement I I'm almost inclined to leave with the homeowner if it's 14 feet I'm looking at it there is just look at the truck that's in the picture there is clearance and that truck has a lift on it a bucket on it so okay any further questions of uh Mr.

Brandon or the appellant Mr.

Hillary we are in committee I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Sean Hillary Chair Mr.

I would move to grant the appeal and I'll just specifically say that this is a a little bit of a challenging one for me.

I I think that the city hasn't quite met its burden um they didn't have any testimony here to or any evidence demonstrate that the branch that they cut was you know 14 feet below 14 feet the notice says 14 feet we have sworn testimony that he cut down everything that was below 14 feet and that the remaining branch was above 14 feet i think just based on the the evidence we have I have to grant the appeal based on those facts do we have a motion by Mr.

to grant the appeal of Sean Hillary do I have a second I'll second I have a second by Miss Hammer is there any objections to that motion hearing non so order Mr.

Hillary we granted your appeal you will not have to pay any money to the city thank you you're welcome at this time I'm gonna call the appeal of John Wesley McFrost is Mr.

Frost with us this morning yes sir of John Wesley Frost for reinspection fees at 8068 north 107th street and who is going to appear for the city I am Mr.

Bob and Peter Laritson DNS good morning Mr.

Larison and good morning Mr Frost would you close please both raise your right hand to be sworn in there's only a permit dependent penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin does it testimony you're about to give is a truth level truth and nothing but the truth yes.

Okay, for some reason I can't see Mr.

Frost.

The minute he starts talking, the camera will focus on him.

Okay, Mr.

Larenson, you may proceed.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, you have the DNS packet.

There's a brief narrative.

Uh, this is uh reinspection fees off of an order that was issued in 2025, which stems from a municipal judgment in 2024.

Uh this is a residential lot.

Um Mr.

Frost is using it uh for a contractor yard.

He has been for nearly 10 years.

We've been in enforcement mode, uh, citations, municipal judgments.

For example, in 27 in uh 2025, there was 2782 dollars in reinspection fees for the same violations.

Uh March 17th reinspection, there's a photo uh showing contractor equipment.

Uh I did include photos uh from 25.

I included photos from April, May, and my own photos from June.

Uh, that the situation is unchanged.

He's eligible for $1,524 of relief based on this appeal.

I would say that uh we respect uh the board's decision.

However, we certainly would uh be opposed to the April and May charges.

Those pictures are absolutely clear.

Uh and uh, you know, I think I think we've got a body of evidence here that speaks for itself.

Well, I guess Mr.

Larrin, you say that his total exposure now is 1,524.

That's eligible for for this appeal.

Okay, and then you then said that you were willing to, if he agrees to waive a portion of that.

No, we mr.

Chairman, uh what I was trying to convey is uh the March 17th picture.

If the board should choose that that is insufficient, uh to uh charge the reinspection fee, yeah.

We respect your decision, but we would also respectfully then uh pose relief to the April or May fees that those pictures are absolutely clear.

Okay, then March 17th, what does that come up to in the dollar amount?

Uh 508.

Okay, Mr.

Frost, were you?

Did you hear that conversation?

I did.

It looks like the city is willing to reduce it by 508 dollars.

Is that acceptable to you or do you want to go to a full hearing?

No, that's acceptable.

Well, yeah, Mr.

Chairman, I I want to make clear for the record, we're not offering that.

Uh, I'm just going on the record that uh that should the board find that there's insufficient evidence of the March 17th hearing that that doesn't roll over to April and May.

Okay, well, right now I'm gonna entertain a motion because we don't have we don't have photograph evidence of March 17th.

Is Mr.

Larinson you you're aware of that?

We need that.

You do have it, Mr.

Chairman.

You have it, but you're telling me it's insufficient.

No, I'm saying if you rule it insufficient, well, we brought it up at this time okay.

Uh but this time I'd entertain the motion, hurry along, the granting part and denying part the appeal of John Frost, which would be uh calculations, we find him subject to reinspection fees of 1016.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make that motion.

And is that who is that?

Is that I have a I have a motion by Alderman Jackson?

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Alexander.

I have a second by Mr.

Bruzanne.

Any objections to that?

Hearing none so ordered.

I hated to cut you off, Mr.

Larenson, but we we have a lot lengthy schedule, and it does seem like this is uh just an equitable resolution to the appeal.

Thanks for coming, Mr.

Frost.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, well, Mr.

Frost is here.

Would all this be amenable if he had a fence?

Would all this be out the window if he had a fence up?

Mr.

Lair says if he puts a fence up, does that eliminate this reinspection controversy or no?

No.

He would need to obtain a use variance from the board of zoning appeals for a contractor yard, which is a prohibited use in the residential district.

And then there'd be a variety of things that would accompany that.

So a fence by itself would not uh bring release.

Okay, it looked like if all this stuff was in his yard, it wouldn't matter.

Nobody would see it.

You know what I mean?

Well, that unfortunately is not how the ordinance operates, and the bulk of these are vehicle related.

Uh that's the issue.

Well, the issue is they come and go.

Well, no, then they violate.

They violate our our vehicle code for residential districts.

Okay, okay.

I'm not gonna move on to the next appeal if that's okay with board members.

The appeal of jihad she had for reinspection fees at 5823 South 31st Street in the 13th Automatic District.

Is Mr.

Jihad with us this morning?

This was set for 10 o'clock.

This is now 10 55.

I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance, deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandel to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Any objection?

Hearing non so ordered.

I have the appeal of Jonathan Smith.

Reinspection fees at 615 South 89th Street in the 10th Automatic District.

Mr.

Smith will be with us this morning.

It is now 1056.

This was scheduled for 10.

Do I have a motion for non-appearance?

I do not appearance.

I have a motion on Mr.

Yellow to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Second by Miss Hammer.

Any objection?

Hearing none so ordered.

I have the appeal of Jonathan Oppo for Polcon 2 Ventures LLC for oh, I'm sorry, the appeal of Taiwan Alexander for reinspection fees at 4417 with how we place.

I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell to deny for non-appearance.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Any objection to that?

So ordered.

We have number 17.

The appeal of Jonathan Apple for vacant building registration fees.

I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair as uh requested by the city of Milwaukee.

Do I have a motion?

Okay, do I have a second?

Second by Alderman Jackson.

Any objection?

Hearing none so ordered.

I have the appeal of Shirley Walker for vacant building registration fees at 2712 North 53rd Street.

Uh good morning, Miss Walker.

I see I see you on the screen.

Oh, you do.

Okay, thank you.

Could you activate your video, please?

Let me see.

All right.

Come on now.

Can you see me?

Not yet.

Okay.

I say a switch cambler.

I'm not sure.

Hold on.

My camera should be on.

I'm not getting.

Is anybody else getting her uh visual?

No.

I'm on a laptop.

No, I'm on my cell phone.

Um, I'm at work.

I can't get on the laptops here.

I mean the B A hasn't there's a lot of uh.

And I couldn't get off today.

Cancel.

Well, I got my when I turn my camera.

Hold on, please.

I'm not sure if it's gonna be a camera, okay?

Hold on.

What about now?

Can you see me?

No.

Just for other board members, uh information.

We have included a motive that we need to have visual and audio.

Right.

If you're not successful, Miss Walker, we would reschedule, but we'll wait for you.

Okay, let me see.

I think I we don't know, I don't know.

Okay.

Would you like us to reschedule?

Well, that would be ideal.

Hold on, I'll have to take a motion to hold for the fall of the chair due to technical difficulties on behalf of a pellant.

I have no motion.

I have a motion by Mr.

Yandell hold called the chair, will I have a second?

Second by Miss Hammer, any objection?

Very nice, sir.

Uh Miss Walker, we'll let you know about the new date, okay?

All right.

Sounds good.

This time I'll entertain a motion.

We're on our eleven o'clock, so I'll wait till eleven.

It'll be just a few minutes, we'll take a five-minute break.

Mr.

Brown.

Yes, hello.

Um, I do see that you are connected.

Uh, I understand your item was uh settled.

Yeah, you know, I wanted to confirm because uh I spoke with um Mr.

Um West Westfall yesterday and um he said he was gonna email me something over.

I just wanted to try calling it, I just want to confirm that everything was taken care of.

I didn't want to get a no-show today, that's the main reason.

Okay, no, and that's fine.

I appreciate you doing that, but you would continue communication with him.

Oh, yes, yes.

I I called his office and um I just didn't get a call, but he called me yesterday and told me everything was was taken care of, and I didn't have to be here today.

That's what he said to me, yes.

I just uh, you know, I didn't get an email, I just didn't want you know just to be a verbal conversation.

And uh I I didn't show up today, and I wouldn't need to be here.

So I was as I was waiting for him to call me back.

I just appeared just to be on a safe side, you know, I didn't want to I and I I personally appreciate that, but um, yeah, I'm only scheduling the the hearing at my end, and then you know, the department takes care of handling directly with everybody directly with the appellates.

Okay.

Okay, no problem.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, have a nice day.

You too, sir.

Okay, uh is everybody back?

Uh, Joanna, I did get an email from Mr.

Brandon, but he did testify, but for some reason he did not get the link for the today's hearing.

So just note that for some reason there was a mix up there.

Oh, Mr.

Brown, I did get your email, so I still know that we'll have to be a little bit more careful.

I guess something happened.

Technical difficulties or whatever the case may be.

The denial chicken keeping permit at twenty-nine twelve North Prospect.

And also a motion for the appeal of Michael Poolhoff for nuisance property designation at forty eight oh five North Sherman Boulevard.

Let's start with the first one.

I understand a motion to hold for the call of the chair of appeal of Catherine Beck.

Do I have a motion?

Motion by Mr.

Yandell, do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Alderman Jackson.

Any objection?

Hearing answer order.

Uh jumping ahead to the appeal of attorney Michael Pluhoff.

Losings property designation forty eight or five north.

Sherman, do I have a motion?

All right.

Motion by Mr.

Yandell, do I have a second?

A second.

Second by uh Ms.

Hammer.

Any objections hearing none?

So ordered.

Finally, we are gonna call the appeal of Bill or Tease.

This will keep us.

Okay, uh what I'm gonna do then is I'm gonna have us just go for about uh let's see, another six minutes before I recall the case, as we always give at least fifteen minutes, as we have done in the past.

So we'll just do one more.

Why did you want to say?

I'm just saying why is my door.

I don't know.

How many pieces to these plasma picks?

I can only answer for this one.

And sometimes not even.

Oh, okay.

That's not bad.

Try to work outside.

Um much from four street to six.

Well, I'm always like that, look at it.

They have a nice minute on the room.

Um, I don't know.

Okay, I'm now returning to our hearing.

Uh I have it as eleven fifteen, and my watch.

I'm calling we call in the appeal of Mildred Ortiz.

Paul.

Is Mildred or T is with us?

At this time I would entertain a motion for non-appearance.

Do I have that motion?

Let's deny for not appearance.

Do I have a second?

Second, Miss Hammer, any objections.

Hearing monster order.

I've been advised that we have at least 20 appeals.

We need to reschedule.

Miss Polanco, is there somebody else in the audience that needs to be addressed before we do that?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Uh, let's start another date.

I'm available Monday, July 27th.

Alderman Jackson and myself will not be.

Okay.

How about Monday, August 3rd?

Chair, I'm not usually available on Mondays.

Okay.

How about?

Well, we have to go in August.

We have to give enough time.

How is how is Friday, August 14th?

It works for me.

Yeah, it works.

Okay, let's do Friday, August 14th.

And that we have a good chance of getting that room too, because it's a Friday.

Everybody likes to go off on Friday.

Um have it available.

Okay, well, thank you, Joanna.

Uh so we're gonna do it uh Friday, August 14th at 9 a.m.

At this time I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

And a motion to adjourn by Mr.

Yandau.

Do I have a second?

A second.

Hearing none so ordered.

Have a good summer, everybody.

We'll see you soon