Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. This is Vincent Bobbin. I'm the chair of the Ministry Review Board of Appeals. Today's date is April 28. We're gonna start our 09:00 agenda. Right now, number one, the appeal of Jonathan Appel is not present, so we're gonna wait we usually wait fifteen minutes. And number two has already been resolved. And number three, at this time, I'll entertain a motion to hold for the call of the chair.

Mister chair?

Yes. Mister Sandel.

Move to hold for the call of the chair.

K. Do I have a second? Liz, are you okay. Able any discussion? Hearing, no objections to order.

So before we go on to our 09:30, about 09:25, I'm gonna call the appeal of Jonathan Apple. But, basically, we will not be hearing any cases until 09:30. Good morning, mister Larson. I cannot hear you, mister Larson. Still can't hear you, so we'll have to check that out. And good morning. Sydney from Smart Asset.

Good morning.

Sydney, what time is your are you here for the deal?

Yep. It says on the letter we received 9AM. Today is April 28.

And which case are you here for?

We're here for, let me look real quick, it's for an appeal for Matt Kermaj. It says it's under file 26037.

I'm trying to locate it on my agenda. What time is it set for?

Nine it says 9AM.

Mister chair?

Yes, Joanna.

This is Sydney, this is for for snow removal fees at 5101 West Lincoln Avenue?

Yes.

Yeah. I received a word from the department that that item was settled.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. No. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Sydney.

Have a wonderful day.

Mister Bobbit, let's try this again.

Yes. So now you're working. Good morning, and we'll come back in about ten minutes and see if appeal of Jonathan Apo is here. And then we'll be commence with our 09:30 agenda.

We don't have any information on item eight in terms of settlement. We're prepared either way is cool.

Okay. Because right now, I thought that it was settled. But right now, no.

I mean, it it may be on your end if the appeal decide to drop his appeal, but I don't have any settlement on my end.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Quick test. Are we starting? Hear me?

Yeah. Are we starting here for the for this meeting?

I'm not live running, Michelle. I'm just making sure I'm here for my appeal.

Yeah. Me as well.

Alright.

I'm gonna mute.

Who is who is caller number one, please?

I'm on I'm on the telephone system. This is Michael Rice for property 2739 North 9th Street.

You have a file number? 5? Michael Rice. Okay. Mister Rice, we're waiting for 09:30 time. If you please give me and hold on on us.

When we're scheduled for 09:35?

Yes. You're scheduled for nine 09:30. You're idle five.

Okay. Okay. 09:30, I'll be back on. Right?

Yeah. But don't get disconnected. Just stay put. Okay?

Okay.

Thank you.

Joanne, are you there?

Yes, sir.

Do you know whether or not Jeffrey Jonathan Apple appeared? It's number one for Bohawk Queen.

I don't have any communication with any messages from him either, and I don't see him. He's not present, and he's not connected virtually either.

Okay. Kendrick, are you able to hear me and Liz?

Yep. I'm here.

And Liz, are you able to hear me?

Yes. I can.

Okay. At this time, we're gonna call number one, the appeal of Jonathan Apple, Purple, Cool Ventures LLC for vacant registration billing. Fees for 1315 West Fin Place, 6th Automatic District. This was set for 9AM. It is now 09:29. At this time, I'll entertain a motion for denial based on nonappearance. Do I have that motion?

Mr. Chair, move to dismiss for nonappearance.

I have a motion by Mr. Yandel. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, so ordered. And very shortly, we'll be doing our 09:30. Okay.

According to my watch, it's 09:30. And the agenda is number four, two six zero three two. The appeal of Felicia Mayo for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3327 North 25th Street. Miss Mayo, are you with us? Okay.

I do not hear miss Mayo. So we will pass this case briefly, and we'll call number five, the appeal of Michael Rice for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 2739 North 9th Street in the 15th Aldermanic District. Mister Rice, would you?

Yeah. I'm president with lieutenant. 2739 North 9th Street.

And oh, where are you on my screen? Are you with mister g?

Yes. I'm on audio. Respectfully respectfully, commission. Last last court date, I reviewed the letter, and I even talked to the receptionist about this. You don't you guys you guys allow us to do audio or video. The tenant is on video. I'm on audio. I I so I'm we're I'm I'm complying with what you guys are requiring us to do. So if if people are gonna change things as they feel fit, that's not right. So but I'm here on audio just like I was last meeting, and we had a bad reception, and you guys made a continuance. But the the the tenant is with me here as well as I am for this hearing for the second time.

Well, I understand that. But because of what happened with you last time, on the new notice, we informed people we have to have the video. Did you receive that?

And, mister chair, I wanna clarify. The hearing notice in both instances have had the wording that the appellants need to appear virtually and have their camera on at all times.

Well well, I'm the I'm the person that's that's that's that's going virtual because I'm the one that's that's that's

Living there.

Talking about the complaint or whatever because it was at my house. So, basically, I'm gonna be the one that's testifying and everything about the whole ordeal. So the landlord, he's just basically sitting in the background to hear the outcome of it.

Okay. Is that acceptable to you, mister Rice, that just mister g was your witness?

Right. He's a renter. He took care of the garbage that that was reported, and I saw all the photos. He complied with everything, and we're gonna talk about that right now. So I'm just here, as Vatana mentioned, just to see what how this is gonna outcome.

Well, I guess you didn't answer my question, mister Rice.

What was your question, sir?

Is it acceptable that mister g is the only witness in your appeal?

Yes. Because he's the only one that that took care of the garbage with the to comply with the city. Right.

Because I'll let you ask them questions and everything, but the problem we have for you testifying as a witness is we require visual and audio.

No. I I'm not I'm not a witness. I I thought you want the owner as well on there. If you don't, if I I I do okay. Let's just be clear so we get down with the hearing. I didn't pick up the garbage. I I I don't I don't live at the property. I'm simply the owner. He did everything that he just mentioned to you. I'm simply here as an observer then. I'll I'll I'll mute my phone right now. No witness.

No. No. You can ask him questions, and he could be the witness, but I'm just saying that you can't testify.

No. I'm gonna be the only one that's testifying. Questions.

Right. So at this time, who's appearing for the city?

Morning, mister chairman. This is Peter Larson with Neighborhood Services.

Okay. Miss Polanco, would you please swear on both witnesses?

Do you solemnly affirm that the face of penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Okay. Mister mister g?

Yeah.

Okay. Could you raise your right hand? And miss Blanco, could you, give the oath to mister g?

Yes.

And, mister g, what is your full name?

Galathian Hall.

Okay. How do you spell your first name?

G a l a t h e a n.

And last name is h a l l?

Yes,

sir. Okay. Mister Laritson, you may proceed. Mister chairman, so this is regarding a cleanup order. We received a complaint on 10/15/2025. The inspector verified and posted the property on 10/28/2025, and the contractor cleanup was 11/12/2025. You have the pictures of the before and after from the contractor cleanup. I think they speak for themselves. I'm available to answer any questions.

Okay. Mister Rice and mister Hall, have you seen the photographs?

Yes. I have.

Mister Rice, you seen the photographs?

Yes. I have.

Okay. Mister Hall, do you have any questions of mister Laritson? Yes. Go ahead.

One question I wanna know is, what do y'all have what what is y'all policy on the city going in people's yard? Because I have a six foot fence around my whole yard. I have a privacy fence put up around my whole yard. So what gave them the right to come into my private property where the six foot fence around my whole yard what gave them the right to come into my yard and take things out of my yard that wasn't even supposed to get taken out. Another thing

Hold on a second. That's one question. I'm gonna tell you right now, mister Larson, you do not have to answer that question. The issue we're here today for is what the appeal is, and that's for garbage and litter nuisance fees. So you may start with your next question.

Okay. My next question is, when they started this account, they showed a pile of trash that was in my a wood pile that was in my yard. Okay? So if y'all show one wood pile that was in my yard and I cleaned up that woodpile, as you can see in the pictures

No. Mister mister Hall, this is your your time to ask questions of mister Laritson.

Oh, okay. My bad. My bad. My bad.

My bad. To testify.

Okay.

Do you have any questions of mister Larson?

Well, no. We can go ahead and get it on.

Okay. Are there any questions from board members of mister Hall?

Okay. Mister Hall or mister Larson?

Hold on a second. Mister Yandell?

I'm sorry. I just wanna clarify. Are we asking questions of mister Hall or mister Larson at this point?

You can ask mister Larson. I'm sorry. I misspoke.

That's okay. I don't have any well, actually, I don't have any questions right now. I'd like to hear the witness' testimony.

Okay, mister Hall. You may proceed.

Okay. A guy came to my house when I was back there, and he said that I had to clean up the trash that was in my backyard. I said, okay. I will clean it up. If y'all can see the pictures from the original date that he started it, he only shows one pile of trash that was in my backyard. It shows three pictures. The fur when it started on October 28 or whatever, it shows three pictures of one pile of trash that was in my backyard. Okay? Now that's what started the initial case because I had that pile of trash in my yard. Now I told them I was gonna clean it up and everything.

After I got done cleaning that up, I called the city to talk to the supervisor so I could let him know that it was cleaned up, and it is documented that's in the paperwork that I did call the city to to try to let him know that it was cleaned up. I didn't get in contact with nobody. They said they'll have somebody call me back. So I'm like, okay. Next thing you know, I was at work.

If you guys look on the first three initial pictures, look at the last pictures. The last pictures that they're showing you aren't even the pictures of the pile. They're showing you three, four different other pictures of some other trash that they didn't even show those pictures in the first pictures. Like, those pallets that I had stacked up there, I was building a shed. Three day before that, the storm came through and knocked half of the shed down.

So when they came, they just decided to take my pallets and everything. So the the the other stuff that they're showing there, what other pile was in my backyard? Y'all initiated and show one pile of trash. But when y'all come to clean up, y'all showing four other pictures of four areas that y'all cleaned up that was not in the initial paperwork. And you guys can see that as you're looking at the pictures, one, two, and three, it just shows one big pile.

Now when they came back the second time, they showing my fist that got knocked over by the storm, then they show my palate that got knocked down by the storm that a tree fell on, and then they're showing everything else that did not have nothing to do with the initial fine. None of those picture have they show where my outside chimney at. On the first three initial pictures, where do y'all show that y'all cleaning up anything at my outside fire pit? Why are y'all even showing my outside fire pit? Because y'all didn't clean up nothing over there.

So why are y'all showing that picture like y'all cleaned that up? The pile that they showed, the initial pile, do you guys see that pile in any of these pictures again? Because I clinked that pile up. So when they came back the second time, because I clinked the pile up, they decided to take other things out of my yard that did not have to do with anything that was in the initial I mean, the initial write up. Another thing, I have a six foot fence around my whole yard.

I still have it, a six foot fence. Half of my pallets that they took are still standing up. So where should I be getting fined for something that y'all didn't have no business for one coming into my private yard that's a six foot fence around my whole yard? And then for two, y'all took other things that y'all wasn't supposed to take. The picture shows a pile of wood and trash. Why would y'all go take all my pallets? Why would y'all take my concrete blocks that I was building with them? Why would y'all take my other thing that didn't have nothing to do with the initial cleanup?

Okay. I mean, I got a I got a several questions here for mister Hall. I looked at the initial three pictures, and it is quite a bit of debris. And it's your testimony that you clean that up.

Yes. If you can look if you look at the picture, when they came if you look at picture when they came back, if you look at picture where the garbage can is, that was the only little pile that was left when they came back. You see the garbage can? Then they got, like, a little piece of wood right there. That was the only pile that was left from that big pile that they that they tried to find me for.

That was it. I cleaned up everything else. Everything else was cleaned up. That's why they cannot they're not showing you a picture of where that pile was initially at anymore because they can't show you a picture of that pile being there anymore because I clinked that pile up. So when they came back when they came back, they showed a picture of my pallets had fell from the storm.

They showed a picture of my blocked glass window and everything that did not have anything to do with the initial fine. They showed a picture of my fireplace that I have in my backyard. Where are the before pictures of that fireplace? Do you guys see any any before picture of where that fireplace is and that dog kennel at? Y'all don't see no before pictures of that.

So how can y'all show a cleanup picture if you didn't even show a before picture of that? How can y'all show a before picture of my fence? I mean, that y'all cleaned it up if it wasn't even a before picture to even that I had to clean that up and that happened afterwards when the tree fell and it fell on my shed, and it fell on my back fence. But that did not have anything to do with the initial cleanup pile that y'all took the three pictures of. So because I cleaned that up, they wanted to find me for something, so they went and picked up other things in my backyard that they had no business touching.

Well, mister Hall, on the before picture where it shows the fence is down, did they clean that up?

That would listen. They that happened afterwards. This this is what I'm saying to you. When they came the first day and they took the picture of the pile, that was the that was all they said I had to clean up. That was they they

Hold on a second. The question I have before you is that the fence that is down, did they clean up that?

No. My fence is still down back there.

The fence is still down.

The only thing that they took from right there was my glass block window and those two tires that I had right there. That's the only thing that they took right there. Because why? I set it there because the fence failed. So I I set something there to hold it back up so it wouldn't fall back down for temporarily until I fix it. But that was it that they grabbed from right there.

Another question I have for you is did you notice that in the original pile, there was quite a bit of looks like, you know, either plywood or something along that nature.

Yes. I burnt all that plywood up in my outside fire pit. I burnt it all up.

Because there was a a picture that showed some of the before some of that I thought some of the plywood was there.

Yes. And then when they came back, wasn't none of the plywood there anymore but that little pile that was by the garbage can.

Right. So that little bit of the pile by the garbage can was from the original picture. Correct?

That that that little small little piece that yeah. That was from the original picture. Yes. But nothing else was from no original pictures.

Yeah. Because there is some other debris there, but I can't make out what it is under before. Any further questions from board members, for mister Hall?

Mister chair?

Mister Yandell.

So I have some questions, mister Hall. I'm looking at one of the pictures here, and I see it's kinda hard to tell. It looks like a fence that blew over. Is that what you're saying? Is the fence the fence not

blowing over?

That okay. I I was I was doing a d DIY project, and I was building, like, a shed out of pallets. And I had to like, when they very first came the first day, the shed was up. The everything was set up. The wood was up there and everything. A storm came, a tree fell, and it fell onto my shed, and it fell onto my fence. Now they came two or three days later after that, and they just automatically just took my shed and everything. That wasn't on the original the original write up. Wasn't none of my pallets on original write up. Wasn't any of that on the original write up.

So why would you try to come and take my pallets afterwards knowing that I cleaned up the the pile that started the the write up was clean. So why would you try to clean up my take my pallets so y'all can so they can get paid for something when my pallets had nothing to do? They shouldn't have never took my pallets out of my backyard. My pallets and half of my shed is still up to this day. I can show you half of the shed is still up. Now I have to get more pallets and all of that stuff to even finish bills.

I got it. So I'm gonna ask you a couple questions. They're probably just gonna be yes or no questions. Just limit your answer to yes or no, please. Okay?

Okay.

Alright. Thanks. So did you receive the solid waste violation notice?

Yes.

K. And then did you see on the solid waste violation notice, it says you're directed to remove all, and it's underlined, remove all solid waste garbage and debris, and then it it lists a bunch of things. Did you see that?

Yes.

Okay. And then so I can clarify for you that, you know, we have a lot of we've we've had hearings like this before where where people see one picture and then the city comes and cleans up other stuff, and they and they don't think that that other stuff should have been cleaned up or that's not part of the order. But I can clarify for you that when the city comes and they see solid waste, that it's gonna be it's gonna be considered, you know, stuff that they have to clean up, whether it was there the day that they took the picture or not. I mean, I I'm just letting you know that. You can argue about it if you want, but, you know, that's that's the process that happens.

So do I understand your testimony to be that there that there's a picture here with a fence blown over, and there's a tire and, like, I don't know, some lumber or something? That is

material from the original? I had to fit post it.

Hold on. Hold on. On. My question is, that is material that was part of the original order. Yes or no? No. The the tire was not in the original order?

No.

Previously, you you testified that that was material some of that was material from the prior

order.

No. No. No. No. No. No.

No. No. I the the, the glass black window and the tires that was at the back of the fence, that was not in the original order. The only thing that was in original order is the first three picture that you guys see.

Okay. And so

The pallet Let me just tire

me just

the glass black window was not in original order.

Paul, I I appreciate it. I know you got a lot to say, but I just wanna kinda keep this moving here. So I do see a tire here, and I do see some lumber. Is that in your yard? The

picture.

I see a picture that's dated 11/12/2025. It has 2739 North 9th Street. It's stamped before. There's a picture of a fence, a chain link fence on the ground with a tire and some lumber underneath it. Is that your yard?

Yes. That happened afterward when the tree fell on my fence. Yes.

Okay.

That was a bit of my yard.

Okay. Next question. I see another picture with I think this is what you're saying is your your pallet dead DIY project is all blown on the ground, and then there are pieces of there's a bunch of pieces of, like, concrete block laying on the ground. That's Yeah.

That would that you said that

you were using to build something with?

Yeah. I would be I was building a DIY shed. The the the blocks and stuff was gonna be my foundation. Like, you could see my driveway is all con is all rocks on my concrete because I was concrete my, my my, driveway this summer and everything. So those blocks were gonna get crumbled up and used for my foundation inside of my shed. That was nothing on the original the original, actually, though, those blocks wasn't even there the first day that they came. I have brought them there afterwards because I was using them for my foundation.

Okay. And then I see another picture here of some plywood and some other debris next to a garbage can. Is that what

you testified as part of the prior order?

That that that little pile right there, that was only that was the only pile that was left from the original three picture that they that they said that I had to clean up. That was the only little thing that was left.

Okay. I I get that you're trying to point to the original picture, but I I just wanna clarify for you that when the city comes to do a cleanup, they're looking at all of the debris in the yard. And this is your yard, and this is debris.

So

I guess I'm confused as to why the city wouldn't clean it up from your perspective.

Okay. So what are your policies on coming inside private yards?

You'd have to address that to the city attorney. We're just here to address your appeal.

And I I'm gonna step in here for a moment on that. We're we're not gonna get into the discussion of what is the city's ability to go into a yard with refuse and clean it up. We're just not gonna go down that that path because for obvious reasons, the city does have a right when you got rat harbors or whatever else types of debris accumulation to do what the ordinance says they can do.

Okay. I have no further questions, mister chair.

Any further questions of mister Hall? Mr. Hall, I'm just going make one comment. It looks like you're disputing basically how much debris was removed. According to all our records, there's 23 yards of debris, and that resulted in a $653.99 contractor fee. Is that the basis of your appeal?

My appeal is I think this should get dismissed because they grabbed things out of my yard that should've never got grabbed out of my yard.

Okay. Any further questions of mister Hall? Mister Rice, do you have any questions of mister Hall?

And I called the city and let them know that I clinked the pile up. So why would they even come you know, I just feel this should get dismissed and thrown out because this is this they they had to clean up something else just to get some money because that that one right. If I cleaned up what you guys told me to clean up, and then now you come back and clean up other stuff.

Right now right now, I turned it over to mister Rice to see if

he's Oh,

my bad. Interview.

I I have a I have actually have a question for the city neighborhood services, not mister. Okay.

Go ahead. So mister Larissa is still with us.

K. I are now are you the inspector that that spoke with mister Hall at at the at that 2739 North 9th Street residence or another inspector underneath you?

Yeah. The the inspector issuing the order Slavien Stewart is a residential inspector. So, no, it was not me.

Okay. Is he is he here right now to so I could so I could cross examine him to talk to him, or are you you're just reading off his notes?

I I've made no testimony regarding communications.

K. What I'm asking is, can I speak is the inspector here today in this hearing the one that that was at the scene? Is he here today?

No.

Why what I mean, that's not that's not procedure, or would the inspector that gives the initial fine doesn't appear for the for the for the incident? They that's not how procedure works?

Not for not for this type of appeal. Alright.

I got no further questions. We'll to deal some other way, I guess.

Okay. Mister Weiss, one thing I would say is that if you wanted that inspector, you could have subpoenaed him and he would have had to appear. But mister Weissen is correct that in this type of period, we basically have the supervisor that lays out the plan. So we are in committee at this time. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair?

Mr. Yandell?

I move to deny the appeal.

I have a motion by Mr. Yandel to deny the appeal. Do I have a second?

Second. I have

a second by Ms. Hammer. Any further discussion? Hearing none so order. Mister Rice will be receiving our decision that we did did not authorize the appeal to go forward. And we'll we'll get them in writing, and you will have the ability to appeal this to circuit court. I wanna think

I think sir I think I think circuit court might be appropriate because well, if you said I could call the witnesses and I called the inspector, and I think I could get a fair outcome. And, you know, we'll go from there. I appreciate your time.

Okay. And I appreciate you coming, and same with you, mister Hall. Thanks for calling. Okay. I'm gonna recall the appeal of Felicia Mayo. Are you with her? This was set for 09:30. It is now 09:57. I'll entertain a motion for denial based on that appearance.

Mr. Chair, I move to deny for non appearance.

Okay. Have a motion by Mr. Yandell to deny for non appearance. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing next order. Item number six, the appeal of Juan Assar for garbage and nuisance fees at 4383 North 27th Street. It is now 09:57. I will entertain a motion for denial based on nonappearance.

There are moves to deny for nonappearance.

I have a motion by mister Undell to deny for nonappearance. Do I have a second?

Second. Second.

Any further discussion? Here's the instructions so ordered. Is now suspended that number seven has been resolved, That we know about number eight. The garage and little nuisance fees. That's about 10AM. We have to wait a few minutes.

Mister chair, I I just have to say that it's I don't know if there's some sound coming from somebody's speaker, but it's very hard to hear you.

Okay. Yeah. I know. I hear that as well. It sounds like it's coming from Joanna Blackel. I'll do the same thing to the left. It's not coming from mine. No. It's coming from Joanna for something. That was the source.

Perfect. Thank you.

Which is being pretty 10:00.

Okay. The first one was already cleared up. I got an email. The second one, I sent Florida Gallatin. So Okay. The first one, they cleared it up already. Okay. For the grass, I got the email.

So then did you withdraw The first

one with the grass on thirty second, I got the email from the forestry yesterday. That was it. Uh-huh. And that was settled. And then Lori Gallopy, I emailed her last month, but I also had pictures and an email saying that that sign was in my yard. They moved it 30 feet on that

So are you talking about 1626 or 38?

That one I'm appealing, but just sent her everything. But the first one they approved on Okay. No. No.

I I think we're gonna go right into eight. It's seven. Seven was set. Yeah. But we just have to wait now, 10:00, so that we can take your item. I wanna get you for that time.

Okay. It is now 10AM. Miss, are you having some conversation with Robbie Sargent?

Yeah. Mister Sargent is in the room, mister chair, and he was just explaining to me that item seven was settled, and then we're gonna go into number eight. Correct?

That's correct. It's the appeal of him for garbage and litter nuisance fees for 1626 North 38th.

Correct.

And, mister Sergeant, you are still appealing that decision.

Correct.

Okay. Who will be appearing on behalf of the city?

I will, mister chairman. Peter Leritz in Neighborhood Services.

Okay. I am gonna call that appeal. The appeal of Robbie Surgeon for garbage and litter loosens fees, 1626 North 38th Street. Mister Larson has already been previously sworn in. We will now administer the oath to Mr. Surgent.

Do you solely affirm that the penalties of Gertrude at the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is it true, double truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

Hey, mister Larson. You may proceed.

Thank you. This is an appeal of the fees for a cleanup order, 1626 North 38th. The department received a complaint on October 30. Inspection was done on October 31 and posted, and the contractor cleanup was November 6. You have the photos including this is a somewhat unusual l shaped lot. And, certainly, there can be some confusion, but it was double checked as far as the where the solid waste was back in the winter. Those are the final pictures, and we're ready to proceed with any questions.

Any questions, mister Surgent?

Yes. I got a email from Susan. She is stating that they, for the city owned sign, was put in the wrong place and that they apologize that they are putting a complaint in because the property goes all the way down to the next house and makes a l. And we cleaned up I had pictures that I sent Lori Gallaby last month and the email stating that they had to move the sign that says city owned 30 more feet inward. So by that sign being on my property, they didn't notify me.

And I do have a email trend of talking to people about this and opening up a complaint. So I did clean up all the way back to my the other house, but I did not own that property. And I had an appraisal done. And then now they're saying in 2024 that they apologize, but they had to move that sign 30 feet more inward. And that's why I never cleaned that up because they told me that was city owned.

And I do got emails proving that they did file a complaint, and I did email Laurie Gallaby with the picture and the email of last month as well as this morning. And it was picked up because I did have the the tenants and my partner clean up the trash all the way to the neighbor's house. So I did provide pictures, stamp pictures to Laurie Galloway. And I even asked for a week extension to make sure because of the snow, and it was cleaned up. And on the stamped picture, it does show that on Tuesday, November 4, that everything was already cleaned up and the leaves were still there.

Mister Larson, do you have that documentation from mister Surgent?

No. I do not. I the he's referencing sounds like public works information with regard to the city owned lot or DCD perhaps. But we certainly acknowledge, you know, that that there was some cleanup. Unfortunately, it wasn't complete.

Mister chair?

Mister Haddell?

I have a question for the appellant. Mister sergeant, you said that you had some communications, some emails showing that, some communications you had with the city regarding the signage and other pictures. I don't see it in your appeal package. Did you file it with the city?

I emailed Lori Gallaby a month ago, and I emailed it back again this morning. This was back on March 13. And I did email her, and then the letter says, you know, that they moved the sign, and they apologized and that they are going to file a complaint because of the Walnut Street. It's where that we're having that problem. We're not having the problem behind the house. It's going from Walnut Inn. And where they moved the sign two years ago, they did not notify me. And I was not aware of it. No letter or nothing. And it's all saved in the email that I sent from Public Works.

Okay. I can forward it to you.

I did pick up the trash behind the house to the neighbor's house. Just on the left, we did not pick up because I paid the crews to pick up what needs to be done.

So is it your testimony I just wanna make sure I understand it. It's a little bit confusing without any, documentation to support it. Is your testimony that you cleaned up your yard, but you didn't clean up a section that you did not believe was yours due to the city posting the sign in the wrong place. Is that correct?

Correct. So the the couch and the bed would land right where the sign is, where it says city owned property, and that's why we did not clean that up with this because I own 30 feet from there. But, apparently, two years ago, they moved the sign 30 more feet, and they're claiming I own that now as a l shape is what the email stating that I emailed Laurie about. Because we did pick up everything from the trees to the trash all the way back, and I provided pictures to the house. But on the left, the the drone shows that there was a mattress and a couch, and that's right where the sign is on city owned property.

And I did ask for an extension a week, and they granted it so that I made sure it was cleaned up, and it was cleaned up. We did leave what was on the city lot because they continued dumping there. So I'm gonna have to fence in that yard, the l shaped to prevent the dumping from happening again. But the tenants are aware if they see that to let me know before anybody calls it in. So we have been watching the property lately since this incident.

Also, let me just confirm. So I'm looking at this picture. There's an overhead view of 1626 North 3838 and some adjacent properties. So just so I understand, your property is l shaped, and that's depicted in orange. And then, I don't know what direction I'm looking, but to the top of that picture, is that just a lot there, or is that a house, or what am I looking at there?

If you look straight ahead all the way down, there's a house. So I own all the way to that house. And then to the left of that 30 feet is what I own, but there was a sign on there that says city owned property. So I assume I did not own to that house, but I owned up the way and going down. So we cleaned 30 feet from that sign what we supposed to clean up because the forestry ripped me up for tree that was growing over the sidewalk on Walnut Avenue, and I cleaned it up.

And that's when she said, well, you do own that. I see what happened is two years ago, we had the people go out, and they measured the property, and they made a mistake and that she she Susan did say she filed a complaint. That's why it's taken the email because they did move it over without notarizing telling me anything about it. And that's why, you know, I filed a complaint because I'm not gonna clean up City Lock if I don't own it. And now I know that I own all the way down to the house, and then all the way to the street is 30 feet is what they told me. And I have the email. I can email anybody that wants it that explains the situation.

But

I did pick up what I needed to on my land and take care of it and haul it off. But as far as the sign and the mattress and the couch, I didn't know if that's why the bill is high because it was heavy items.

Okay. Thank you.

No further questions. I will have to tell you, Mr. Sergeant, I'm as confused too about the configuration of your lot with that little l section. And it's your testimony that the debris that was removed was not on your property. It was actually on a city owned property.

Alright.

Okay. Any further questions? Okay. We're in committee.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, mister Yanda.

I would move to grant the appeal.

K. I have a motion for mister Yanda.

Troubled I'm just troubled by the fact that the city changed the lot lines. There's no testimony that counters that. And, you know, it seems like one of the situations where you construe the ambiguity against the drafter. And in this case, I would say that would be the city, and without any testimony from the city to refute what mister Sargent is saying. I I think that we have, credible testimony.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second by miss Hammer. Any further, conversations? Hearing none so order. Mister Surgent, we granted your appeal. You do not have to pay that amount.

Alright. Thank you.

Just wanna go on a record that I agree with that motion as well. Here, we have number nine, the appeal of Ronald Mueller for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3015 West Chambers. Is mister Mueller with us? Mister Mueller, do you wanna come up to the to the desk there? Good morning. How are you doing?

Good morning. I'm doing pretty good. And yourself?

Alright. Who is gonna testify for the city?

The chairman of Peter Larson, Neighborhood Services.

Okay. Mister Larson has been previously sworn in. Mister Miller, do you wanna raise your right hand, please? Be sworn in.

I do. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Laritsen. You may proceed. Thank you.

The what's before you is a cleanup order in the amount of $13.82 and 56¢. This is for 3015 West Chambers. The cleanup was done on October is that October 17? I will forgive me. I would like to offer to move this along, to cut that in half to 69128.

This is an instance where it looks like a public alley, but there's 10 feet or so of private property. And, certainly, when the contractor got there, there was a dumping, that spread across both. They cleaned everything up, but, certainly, the portions in the right of way will acknowledge that that's ambiguous. I would also say for mister Miller, this has happened before frequently. That's part of his appeal as well.

It's going to happen frequently in the future. This is a dead zone, which is a prime dumping spot. And unfortunately, he has some private property here. So with that said, I can go into more details, but I wanted to start with that. So 69128.

Okay. Mister Mueller, the city has offer offered a compromise settlement to reduce the amount of money you owe to 69128. Is that acceptable?

No. I don't think so.

Why don't you think so?

Well, I'm not even sure. I've never got a notice of what dumping and what dumping got cleaned up or anything. All I did was all of a sudden, I got a citation from the city.

Do you recall

little knowledge of this.

Well, do you recall, getting the notice? We have a copy of it on the appeal.

A notice? No. I got a citation from the city of Milwaukee.

You never received the notice?

No, sir.

Okay. We'll proceed with the appeal. Mister Larson, you may proceed.

Certainly. So the department got a complaint on 10/08/2025 regarding scattered debris. It was inspected on October 9, and verified. It was posted and mailed, and, the contractor abated, as I mentioned before, November October forgive me. 10/17/2025. So the photos are in the packet, and we've had this issue before at this property, unfortunately.

Well, mister Larson, I have a question for you. We do have a a picture of the notice. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us where it was posted or what it was put on. Can you clarify that at all for us? Yeah. Because I see it. I think I might see it. And the next following picture, that's kinda

Yes. There there is a picture, mister chairman, where it's stapled or taped to a portion of fence. This is a this is a contractor yard. There's no I don't believe there are any actual buildings.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that because any questions for Mr. Larson, Mr. Mueller?

Yeah. I'm I'm trying to I I have been trying to get a graph on the problems over there in general, and I'm not sure now what you're saying that what? They went inside the fence area to get stuff out?

Mister Larson, are you able to address that question?

No. Mister Miller, the chairman was asking, was the property posted? And that was I was affirming that.

Oh, I thought he asked if I had any further questions of you. Sorry.

No. Do you have any question? Do you have any questions of mister Larson?

Yeah. I'm not I'm not trying to understand where this was gotten from what they went on the other side of the fence to get this material. No. So I have the alleyway. Is mine also?

Approximately 10 feet. 10 I we can we can measure it together, but it is an unusual circumstance, when you look at the parcel map that for whatever reason, this is a very narrow alley that is to the east of your lot, and you have a section of private property, again, approximately ten ten to 12 feet that is going to be east of your fence line. So it feels like alley.

Okay. I was told every time I put anything there that I had to get it out that that was an alleyway. So I'm sorry for my confusion there. And still with regard to anything out there, I mean, the neighbors, everybody pushes stuff out of their way that gets dumped in the alley. I mean, we try to clean things up over there as best we can.

Things get pushed together because the city does have a I'm not sure exactly what, but the city has a crew that comes through there periodically and cleans alleys. And things we try to push together so that we can utilize the alley. I didn't put it there. I didn't know about it being there. I will watch out for whatever this is in the future and make sure that people aren't pushing it from the alley onto what is from what you're saying, my property now.

And I would appreciate getting more precise direction as to where that line is that you're saying I have so that I can watch it, but I don't see whereas it should fall on me when I could hardly be expected to. I bought the property. I assumed it was a fenced in property because that's what I was told.

Okay. Any questions of mister Larson by board members?

One question, mister chair. Mister Larson, are you aware whether or not, the property owner can relocate his fence so that his property is entirely enclosed, or are there setback requirements?

So to my knowledge, there's no setback requirements. I don't know if there's any easements. He could explore that with our permit center.

K. And, also, mister Laritz and I, I was just trying to look this place up on on Google Maps. It looks like there's, like, some sort of a lot or something next to it with some trucks and and that. What what are we looking at exactly? It's hard to tell from Google Maps.

Are you talking to the

It's kinda hard to get a visualization of even what we're looking at. It's not very clear on the Okay.

As far as as far as 3015 West Chambers?

Yes. And you had mentioned something about a contractor's lot or something?

Yeah. This is either a outdoor storage yard or a contractor yard. I forget the occupancy. He does have an occupancy at this location. So I would imagine these are his materials, his trucks, etcetera.

Okay. I see. Thank you.

Any further questions for Mr. Larson? Okay. Mister Mueller, I know it's your turn now to testify, but you have done a little bit of that in the interim period of time. What would you like to tell us regarding your appeal?

I'm doing everything I can over there to take care of the property as I already said. I don't understand how I can be kept liable for what gets dumped in the alley and pushed over to what apparently is my space. But I'm willing to work with the city and anybody. I'm cleaning this up because the dumping there does mean no good. I have put up cameras in the alley.

I have worked with the city numerous times on testifying against dumpers. I have I've given a number of bits of information into the city with pictures and such that even with a picture and a license plate number and, you know, the person dumping it without a name, they say they cannot prosecute the guy. I've had a guy across the street who carries his garbage over to dump it, and the police won't issue him a ticket. They say you gotta go to neighborhood services. Neighborhood services says that they can't do anything without the name of the person.

I've been advised not to approach any of the people they're dumping because I've been attacked once. It as it was already stated, I believe, by mister Lives, and it it's it's a problem area. And for me to have to pay for the entire or even part of this problem, I think, is unfair because I have been going out of my way. And with the number of times I've cleaned the alleyway there and taken it in at my cost, and I I don't think I should be liable for this or even the half of it.

Okay. Any questions by board members of mister Mueller?

Aye. Mister chair?

Mister Rienda.

Mister Mueller, are you aware whether or not there are any easements from the alley onto your property?

To my knowledge, I don't know of any, but I didn't know that this part that they're saying is mine wasn't part of the alley. Otherwise, I would have probably done something different there towards working so that nobody could accidentally push garbage there even when we cleaned the alley.

Further questions? Thank you.

Any further questions? At this time, I'd like to turn the gavel over to mister Yandell.

Yes. Taking the gavel, mister, attorney Bonnet, go ahead.

Okay. I'm gonna make a motion that we go along with the city's recommendation of $6.91 28 for being the the amount that we levy against mister Mueller. So I'm a granting this appeal in part and denied in part. The reason for my motion is when I look at the evidence and the pictures that are presented, quite a bit of the debris is in actually the alley. And when whoever went over there to pick it up, they put the total cost of picking it up even though some of it was not on mister Mueller's property. So my the granted part, denying part, six ninety one twenty eight.

Alright. We have a motion to grant in part and deny in part the the appeal, basically cutting this amount in half from $1,382.56 to, I believe, $691.28. Do we have a second?

I'm gonna second.

Do we have a second? Any objections? Hearing none. So ordered. I will now pass the gavel back to miss to attorney Bobbitt.

Okay. Mister Mueller, now we're gonna call your next appeal, which is the appeal of garbage and litter nuisance fees for 5th 3015 West Chambers. Mister Larson, you are going to be the witness?

Yes. Peter Larson, Neighborhood Services. Is there

any possibility for compromise on this one before we go to testimony?

Well, chairman Bob, we've been in this position before, orders that are on monthly reinspection. I'll be happy to waive the all of the reinspection fees of 2026 if we can come into compliance. The the short version of this, and I can give a longer version, there is no valid occupancy permit for this property. It was cited for outdoor storage. And, again, you have a narrative from me, but it's now in the monthly reinspection cycle.

The property is zoned industrial heavy. Outdoor storage is a permitted use. Again, mister Miller would like to work with the permit center. There may be, some screening requirements that have to come, that have to be in place. But, and again, it's a permitted use.

So in a sense, this is somewhat of a matter of paperwork. The other option is just simply to clear the materials off the lot, and that'll be compliance as well. So I wanted to sort of leave with that. What's before you is, at this point, probably 3,000 in reinspection fees since the last writing of my narrative, 3,000 and change. But, again, I'm I'm happy to, this is a standard procedure with monthlies. If we can get into compliance, I can I can do better?

Okay. Mister Mueller, what I understand is that the city is willing to waive the twenty twenty six reinspection fees, and you say that those fees are around $3,000?

Yes. That's Bob, and I can I can get a specific number here for you? It it depends if the April inspection has been done or not.

Excuse me. I I I I'm sorry to interrupt. I I have heard three addresses here, and I just wanna make sure we're on the 2047, not a 2026, and not a 3031.

I I Well, I thought we were at 3015 West Chambers. Am I wrong?

No, sir. Now we're at 2947 North 30th.

Oh, I'm sorry. I I I apologize. We're at 2947 North 30th. I apologize, miss Moo. Because you had settled you had settled number the other one. I I I apologize. I had the wrong address. It is 2947 North 30th. Mister Larson, do we have a figure? One one moment.

Yeah. 3,000 doll $3,048.

K. My understanding, mister Miller, is they're willing to forgive the $3,048 in reinspection fees if you do certain things? And could you read in just reinforce what those are, mister Larinson?

Yes. Every property in Milwaukee has to have an occupancy permit, which reflects how the property is being used. This property is being used for outdoor storage, and it needs an occupancy permit for that. The last occupancy permit valid permit for this property was for a contractor shop that was raised in 2022. That point, the property becomes a vacant lot, and there is no occupancy permit for it.

It it I shouldn't say it becomes a vacant lot. It can be a vacant lot without an occupancy permit. Any other use has to have a permit. So they he was cited for failure to get an outdoor storage facility occupancy permit. It went through the court system, and then it goes into our monthly reinspection cycle. And this brings us to here today. I will reiterate for mister Miller, it's zoned industrial heavy. An outdoor storage facility is a permitted use. He can work with the permit center, get his permit. There may be some landscaping requirements in terms of for an outdoor storage facility, but it's certainly doable.

Option b is simply remove everything off the lot. He has a contractor yard across the street that we just heard at 3015 West Chambers. He can move it all over there, and the city will go away.

Is that acceptable to you, mister Mueller, to resolve this appeal? Partially,

I guess. I'd like to point out that we do have an occupancy permit there. It is for a shop and yard, not just a shop. We've got the stuff that we've had there for nearly twenty years in that yard.

Well, let me interject this then. We're on we're on plan b. If you agree to remove everything, then they will waive the reinspection fees. Would you agree to that?

Well, we're using it as a yard, so I don't wanna remove it. I believe there was something about the fencing or whatever also or screening for as far as making it acceptable, but still the issue is there that we do have an occupancy there that's been there.

According to their testimony, you do not. So we're at a point now where we're gonna go to hear the appeal. If you agree to remove everything or the alternative, you get an occupancy permit for outdoor storage. She says you do not have. That's up to you. Otherwise, we're going into the the testimony. It seems like a very fair offer to me, but that's up to you.

Can I get time to bring you the occupancy permit?

Well, we're gonna give you time to comply to come back, and then we would just we would not require you to pay the reinspection fees. How much time would you give him, mister Laritson?

The our fiscal year is September 1 to September 1. So August 31 is the magic day.

You would have till August 31 to do one or two. But if you don't do one or two, you're gonna be liable for the entire amount of reinspection fees for 2026. I just want you to be clear on that.

So get the occupancy permit or get the stuff removed?

That is correct.

Okay.

Is that acceptable?

If you're asking me, yes. I said okay.

Okay. Well, I'm just asking you to say yes. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

So okay. What we're gonna do is we're gonna hold this matter for the call to the chair. It's my understanding that we now have agreement that he will not have to pay the $20.26 reinspection fees if he obtains a outdoor storage occupancy permit or the alternative removes all the debris on that lot. Okay? Thank you, mister Miller.

Yep.

Okay. We are now going to move to our 10:30 agenda. The appeal of Lanny Slocum. Lanny Slocum, are you with us?

Yes. Are

you in the audience there?

Yes. Yes, sir.

Okay. Lani, you wanna come up to the table?

He's sitting there. You can take the morning or something like that. Good

morning, Lani. Welcome. How are you doing today?

I'm good. How are you?

Who's gonna appear on behalf of the city? David Kagle. Good morning, mister Kagle. Okay. Would you please swear both witnesses, would you please raise your right hand?

This only affirm that the penalties are perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do. I do.

Okay. Mister Kagle, you may proceed.

Alright. We are here for a reinspection fee that was charged for a court reinspection on 03/19/2026 for an order that was issued on 09/04/2025 by inspector Zhang. A few pieces of information that I provided, one are the court summons. Another one is some screenshots of our computer system stating that the registered agent, mister Slocum, was provided my contact information and directions to contact me ten days prior to his court date in order to provide me access to the dwelling to do this inspection. If I do not hear from the owner, I still have to report findings to the court whether it's passed or fail.

I don't have an option to do a to mark an order as a reinspect or something like that to kick it down the road. Again, I heard I have received no contact from mister Slopum. And so I usually typically go out about a week ahead of time because I have to have my work done by the end of the week, try to get in, try to get tenant access. And if that fails, I fail the inspection.

And, mister Kegel, what were you going to inspect at that property?

There were some items on the inside which were in the basement, repair plaster and water damaged walls, restore the basement to a clean and sanitary condition, and defective baseboards in the basement bathroom.

And how much are you seeking for reinspection fees?

I believe that one was it's a second tier one, 500. And I think that with the fees, it's what? 8 $508 and a little bit of change.

Where is here we go.

$508,508 dollars even.

Okay. Lanis, welcome. Do you have any questions of mister Cagle?

No. I just I I just he wasn't able to get access, and I never got a phone call that he was coming to to give him access to the building that the the work hasn't been done. I have a court date, May 28, to modify it, so it seems like we've double dipping here. I'm having a $508 reinspection fee, and on top of that, a fines from from the the work that's already done.

K. So I understand your questions. Mister Cagle, what exactly what did you exactly try to do to contact mister Slocum?

I'll again, I am a court inspector. The court stressed both the assistant city attorney and the judge, and they were provided my the piece of information that I provided you was basically exhibit number seven. Clearly, at the top, it says, to be present for the court inspection and provide the required property access for interior violations, please contact the court inspector at least ten days prior. I have a potential of 60 court inspects every week. I don't have the time to chase.

I don't have the time to contact you, call you. That's why the o is is put on the owner of the property to contact me and arrange of access for the for the building. I I can't sit there on a Monday morning or Tuesday morning and try to make arrangements with everybody. It's their responsibility, and it's stressed by the court to contact me.

However, I did contact mister Sean. I guess I was contacting the wrong inspector. I I contacted miss mister Sean several times to come and inspect that the work was done, and and I couldn't get in touch with him through email and voice mails. Well, I guess I should have made contact with mister Cagle, but, I mister Sean wrote the order, so I thought it was I was supposed to contact mister Sean. Okay.

And and and I do have a court date, May 28 May 28, where, I will be contacting mister Cagle now that I know so he can come out and and expect that the work is done, to reduce the fine to a minimum level. But to to to pay the fine and also being charged a reinspection fee, which the work was done, I you need to have access. If you would have called me, I could've gave him access. Or if I knew which inspector to call, I could've got him in the property.

Okay. I have a question for you, mister Slocum. Do you remember when you went to court that they told you the onus was on you to contact mister Cagle for the reinspection?

Not not necessarily mister Cagle. It was I do remember them saying contact the inspector, which I did, and I couldn't get in contact with him.

Okay. Because I'm aware of the process, and the process does state mister Kagle. And, usually, the person in court would give you the phone number for Mr. Cagle. Do you recall that at all?

Yes.

Is there any questions of board members of Mr. Slocum?

Yes, mister Barrett. Just one question I wanna confirm. Mister Slocum, you are acknowledging that you did receive the the yellow notice. I think it's marked with a number seven that it tells you to contact the let's see. It says you have to be present for a court reinspection to provide the required property access for interior violations and to contact the court inspector ten days before the scheduled court appearance. Did did you receive that notice?

Notice for that, but but, I remember the commission or the judge saying, when I need when the work is done, contact a inspector. If I knew it was mister Cagle or specifically, then I would've contacted mister Cagle instead of mister Sean who originally wrote the violation.

Okay.

I I can schedule I mean, if we wanna readderm this, I can, have mister Cagle come out today or tomorrow and and see that the work is done.

I guess I'll just ask inspector Kagle. Inspector Kagle, is there any opportunity here for mister Slocum to reschedule the work?

Well, he has filed a motion to reopen this court case. It does have a looks like a May 26 court date, which was granted on April 6, and I have yet to hear from him. That was three weeks ago. This was granted twenty two days ago. I have yet to hear from him to provide me the required access. I wouldn't be able to do anything today or tomorrow. Both of those days are booked. It would have to be something next week. But if you look at, again, exhibits what is it? 67, and eight.

Number 6 is my inspect the inspector that's the city's assistant city attorney's information that the ROA was provided, the inspector's contact number. Then number seven is the actual sheet that's handed to the individual because mister Slocum did appear in person. And then if you look at number eight, that are that is the court clerk's hearing notes after the case was heard stating appears in person for b and z, for sentencing, and has inspector info and understands the stipulation process.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying that, inspector Kagel. So I guess my question is, the reinspection fees are $508. Is there any offer by, by you to mister Slocum to arrange for a reinspection? And would are you offering any sort of agreement to waive or or, bring down the cost of the reinspection fees?

If I'm willing to waive it if mister Slocum can get me in. I I've got no skin in this game. I to me, it's irrelevant one way or the other, to be honest with you. But, again, I I with my caseload, I don't have the time to chase property owners. That's why the onus is put on them.

Okay. And so I understand that you're offering that he can call you for a reinspection. When would he have to call you by, and when would you need to have the reinspection completed by?

I would wanna hear from him by probably, he he can reach out to me tomorrow morning. I'm gonna be heading out of the office at about 9AM. If you can get ahold of me prior to that, we'll try to arrange something for next week.

Can can we schedule it now?

That's what I And I don't have the

calendar in front of me. No.

Okay.

And, mister Cagle, just one last question. Which, phone number are we looking at here? We have a south court inspector and a north court inspector.

The 3132. 286-3132. And that would have been circled by the court administrator or the city attorney when he spoke at the window.

Mister Slocum, did you hear inspector Kagle? He's clarified that if you give him a call by tomorrow morning and get this rescheduled for reinspection by for next week and you call him at the number (414) 286-3132, that he will agree to waive this reinspection fee. Did you hear that offer?

Yes.

Okay. And are you willing to accept that offer?

Yes.

Alright. I I I actually have no more questions. I'll just turn it back over to the chair.

Okay. Mister Slocum, I want you to listen very carefully to me. My understanding is that you will have to pay the $508 reinspection fee, but that would not be required of you if you do a certain thing. Now you have to contact mister David Kagel, k a g e l. You must contact him before 9AM tomorrow. What what time do you get in your office, mister Kagel?

7AM.

So he's there from 7AM to just before 9AM. His phone number is 286-3132. Have you written that down?

Yes. I have it.

Okay. Well, if you contact them tomorrow and you successfully schedule a reinspection fee I mean, reinspection of the property, they'll waive the fee. Is that acceptable to you?

Yes.

Okay. Well, I'm gonna tell you, if you do not do it, we're gonna schedule for next month, and you're gonna have to pay the $508. Do you understand that if you don't do this?

I I understand. Thank you.

Okay. Well, just so you know, there's no leeway. So if you don't do it, you're gonna have to pay the $508, period.

Oh, I'm gonna do it.

Okay. Well, thank you so much. Now entertain a motion for exactly what I just stated.

Alright. Thank you, mister Kagan.

Mister chair, I would I would move that we allow actually, I'm not sure exactly what the motion is, that we allow inspector Kegel's offer, which has been stated on the record for, the appellant to schedule a reinspection by tomorrow morning, April 29, and, to have the reinspection within a week, according to inspector Kegel's schedule. And if he does so and completes the re the inspection, that inspector Kegel will waive the $508 fee, So I believe it's my motion.

Mister mister Kegel, do you have some clarification?

If he meets those terms, contacts me tomorrow morning, we set something up, I go in, say, next Tuesday or Wednesday or possibly even Monday, but I'm already working on Monday, and I fail that inspection. There will be another $508 fee if this one is being for removed. If he fails the inspection, if I can't approve the repairs, then either that one scans or or I hit him with a new one.

Do you hear that, mister Slocum?

Yes.

You understand why he's doing that. Right? Is that if he does an inspection, it's still not done. There's a reinspection fee. So you'll have to pay $508, but it'll only be for that one that mister Cagle went to that you failed.

I I understand.

Okay. Do I have a second?

A second.

I have a second, miss Hammer. Any further discussion?

If I understand correctly, this item is being held until next month until this item is in compliance?

If it's in compliance, we don't have to schedule it at all. It's a decision that's done. Mister Cagle?

If he meets this, should I just, email Joanna that we're good?

Yes.

Okay.

So then our motion is not to hold it. It's to grant it with the specific, criteria. Correct?

Well, we're just holding it to make sure he complies. If he complies, Mr. Kaggle will let you know, and that's the end of the matter. Then the motion of mister the appeal of mister Slocum has been agreed to. If he doesn't, then we would schedule it, and, we're going to find $508.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Okay. I got it.

Yeah. Because we have a little twist here. Because what's gonna be is that there's gonna be new reinspection fee that he's gonna have to pay.

Mister chair, I guess, procedurally, I just wanna make sure, I understand that I wanna make sure we're all in understanding here procedurally. If, if if he calls the inspector, the inspector is what I understood is the inspector is waiving the $508 reinspection fee. But if during that inspection, the inspector determines that it has not passed, then he will issue a new $508 reinspection fee, which then my understanding would be that this appeal would not this appeal would be moot because this would be a new fee. He'd have to file a second appeal.

That's correct. But I wanna make it clear to mister Slocum. If he files a new appeal fee, his chances of of, of succeeding are slim to none. Because then he he would then have to argue that how he did it was acceptable, and that would probably be in court versus his.

So when you say acceptable so so, like, on on on the sheet, it said replace drywall. The the drywall is replaced.

Well, I'm not gonna go into construction of it. I'm relying on you and mister Kaggle to clearly understand what remediation must be done.

That's why wanted to clarify now. When when he comes to inspect, what exactly is he looking for?

Well, you have the work order, so you can question him tomorrow, and we're moving on. So you when you call him tomorrow, you can clarify what exactly had to be done and how. Okay?

Okay.

Okay. We're now moving on to 10:30. Oscar Alejandro Gita. Reinspection fees for 3263 South 3rd Street. Is mister Gita with with us?

He's in the room.

Okay. Good morning, mister Gita.

Hi. Good morning.

Could you have could you position him to the front?

He starts talking, the camera will move around and prank him up.

Okay. Because I I could I can't see him now at all.

Want me to move?

Speak up, love. You want me to move?

I'd like him to move so we can see him on the testimony to at least see what

he Okay.

You want me to

move this way? Sure. Okay.

See, the camera's got you right now.

Yeah. Alright.

You can sit there. You can stay there. The camera is a three sixty camera. The minute that person starts speaking, it'll it'll move to the person that's speaking.

Okay. Yeah. But I wanna be able to see him when a person is speaking other than him. Some of the people are right in front of us.

The minute that he starts talking, the camera will pick him up.

No. I I'm not interested in just him talking. I'm interested in the witness for the city talking to see him while he's there. Okay. People.

Isn't he able to position himself where we can see him all the time other than when he's not talking?

Not really.

Not really because this is the setup of this room.

Yes. We see all the other people. I wonder oh, there he is. That's all I want.

I'll be

a little better. Alright. Sounds good.

Okay. Who's gonna be a witness for the city? Mister Laird, you're unmuted.

It's been a morning. Sorry, mister chairman. This is Peter Larson with Neighborhood Services.

Mister Larson has probably been sworn in. Mister Gaeta, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in?

I do. Thank you.

Okay. This is the appeal of mister Gaeta for reinspection fees for 3263 South 3rd in the 14th Automatic District. Mister Larson, you may proceed.

Thank you, mister chairman. So what's before you is a $508 reinspection fee. This is from an order that was issued regarding a fence. March 13 and you have the brief narrative. 03/13/2025, department received a complaint regarding fence erected on county grounds North of 30 263 South 3rd. On 03/19/2025, the complaint was verified. Fences both is on both private property and county land. Order issued to obtain fence permit and to comply with fence height regulations. 04/16/2025, contact made with owner, owner call, issuing inspector and discuss order. Extension given.

August 1 was the first reinspection. The violations remained. A reinspection fee of $2.54 was charged. That was on the 2025 taxes. The owner contacted the issuing inspector on August 7. Discussion regarding order and possible extension. Extension granted to October 7 or excuse me. The next waypoint, October 7. An additional extension was granted to 01/09/2026. 02/09/2026, reinspection, the violation remains.

A charge reinspection fee of $508, and the order was forwarded to municipal court. In this instance, certainly happy to waive the $5.00 8 if we can come into compliance. The snag I see, and I hope I'm wrong, I don't see this happening by 08/31/2026. So we run into the problem of the tax bill. But the owner is pursuing, and I'm sure he'll he can talk in much more detail about this.

He's pursuing compliance. It's just a very long road. In addition to purchasing land from the county, he will need to adjust this gets lost in the shuffle, I think. He will need to get a variance from the board of zoning appeals, which is not a guarantee. But regardless, with the five zero eight, if we can come into compliance, happy to waive it.