Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Judiciary & Legislation Committee of the Milwaukee Common Council met on Monday, October 5, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Room 301-B of City Hall, chaired by Ald. DiAndre Jackson. The committee recommended denial of four property damage claims and appeals, held one claim on first non-appearance, adopted a substitute resolution on municipal court program metrics, approved a federal lawsuit settlement after closed session, and placed nine older items on file as no longer needed.
Detra Rodgers claim (File 260820): Held on motion without objection because the claimant failed to appear for the first time.
Danielle Dargatz claim (File 260755): The claimant testified that her finished basement flooded with sewage in February 2026, about four months after she purchased her home. City crews responded to the reported backwater, found the main sanitary sewer clogged with heavy grease and tree roots, jet-rodded it, and restored function the following day; a closed-circuit TV examination showed no defects in the main. The city attorney's office recommended denial, stating there was no evidence that the city's actions or omissions caused the damages or that the city was negligent in its response. The claimant said her homeowner's insurance declined coverage, attributing the damage to the city. Committee discussion addressed the city's responsibility for the main sewer versus the homeowner's lateral, with sewer service district managers explaining that the city is responsible for the main sewer and homeowners for their laterals up to the connection hub. The committee voted to recommend denial, with one abstention.
Anthony Braglia appeal (File 251913): The appellant did not appear; the committee voted without objection to recommend denial.
Sheron Johnson appeal (File 260283): The appellant did not appear; the committee voted without objection to recommend denial.
Eric Thomas claim (File 260565): The claimant alleged a city tree branch fell on his 2016 BMW X4 parked at 2437 N. 29th Street on September 14, 2025, seeking $7,669.31 in repair costs. Forestry Manager Frank Salmer testified there were no records of complaints or service requests for vehicle damage in the area (he referenced the 2400/2500 block of N. 27th Street, while the claim cites N. 29th Street); the only related request in the last 10 years was a 2016 pruning request, and pruning was scheduled for the 2025 maintenance cycle. The city attorney's office recommended denial for insufficient evidence of causation. The claimant testified the branch fell on a calm day, that he reported the damage, and that the tree maintenance work did not occur until the following January. He said his insurance company declared the car a total loss, paid the lienholder, and he received nothing, subsequently losing his job. The committee voted to recommend denial without objection; Ald. Robert J. Bauman characterized the event as an act of God absent city notice of a tree defect.
Tanisha Tate claim (File 260568): The claimant alleged a city tree branch fell on her 2021 Honda Pilot parked at 4456 N. 28th Street on March 12, 2026, seeking $6,799 in damages. Forestry responded the next day and found the failed branch came from a 12-inch Norway maple and was alive and healthy, with no decay at the point of failure. The city recorded peak winds of 41 to 68 miles per hour that day, generating 155 calls for downed trees or branches across the city. The city attorney's office recommended denial, citing no negligence and no prior notice. The claimant testified she had owned the car for about three months, her insurance and gap coverage did not cover the full amount owed, and she still owes about $1,500 on the totaled vehicle. The city attorney noted repair invoices of $12,876 and $10,014 had been submitted, though no total demand was stated. The committee voted to recommend denial with one objection.
Court program metrics resolution (File 251433): The committee accepted a substitute to Ald. Dimitrijevic's resolution, changing it from directing to urging the Chief Court Administrator to report program metrics on the municipal court's new internal court alternative program to the Common Council. Christopher Hillard of the Legislative Reference Bureau explained the city clerk suggested "urging" rather than "directing" the court, and that the program originated from footnote 51 of the prior year's budget in collaboration with the Milwaukee Intercity Congregation's Allied for Hope. The municipal court has already begun collecting the data. The substitute was adopted without objection.
Linton v. City of Milwaukee settlement (File 260813): The committee convened into closed session under Wis. Stat. s. 19.85(1)(g) to confer with the City Attorney about the lawsuit Corday Alexander Linton v. City of Milwaukee et al., 2:26-cv-00258-SCD (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin). Returning to open session, the committee voted to authorize the settlement, with Ald. Andrea M. Pratt moving adoption; the motion carried 2-1 with one objection. Settlement terms were not disclosed in open session.
The committee placed nine items on file as no longer needed, without objection: permanent early voting sites (File 230004); retention of outside counsel for redistricting review (File 211565); Inspector General report on the assessor's religious organization property tax exemption processes (File 230105); state legislation to allow tax incremental district revenue deposits into a central city development fund (File 200751); state legislation requiring officers to intervene against excessive force (File 210103); City Attorney communication on alleged ex parte communications (File 212041); state shared revenue and sales tax status update (File 220542); charter ordinance on removal from elected or appointed office (File 210373); and SNAP grocery pickup/delivery legislation (File 200024).
Rogers. It's the first time. I believe so. Yes. This first time non appearance. I will understand a motion. Move to hold. Hearing no objections. So item three, two six zero seven five five. Resolution related to the claim by Denya Dargett. All right. Yes. Infrastructure services division records show that the backwater was reported. They responded and found a main uh a main sanitary sewer was clogged with heavy grease and tree roots. Uh a jet back was used to open the clog and restore it the following day, uh, and it was found to be functioning properly at that time. Uh forestry reviewed their records and found no request for service. Uh the city is the city attorney's office has recommended denial because there is no evidence that the city's actions or omissions caused the uh claimants damages, or the city was uh negligent in its response to reports of the backwater. Uh representatives from uh the relevant departments are here to speak further to the facts. All right, what departments do we have? Um Corey Tipton, uh sewer service district manager. Yes, Anthony Stewart, Stewart Service District Manager. Okay. Um I'm heard you mentioned forestry. What was that about? Yes, the uh part of the damage was the roots, but the um uh or part of the blockage was allegedly the roots of uh tree, but there was no prior records of those tree roots or no prior records of uh calls for service related to any um forestry uh issues. So forestry takes care of roots and the sewers is the question um through our examinations. If we know that the tree roots are there, we do have a uh process where we take care of tree roots, but if the sewer is in a terrace area, trees will go to a water source and they chose this water source. Okay, that's interesting because my first time hearing forestry roots, and I thought that was someone you just take care of. Yeah, it's it would be usually um, but just because the complaint had tree roots in it, forestry um was uh I guess tapped for information and they found no uh no calls for service related to tree roots or anything uh at this location. So the story, what happened? Um I just purchased my home October of last year. Uh this happened in February of this year, so I don't know about any calls related to service because I haven't even been there a year. Well, new owner. Um so I can't speak to that, but uh my basement was finished when I moved there. Um I had my office down there. I worked from home during the day, work at hospital at night. Um I went downstairs to clock in, and my basement was covered in sewage. Um I contacted Roto Rooter, they came out, they tried to unclog it, it didn't work. They brought the jetter out themselves, they couldn't do it because it had nothing to do with my home. Um so they told me to contact the city, which I did immediately. Um they said to send someone out, it was a priority. It was doing nothing but rising, and it smelled horrible.