Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning, everyone. My name is Vincent Bobbitt. I'm the chair of the Administrative Review Board of Appeals. This is our hearing set for June 24th. And we have with us, other than myself, we have board member Liz Hammer. and Alex Bruzan. Mr. Bruzan 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 Huffman?

That's me, sorry.

Who is that?

Are you Chase? Yeah, I'm Chase. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Chase, I'm here.

Chase, who's appearing for the city?

Not me. No, there's a representative of the city. Oh, gotcha, okay, sorry.

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

I see Mr. Peter Larryson. I'm connected.

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

Everything else is occupied. We have another committee meeting in 301B. And they're using the 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?

He's sitting at the table right now.

Yeah, but I can't see him.

Mr. Hoffman, can you speak?

Mr. Hoffman? Mr. Hoffman? Yeah. 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 don't see the city's witness.

Mr.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm just here for DNS. That's what I thought.

For DNS. Mr. Larrison, are you here for Chase Hoffman?

Joanna, do we know? He was here for, what was it, Forestry? No, different services.

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

I'm not aware of that. Nobody was showing up.

Okay. Okay. We're going to 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. We have a appeal of Ryan.

Yes, sir.

Joanna, you're going to have to help me with the. People are raising their hands and all this other stuff. You're going to have to help me with identification.

It's coming up right next to Alderman Jackson, right there.

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

You can flee, sir.

You got to excuse me. The audio is terrible. I now want to recognize that Alderman DeAndre Jackson has joined us. And I take it, sir, you are Ryan Kaffish? Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay, would you please swear the witnesses in?

Do solely affirm, your right hand. Do solely affirm that the pains and penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin, that testimony you're about to give, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, sir.

And who will be appearing for the city?

I'm trying to send a link to Mr. Brennan.

to chair i just spoke uh briefly with ben brannon at forestry and he's just waiting for a link to the meeting to hop on for these uh cases i just resend him the link

joanna in the future we got to 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 it 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. Brannan.

Good morning.

Mr. Brannan, are you here today for the appeal of Brian Caffiche?

Is that 26035? Yep, that is.

No. All right. Yes, I'm ready. Would you please raise your right hand?

It's only a permanent defense and penalties of 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 our vice chair, Kendrick Gandel, who's joining the meeting. So we now have the full board present. You may proceed, Mr. Brannon.

Okay. File number 26044. This address was 5725 South Honey Creek. The record number was PWCF-26-01078. On February 3rd, 2026, the property was inspected and cited for sidewalk 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, $280 contractor fee for 220 linear feet, A $75 admin fee and $24.85 in taxes. The total is $429.85. Included are the inspection and citation photos, as well as the contractor before and after photos.

Mr. Kefesh, have you had an opportunity to view the photographs?

Yes, I did, Chairman.

Okay. Are there any questions that you have for Mr. Brannon?

Sure. I wasn't able to identify where the notice was posted since we never received the notice. Can you tell me where that was?

There is no notice. There's no notice necessary. It was after 24 hours in violation or it was in a violation after being after the 24 hour abatement window. So since it's a public risk, no notice is necessary. It just gets a violation, sent to contractor, and then a bill goes out.

So can you explain the picture that shows a notice posted on my mailbox? Again, it wasn't there.

It's a courtesy.

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

It's a courtesy.

Okay, are you aware that according to 18 USC 1725, nothing should be placed on a mailbox without postage? If so, the purpose or the individual or business can be fined. The business can be fined up to $10,000 or organization. While I may have violated an ordinance, the city has violated a federal law. I know that law very well as I'm a postmaster. Suffice to say, it would be unfair for me to find the city $10,000 for posting something outside of my mailbox.

Hold on, Mr. Hold on, Mr. Clayfish. This is an opportunity for you to ask questions. Let me, if I may, do the question. Mr. Brandon, are you aware of any 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 3rd, you said, took photos, which I saw, which are time-date and stamped, correct?

Correct.

All right. Why is it that the contractors came out and they have a whiteboard? There are no photos time-date and stamped. Since I was home that day and offered to clean my sidewalk, because I was out of town for work.

Hold on, Mr. Clayfish. This is an opportunity for you to ask questions of Mr. Brannon. You're testifying, and you'll get an opportunity to testify. But keep your questions for something he can answer.

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

Would you know the reason why, Mr. Brannon?

That's the requirement.

Okay, what's your next question, Mr. Clayfish?

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

If you know, Mr. Brannon. It's sufficient. What?

It's sufficient.

Okay, next question, Mr. Clayfish.

All right, you mentioned that it's efficient. Wouldn't we agree that telephones today with timestamped photos is more efficient than a whiteboard and would be more accurate and a true representation of the time it took?

No, I don't believe that's necessary.

I do because- Well, who are you testifying, Mr. Clayfish? This is a question and answer period.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to get to that point.

No, just ask the questions and you'll get an opportunity to testify.

How long did it take for them to clear my sidewalk? According to the whiteboard.

It's...

looks like about 45 minutes i can't zoom in on uh paper copy but so what i was able to see and again just if you can 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 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 before they started and after?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Okay. All right, that's the only question I have for that.

Okay, any questions from board members? Mr. Brannon? Okay, Mr.

I have a quick question. Mr. Brannon, the fee associated, I just wanna make sure I understand the fee structure correctly. So I understand the posting fee and the administrative fee, those particular fees. But the fee for the removal, is that based solely on linear feet of sidewalk, or is there regard for amount of snow?

It's for the linear feet only. It's a competitive bid, and the contractors bid on 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 brannon mr blackfish uh who determines um what's a violation of the ordinance

How was 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, verifies that that's the case, takes photos and cites it.

Is there anything on record about how many times I've had a complaint? How many times have I been cited for snow in the last 10 years that I've been there?

We can certainly look that up for you.

Mr. Brannon, Clayfish, we're drifting a little bit away from what we're here for today. We're here for this specific incident on the snow removal.

I understand, but I believe that 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, there's going to be relevance there since... Well, he did explain to you that a complaint was received, an inspector went out,

and that the clocks start ticking.

I understand. My next question was, have I been cited before for this?

He's not going to answer that. We're drifting away from what it is. We have the photos. We have them saying an inspector went out there. Mr. Klappisch, it's now your opportunity to tell us what you want about your appeal.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 conducting training. I own the house with my mother, who is retired and elderly. 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 3rd, now I understand. I read the city ordinance front and back. I understand that it's a courteousness to post something. Like I mentioned before, there is 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 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 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. My sidewalk takes 15 minutes to clear with a snowblower, which they had. One pass up, one passed out. 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 re-landscaping 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 of my house. Clearly, I have a disruptive neighbor who doesn't like me. I don't know why. but it's happening. To find somebody almost $500 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 our city with the snow removal ordinance. Again, in my appeal letter, I said, you know what, I'm fine. If you want to fine 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 going to make it a a joke even at the post office expense that's why we're losing money that's why 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 for mr cowfish okay we're in committee at this time i'll entertain a motion on the appeal of ryan catfish for uh the snow removal fees do i have a motion

Mr. Chairman, motion.

And is that Alderman Jackson?

Yes, sir.

What is your motion?

Do we remove administration fees, or is that possible?

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

All right. As he agreed to do it, but at the same time, it wasn't properly noticed in the administration fees. We can remove those if you need them to do it.

Yeah, I have a motion from Alderman Jackson to grant the appeal in part and deny in part. The deny is regarding the contractor fee of 220 feet removal, but to grant 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. Yandel. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, so ordered. Mr. Clayfish, it was $429.85, and now we're eliminating $125. If my math is correct, you will be responsible for paying $304.85. 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 note that I'm going to 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 covered but then once it was icing uh i don't know if that's a reason why the contractor but they do off linear feet so at this time i'm going to 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 clerk?

You strongly affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, thank you.

And Mr. Brannon, you are going to testify on behalf of the city? That's correct. Okay, and I will acknowledge that Mr. Brannon has been previously sworn in before he testified in the last case. Mr. Brannon, you may proceed.

Okay. For the address 3672 South 20th Street, this record was PWCF-26-00597. On January 27, 2026, the property was inspected and cited for snow removal or for a sidewalk snow violation. On the same day, it was sent to contractor for removal. And on January 28, it was cleared by a city contractor. The fees associated with this record are a $50 inspection fee or posting fee, $210 contractor fee for 160 linear feet, a $75 admin fee, $15.05 for tax and a total of $354.95. Included are the inspection 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?

Where would those photos have been sent? Because I didn't receive any photos. The only 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 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.

Ms. Polanco, are you able to show the series of photos to Chase? Yes, sir. Okay, Chase, we're going to allow you to look at the photos, take your time, and when you're done viewing them, let me know.

Is that my home screen?

What's your name? Chase Hoffman. Yeah, like I said, I was letting my dog out, and my dog was staring at someone, and I was like, what's happening? Okay. Did you receive a notice? No. And so in that instance, yeah, I guess I didn't have a notice either. My neighbor actually came across it.

Hold on a second, Chase. Have you had an opportunity to view the photographs? Yes.

Yes, I did see the photos, yes.

Okay. Do you have any questions of Mr. Brannon?

I don't think so. I understand.

Now, 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 elaborate on the whole ordeal, my wife and I had been ill for a few days. And we had just been kind of going about our business. I didn't realize that there was even much snow out there at the time. And so, like I said, just letting my dog out. My dog sees something. 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. And I understand, I did see that, you know, the notices and courtesy, I understand it's not necessary, but it was, again, very surprising to just have someone show up in the dark and clean up my sidewalk. And then, like I said, getting that bill for that much was surprising as well. 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, oh, that's not terrible, bud. 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's just, it's a lot of money for us right now. We're relatively new homeowners and things are a little bit tight. So I just was trying to see what we could do better. make it a little bit easier for us.

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. Chair, I had a question for Mr. Brannon.

Is that Mr. Bruzan?

Yes.

What is your question?

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 half of it had melted and didn't require to be cleaned. Is that the linear footage, is that given to you by the contractor or is that data that's pulled from the city?

It would be pulled from the, at the time of inspection, the inspector, when they write up their report and create the record, uh will 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 say the the homeowner shoveled the front after the fact, but then didn't shovel the side, we would reduce the linear footage. But if it looks relatively the same, like no work was done, then we stick with the original linear footage. But to answer your question, yes, if some work is done, we don't count that into the linear footage. Thanks.

As a result of the question, Mr. Brannon and a testimony of Mr. Chase. Board members have any other questions for either witness?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I have a problem noticing. Everything else we do is noticed as far as on the front door. Why would the snow is not being noticed? This is two times in a row now they don't feel they were properly noticed.

Is it the public safety risk? It falls under, there's an exception that was literally, this has come up a few times now in previous appeals hearings. When the issue, or when it was, sorry, I'm trying to think of the, Attorney Dobbs actually gave some information about this previously, but there was a an exception to sidewalk snow violations that there is 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 contractor. It's already past the 24-hour abatement window.

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

They can, but we are required to send it to contractor immediately.

I'm just talking about the notice portion of it.

Like I said, it's a courtesy for sure. but it wouldn't affect whether the property was in violation or it went to contractor or any of the fees or anything like that. Based on the way that it's spelled out for us to enforce, physical notice is not only not required, But it's not, I mean, that's not something, we stopped doing it, basically.

Mr. Alderman Jackson, may I interject here with a quick question for Mr. Brandon? Mr. Brandon, if they would go out and the sidewalk is cleared, do they get assessed a contractor fee?

The contractor fee would not be assessed, no.

That's what I had thought. So the notice of administrative fee would still exist.

That's correct. So the inspection fee, it happens regardless of if there's a physical copy of something left 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 work done by the contractor.

Okay, as a result of the questions to Mr. Brandon, do we have any follow-up questions from board members? I have 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 a snow depth requirement? Can it be a quarter of an inch? Does it have to be three inches? Is there some depth of snow required?

It's 116-8. sidewalks be kept clean and there's no minimum depth. It's literally bare pavement standard. So if there's just ice on it, it's slippery, it's icy, but it's hard to measure a depth there. It's still considered, it could be in violation.

Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Brannon? Chase, 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 uh 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 the problem I could have taken care of it.

Okay, so noted. I will say there was a notice on this property. You can see it in the photos. I didn't see the photo of that. In the picture of your house, there's a pink slip on your mailbox. That's the notice.

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

Did you have any tool?

Mr. President.

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

It's kind of flapping in the wind, but it's there. The third inspection photo.

Well, yeah, I do see something in the mailbox. Did you want to take a look at that, Chase?

He's 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. So no.

So what is your motion?

I was going to say what I did last time. Inspection fee and admin fee removed.

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 in part. The motion is that we would grant the contractor fee of $210, but we would not require the appellant to pay the $50 inspection fee and the $75 administration fee. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

A second by Ms. Hammer. Do we have any objections to that motion? Hearing none, so ordered. Chase, we granted your motion in part, denied in part, so you will not be required to pay the inspection fee or the administration fee.

Awesome.

You'll be getting a written notice from us about the decision and your right to appeal. And have a nice day, and thank you for showing up for your hearing.

Yeah, thank you very much. Have a good rest of your day, guys.

Okay, at this time, I'm going to call the appeal of Shawna Tisdale. Is Shawna with us this morning?

I believe she's online. Hopefully she can queue her up.

Let's queue her up.

Mr. Chair, I apologize. That's a different person. I do not see Shana.

At this time. At this time, it's 942 AM. This was scheduled for nine. 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 Ms. Hammer. Any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. Number four, the appeal of Susan Antani for snow removal fees at 3328 North Raymond Street. Is Susan Antani with us?

Good morning.

Good morning, Ms. Antani. You've been watching our hearings?

I have. This is very interesting and very informative.

Mr. Brannon, are you going to be the witness for the city? Yes. Okay, Mr. Brannon has been previously sworn in to testify it out, so that will hold for this. Would you please raise your right hand?

Yes, ma'am. Mr. Brandon, would you please proceed? For the address 33 29 North Bremen. Uh, this record was PWCF dash 26 dash 0 1 8 2 2 on

March 19th of 2026, the property was inspected and cited for sidewalk snow. 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 this is the $50 posting fee. I'll once again say that by ordinance that stays regardless of if the property is cleared or not. And included in this record are the inspectors, inspection photos of the violation.

Okay, this was just on a side note, this came up on a previous, just a 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, Ms. Antoni?

I only have two. I joined because this is the first time I've received anything like this at this property or any property. The question is what time the pictures were taken. And is this, as you mentioned in a similar case, was this called in by someone?

Are you able to answer that, Mr. Brennan?

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 yeah i'm just curious yeah i can certainly do that yep if you just give me one moment please

On a side note, Miss Tani, I think it was posted on that metal railing. I see a pink slip there. Did you see that photograph?

I did. My tenant sent me that photograph, which I sent back to 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 has the date. Yeah.

Sorry. Um, so the complaint was made on March 17. So two days prior. Interesting. Yep. So and then the inspection was at. 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, Ms. Antoni? 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 or Ms. Antoni? Okay, Ms. Antonia, this is your opportunity. Did you want to add anything to your testimony or the questions that were put forth in the testimony of Mr. Brannon?

Yeah, I mean, there's not really much else to add. I can see that most of it was cleared from your pictures. And by the time the tenant sent me pictures, there was no snow anywhere because it was 45 degrees that day. I was joining mostly because I was curious as to why uh that white was called in i had another trash call in on this house so i think it's tenant neighbor related issue and i wanted to join just to find out more of the story so i really don't have any other questions okay i had not seen these pictures before until this morning your pictures i had only seen my pictures so i logged in a couple weeks ago and they weren't there so

We are in committee. At this time, I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair. Mr. Yandel.

I move to deny the appeal.

I have a motion by Mr. Yandel to deny the appeal of the $50 hosting fee. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms. Hammer. Any objections to that motion? Hearing none, so ordered. Ms. Antone, I want to thank you for coming this morning. We did deny the appeal. You'll have to pay the $50. If you have any problems with that, you'll be getting a written notice and it has your appeal rights contained within the notice.

Not a problem.

Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'm going to call the appeal of David Gulpke and Kip Mensah. Are either of these individuals with us this morning? No, sir. It is now 10 a.m. This was scheduled for nine. 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? I'll 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, 3921 North 11th. 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.

I have a motion by Mr. Yandel to deny for non-appearance. Do I have a second?

I 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?

On here, yes.

Oh, okay. I just wanted to know who will be testifying for the city? Is it you, Mr. Brannan?

Mr. Brannan, yep.

Mr. Brannan has been previously sworn in to testify. Mr. Simon, would you please raise your right hand?

Yes, ma'am. Okay, Mr. Simon, 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 recall is when I talked to our administrative assistant, Ms. Polanco, that with that notice and with this request and with this room that we're in holding these hearings because somebody 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. 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.

Mr. Simon, excuse my interruption. Mr. Chair, I have the videos that I can do a screen share for the committee to view and the videos that have also been uploaded to the file.

I was just about to say that I thought I gave him to Joanna.

OK, that'd be great. Yeah, Mr. Brandon, you may proceed.

To start out, I just noticed that there's a heading error on here. It copied over the previous file number and it didn't change it over. But everything else is correct. It's for file number 26055, address is 5700 West Stack Drive. This was for a 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 sidewalk snow abatement. And on March 18th, it was cleared by a city contractor. The fees associated are a $50 posting fee, the 210 contractor fee for 130 linear feet, Um, $75 admin fee, $19 and 95 cents per tax and a total of $354 95 cents. Um, attached is the inspection photo as well as the contractors before and after photos, um, showing the front and side of the properties.

Okay. Uh, Mr. Simon, do you have any questions from Mr. Brandon?

Yes, I do. So it has already been brought up by a previous appellant about the timestamp photos versus the whiteboard photos. And in the inspector photos, there is a timestamp on it. But then my question is, because there's no timestamp 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?

Surely it's possible. It would be, I mean, kind of giving you a sense of what we see on our end. 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 still on it from the same snow event.

Okay, which would hold up better from an evidence, I mean, I'm not an attorney, you're not an attorney, but which would hold up better from an evidence standpoint, timestamp photos or whiteboard photos?

Still think they're both sufficient, but we could look at the metadata on their photos as 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 record?

It's kind of irrelevant.

You said this before, but what happens when a contractor shows up and 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 resolve the record as done by owner. And then there's a $50 posting fee associated.

Okay. Next question is if a city contractor or a contractor was really there from 8.43 PM to 8.59 PM on March 18th, as is being alleged, I 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. I wouldn't know about your ring camera, how it's set up, where it's pointed, what it's at.

The videos that I show, the three videos that are ring camera videos that are included in the file, the first one shows the initial walking from the garage area. 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. It's not close up, obviously, but you can see him walking. The area of concern that is The spot 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 timeframe. And then the other ring camera or 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 what I mean? And yeah, so that's the other tenant borrowing her or taking her shovel to him by the fence. And the timestamps is 6 50 PM at that one. If I'm seeing it correctly. Yep. 1950. 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. But his time of finishing was 7.08 PM. That's that last when he sets the shovel down. So that angle right there would have picked up. And then there's another ring cam footage that shows tenants leaving then at seven Oh nine. 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?

Well, 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 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. I can send you the measurements, but it was measured. It also goes, you would have to go, because you have a quarter property, you go to the actual physical, or not physical, but the property line on each side and all the way to the street on the corner because you have to open up that sidewalk. I don't know about your...

The other tenant cleared that part of it.

Before photos show nothing was clear.

year before photos start, do not start all the way to the corner though. They start from the edge.

Hold on, Mr. Simon, you're arguing. No, okay, I'm just saying.

But the question is... 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 paced off. And I also have video footage from

where I actually took a tape measure, but I wasn't able to provide that. Hold on a second, Mr. Simon. Mr. Yandel?

I think that the questioning is argumentative, and I don't know that we've, I hear questions based on alleged evidence that hasn't been entered in as evidence based on him walking around. 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. Brennan, are you able to answer how the linear footage is calculated?

We use the Milwaukee County GIS maps, and we use the measuring tool, which is just a straight linear footage. And we measure from property line to the sidewalk, or 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, Mr. Yandel. So in other words, if there is 20 feet that doesn't need clearing, that still would go into calculation on the contractor fee. Did you hear the question, Mr. Browning? Because I didn't hear any answer.

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

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 fee for that property.

It is charged for the linear fee of the property?

Well, what I'm saying is he says 20 feet was cleared. Sure. And 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 didn't add up to 121 feet that I have. Well, that's true.

Yeah, for some reason, we're getting a lot of interference. I don't know what that is. Any further questions, Mr. Simon or Mr. Brown?

The last one was, do city inspectors often bound up or exaggerate opening a fridge?

The inspector wouldn't be necessarily the one that calculates that. 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 would never round up. 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 of a foot. but never 10 feet, never 20 feet, anything like that.

Mr. Simon, any further questions? Any questions from board members and Mr. Brannan?

Yeah, just a quick question. I feel like I remember there being some type of provision if there was ice on the sidewalk and it was salted, that that would meet the requirement for clearing or am I mistaken about that?

Well, what I understand what the testimony previously was is that they go right down to the bare cement. So if there's ice, there's clearing that has to be done.

Okay, that's correct.

Any further questions, Mr. Brent? Mr. Simon, it's now your opportunity to tell us about your appeal. Okay, thank you, sir.

So our tenants know at the property there that 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 date we received the letter was in early April.

The 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 late and it met the deadline of 30 days. I believe you guys already have that and have cashed 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 or 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've 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 post-it, this is what I'm hearing right 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 already in violation, which I'm not arguing that. I haven't gone back into the weather history records to look and see when the snowfall actually ended, but I'm not going to argue that part. But the posted was put at 1.32 p.m. One tenant removed it when they got home from work, posted 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 cameras footage of 6.46 p.m. and 7.08 p.m. on 3.18. So ring cameras footage with the timestamps that we have in the video confirms that, that the tenant set the shovel down at 7.08 p.m. So the city is saying that the contractor, and they heard people, Walter, his name was Jason, was there that same night. at 8.43 p.m. to clear the sidewalk. The 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 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 show the sidewalk not cleared. 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 pm if my tenants had just gotten out there and done it at 708.

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 timeframe of the 843 to 859 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, Nicole Walters 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 pasting it off. And it's like, it's nowhere near 121 feet. It's around 100, maybe 105 at most. And I won't believe... That's as relevant. It's mostly just the timeframe that they're saying they're there. So that's why we appeal. That's why I included the fee. That's why I don't think we have a problem with the administrator if we are already in violation.

Unless that's all that can be done.

But I think in this case, 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 space at that timeframe.

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. Yandel because I'd like to make a motion.

I will take the gavel, Mr. Chair. You can make a motion.

At this time, I would make a motion to grant in part the appeal of Mr. Simon and to deny in part. I would grant his appeal to not be responsible for the $210 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 attorney Bobbitt for granting in part and denying in part. Mr. Simon would be responsible for the posting and admin fee and taxes, but we would grant the appeal as to the contractor fee. Do we have a second?

I second.

We have a second from Ms. Hammer. Do we have any objections? Hearing none, so ordered. I'll pass back the gavel to Attorney Bobbitt.

Mr. Simon, we granted your appeal in part and denied in part. You'll not be required to pay the contractor fee due to the evidence that you've submitted to the board for our decision.

thank you very much i do 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 going to be a refund check or miss miss john 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

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 I'll double check on that, I guess.

I think we also have to notify the city treasurer because if anything is remitted, they would be the one doing so. Joanna, could you please check into that for Mr. Simon?

mr simon are you asking about the 25 for the fee for european no uh the actual 354.95 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 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 in touch.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Mr. Simon, like you said, your check, you believe, has been cash. Double check on that as well. I will do it.

Yep. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. We have number eight, the appeal of Anthony Jones for garbage and litter nuisance fees, 3268 North 34th Street. Mr. Jones, are you with us?

Mr. Jones is 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. Lori Gallop, Department and Neighborhood Services.

Okay. Would you please both raise your right hands to be sworn in by our clerk?

Do you solemnly affirm under the Penalties and Penalties of Perjury in the Senate of Wisconsin that the testimony you both are about to give Is the truth of the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes. I do.

Okay. Ms. Gallop, you may proceed.

We are here for the solid waste violation that was issued on the property at 3268 North 25th Street. Our violation order number is GBGCO-26-00337. We did issue the violation on February 27th In your packet, we have provided you with the detailed breakdown of the charges. We did have a contractor fee that the city occurred of $613. We had an administration charge of $120 and then a IT surcharge of $11.73. Part of your packet 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 and then at that point in time we did send this out for contractor uh you will see the photos of before a very large amount of debris was at the property, and then the after photographs showing that the property was free and clear of any scattered litter, debris, or solid waste.

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

Yes.

Okay. Do you have any questions of the city's witness?

Yes. Well, I don't have any questions. The fact that 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 our business was 9 o'clock. So we departed, I'm disabled, I'm 65 years old. Only reason I came today because the bill was $700. And did you see any photos that my son is supposed to submit it for my proof of the yard being cleaned with different dates? Did you get that? Any evidence for me about the yard that was being cleaned? I took photos or something like that. The only thing I do with these photos is hello and goodbye. I'm from the old school. So all this technology, I'm going to try to do what you're doing on here, but I probably would have got disconnected. So I came on out here with my wife, been married for 43 years. I've lived in 5206 for 50 years. So Mayor Johnson, I was talking about you covered 506. I'm still in 506, okay? bullet holes in the house and everything else. I called in one time for my couch. It was stowed in 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. 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 8. Since I've had that home, only thing I've built was Section 8 tenants. The last tenants there were Section 8. When they don't get their way, they get married to tenants and throw stuff in the yard. Why would I keep dumping stuff in my yard if I know the city's going to charge me to pay it up? I've never not paid a city fine. You can look at my record. I've not laid on no bills. I've not laid on no property. Anything they send me, I just pay it. Pink slip, green slip, because I know I sectionate tenants' ears. 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. included me. So I think I should be waived a whole $700,000 just based on my history. You can look at the fines. I've never not paid a city fine. My property tax is up to date. I owe nobody nothing. The city water bill is steady going up. But we know how to get to where he is. So you should take it out on a good paying landlord. Like the guy was saying here earlier, I know what you said. He said, hey, look at my ranking. You can go by a landlord and say you're a good landlord and not just by any city fine. There's not the variety of properties or the I'm spending money right now. I just spent $10,000 renewing the house from the last 10 years. I got different pictures on my phone right now where they tore up the whole house. If you tell a person that the city's paying their rent, they're paying their rent. They can't keep the house clean, no drugs, no dogs. 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, Mr. Jones, 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 the city sent me the ticket.

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, come throw more trash on them because they're mad, they're angry. Matter of fact, if you go back, you can see where I crawled in the next door neighbor, he's got pit bulls running loose. He let his dogs come into my yard, shit, and then go back home and clean it up.

Mr. Jones, did you have a security deposit for the rental of your unit?

Yes.

How much was the security deposit?

$1,200.

couldn't you have used some of that $1,200 to help remove all that garbage there?

Sir, the house was damaged so bad, it cost me $5,000 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. Ever since I've had your house, it's been Section 8 tenants.

Okay.

And every one of them did the same thing. I'm just saying, why would I keep paying people to clean up trash on all these houses with $1,200 of rent? The water bill is sky high. The property tax is sky high. Everything is coming up on income.

Okay, 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 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. And people that tore my house up so bad because no punishment. All they got to do is go to another landlord, Section 8, Section 8 gives the property. They never find the tenants. They never find the tenants. Like they've got to put all them tires out there with the tunnel. I've been in those things all my life. And this is why I got the picture of everybody in this report. If you could let the mayor of the city know, please, for people to run around with their bright lights on, going 100 miles an hour. I can't believe we don't have a couple policemen. This is all you do. Why would you ride off the bright lights on? Even bus drivers and policemen riding around. When the police got behind you, that was the bright lights. Now, everybody's riding off the bright lights on 100 miles an hour. If you don't believe me, come out at night time and you'll see. It's ridiculous. We're not that bad for sure. Y'all was talking about Juneteenth, Summerfest. Hey, man, stop these kids making punishment. 500 outside, you got the bright lights on, ain't going to be on. That's like a missile, and you come in dead for you. What are you supposed to do? I think somebody crashed and wrecked. There's no punishment.

Okay, hold on a second. Any further questions of Mr. Jones?

Mr. Chair, I just need some clarification. I have two different addresses. I have 3268 North 25th and 3268 North 34th. Which one is the correct address? 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. Did we have testimony? Did Mr. Jones submit any evidence that he paid anybody to do this work?

Not that I heard during testimony.

Yeah, I paid people. I had contacts coming over there right now. I had a video of my father trying to sit down with you and all that. I couldn't do all that stuff. But I paid people. That's why I said that my son sent me pictures. Do you have any pictures from that? There's a picture in the file. Okay. You see the date on that? What's the date on that file? Did it show the date? I don't think it did. It don't show the date. Just one, right? I believe so. But I have no reason to lie about any of this stuff. I've been there all my life. I've been on 21st Street for 50 years. When I moved to 21st Street, white people still lived in the neighborhood. I bet you not one white person in the neighborhood, because we're the worst city in America, 06. Well, I'm still there. I got a bullet hole in my house. Just walking through the house. I can show you right now. But I get tired of being in the neighborhood.

Well, Mr. Jones, we want you to stay there. And this problem that you are being built 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 going to 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, again, we're in committee. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, where's the fee located? Alderman Jackson? Where's the fee located?

Where's the what?

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

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?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I was trying to look at the numbers to see the best way to cut it in half.

I know that we can waive the administration fee and the IT fee. And as you can see, With my prior motion on the case, I moved 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.

Yes, sir. Whatever way the best credit they have, total. I'm looking to do that.

what is your motion sir motion to cut everything in half so your motion is out of 744.73 we hold him liable for half of that and which would be 372 dollars basically yes sir okay i have a motion by alderman jackson to grant the appeal in part and deny in part my understanding is that the fee of $744.73 would be cut in half. There will be roughly $372 that would be taken off of the $744.73. Do I have a second?

Chair?

Mr. Handel.

I want to second it, but I think that there needs to be some clarification. And I'd ask Mr. Jackson if he would consider modifying that motion to Grant in part and deny in part. Grant as 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 money is being deducted.

I see what you're saying. So if we eliminate the IT fee, the administration fee, that would get us there, and then the difference would only be maybe like $100 for a contractor. 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 going to come from, well, not much, but some of it's going to come from elimination of the admin and IT fee. So do you second, Mr. Yandel, that he amends his motion?

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

Is that your motion, Alderman Jackson?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I have a motion by Alderman Jackson, seconded by Mr. Yandel, 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 have any objection hearing that's the order miss palanco did you understand what we did i got the motion sir yes okay uh mr jones we granted your motion in part denied in part did you understand the motion that was approved yeah you're gonna leave me with one leg gonna 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 going to call the appeal of nicole tanner for garbage and litter nuisance fees at 3621 north latonia is nicole tanner with us she is not okay if this matter was scheduled for 10 a.m it is now 10 28 do i have a motion i mean it was set for 9 30 i'm sorry do i have a motion for non-prosecution I have a motion by Mr. Yandell. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second. Is that Mr. Broussard?

Yes.

Okay. Any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. We are now on the appeal of Jordan Sawinski. Is Mr. Sawinski with us? At this time, I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

I move to deny for non-appearance.

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. I have the appeal of Steven Brick, care of POCO14 LLC for garbage and litter nuisance fee 3-121-NORC-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 10.30. It was set for 9.30. So ordered. Hearing no objections. We have the appeal of Sean Hillary. Enforcement nuisance fees need 6355 North 105. Is Sean Hillary with us? Yes. Where are you, Sean?

I'm in the park right here.

Good morning, Mr. Hillary. Good morning. And who will be testifying for the city?

I'm Brandon, City of Milwaukee Forestry.

Mr. Brandon has been sworn in. Would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in?

Okay, Mr. Brannon, you may proceed. The address at 6355 North 105th Street. This record was PWCF-25-09843.

on november 19th 2025 the property was inspected and cited for a low-hanging branch that was obstructing the public right-of-way um on january 8th 2026 it was uh re-inspected after uh the letter had gone out and the 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 i'm sorry on a tree care company on this to get the limb removed. And so that's the reason for the delay in getting them out there. We had to solicit some bids and send it out to a tree care company. For encroachments like this, there is no posting fee. There's a $525 contractor fee. a $50 admin fee and $36.75 for tax. The total is $611.75. Included with this are the inspection photos that show the violation, as well as the contractor's before and after photos when door shock Dork Shack Landscaping or Tree Care Specialist went out to remove the limb. I also attached their invoice since it was a bid amount that we had to go with. It was the lowest bid amount.

Mr. Hillary, have you had an opportunity to view the photographs submitted to us by the city?

Yes.

Okay, as a result of the testimony of Mr. Brandon, do you have any questions for him?

Yes, this was my first hearing about the re-inspection. So I've never, when I've asked before about whether or not it was re-inspected, I was told that that didn't happen. So this is my first hearing that it was re-inspected. So the other 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 submitted my phone record on the 24th, the same day that I received the notice of the encroachment. I actually, as soon as I got out, 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 am I giving testimony, but after I called in to let him 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 him answer the first question that you gave to him.

Do you see the record that you contacted the city? You had some questions. You wanted to say that you did the work that you were able to do. I spoke to the technician that... forestry technician that was responsible for uh this uh encroachment all the way through his name is uh forestry technician and adherence he informed me that he did speak to you or speak to a homeowner there uh multiple times um explained what needed to be done was there on site when the crew was there removing the trees 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 the reason why I was disputing it, but I don't have any other 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 i'm on the 24th i received a notice and the notice was specific on what i needed to do there was a branch that hung down that you can see larger vehicles were 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 to the city of Milwaukee for seven minutes on the 24th after I had cut the breaks 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, there's a crew out there cutting a tree and I went out there and I was asking them why are you cutting a tree 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 just above 14 feet.

So the clearance was supposed to be 14 feet. The branch that was lower was probably maybe 9 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 3 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, they were a contractor. And I explained to them, you know, I'm not upset with you. I understand why you're here. So then I called the city again, and they sent the inspector out. So they had already removed a lot of the branches. The inspector, that's when I had asked him about whether or not someone came out, and he did not indicate to me, nor did he give me an 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 re-inspection, 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 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 did not measure that limb 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 brandon 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 impacting traffic flow it sounds like he's testifying there was another branch that he removed that was lower than that one and i have the i have the field report that was mailed out um

it is to remove the lowest branch over the road to 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 a few hanging branches off of that

So that branch that's on the before photo, the one that's going over the street is a violation. Absolutely. Yep. Back to you then for Mr. Hillary. What branch did you remove?

Okay. So the photos that I submitted, I've actually, I circled them. So I don't know if you have those, ma'am.

They do. Okay.

I submitted photos of the branch that was

hanging down that's being clipped 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

Mr. Chair, can I clarify? 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. 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 highlighted white. that the vehicles were clipping. So that other branch, if vehicles were clipping that, you'd see it would be damaged. So that branch doesn't have any indication it was 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 they cut the thickest heaviest branch that's above the street that's going into the street.

Mr. Chair, he's referring to his part and you have to open up the attachment on his appeal. And the picture is like one of the pages.

Page five, exhibit A.

Thank you.

Page five, Exhibit A.

Under the appeal attachment of the file.

Page five, Exhibit A. I have page five, but I'm looking at it with the white highlight.

Yeah.

Where's the brown, though? The brown highlight.

Just above the white highlight that the brown highlight 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 highlighted, it's perpendicular to the brown branch. I probably shouldn't have done it in brown.

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

Well, it's still 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?

Yes, Mr. Chair. 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 to.

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 met or the branch that he measured.

Mr. Brennan, I have a question for you. I know 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. 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.

This one was kind of a, a unique case because typically when we're talking about encroachments, we're talking about bushes or herbaceous vegetation that's growing into say an alley or a sidewalk. So whenever we go into like the street encroachments, it gets a little bit, it's not gonna follow the same, have a ruler necessarily showing the feet, Also, with 14 feet of clearance, we recommend cutting it back to 14 feet so that it's most heavy trucks and emergency vehicles are able to pass through, especially trucks with a bucket, like a lift truck. but the ordinance states that it must be free and clear of traffic. It doesn't state 14 feet. That's something we did as more of 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 ordinances. It needs to be free and passable for all vehicles.

Mr. Chair, a challenge here is, is, you know, the challenge is when you get specific, then people have specific expectations. When you say it's a catchall, 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, because the letter is specific, it says 14 feet. There's nothing by the contractor showing that it's 14 feet. There's nothing by 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 an agent of the city who is present to confirm that it was actually 14 feet. I'll just raise that as a concern.

Alderman Jackson, did you have a question on Mr. Bannon?

aligning with uh with attorney candela 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 Mr. Brannon or the appellant, Mr. Hillary? We are in committee. I'll entertain a motion on the appeal of Sean Hillary.

Mr. Yandel. I would move to grant the appeal. And I'll just specifically say that this is a little bit of a challenging one for me. I think that the city hasn't quite met its burden. They didn't have any testimony here or any evidence to demonstrate that the branch that they cut was 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 evidence that we have, I have to grant the appeal based on those facts.

We have a motion by Mr. Yandel to grant the appeal of Sean Hillary. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second by Ms. Hammer. Is there any objections to that motion? Hearing none, so ordered. Mr. Hillary, we granted your appeal. You will not have to pay any monies to the city.

Thank you.

You're welcome. At this time, I'm going to call the appeal of John Wesley Frost. Is Mr. Frost with us this morning?

Yes, sir.

Is everyone going to come to the table, please? This morning, we'll have John Wesley Frost for re-inspection fees at 86068 North 107th Street. And who is going to appear for the city? I am Mr. Bobby Peter Larrison, DNS. Good morning, Mr. Larrison, and good morning, Mr. Frost. Would you please both raise your right hand to be sworn in?

There's only a permit that depends on penalties of perjury in the state of Wisconsin. Does the question what you're about to give is the truth of the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes.

OK, for some reason I can't see Mr. Frost.

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

OK, Mr. Larrinson, you may proceed.

Thank you, Chairman. You have the DNS packet. There's a brief narrative. This is a re-inspection fees off of an order that was issued in 2025, which stems from a municipal judgment in 2024. This is a residential lot and Mr. Frost is using it for a contractor yard. He has been for nearly 10 years. We've been in enforcement mode, including citations, municipal judgments, For example, in 2025, there was $2,782 in re-inspection fees for the same violations. March 17th, re-inspection, there's a photo showing contractor equipment. I did include photos from 25. I included photos from April, May, and my own photos from June that the situation is unchanged. He's eligible for $1,524 of relief based on this appeal. I would say that we respect the Board's decision. However, we certainly would be opposed to the April and May charges. Those pictures are absolutely clear. And I think we've got a body of evidence here that speaks for itself.

Well, I guess, Mr. Larritson, you say that his total exposure now is $1,524?

That's eligible for this appeal.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to convey is the March 17th picture, if the board should choose that that is insufficient to... charge the reinspection fee, we respect your decision, but we would also respectfully then close relief to the April or May fees. Those pictures are absolutely clear.

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

$508,000.

Okay, Mr. Frost, did you hear that conversation? I did. It looks like the city is willing to reduce it by $508. Is that acceptable to you or do you want to go to a full hearing?

No, that's acceptable.

Well, yeah, Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear for the record. We're not offering that. I'm just going on the record 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 going to entertain a motion because we don't have, we don't have photograph evidence of March 17th. 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, I'd entertain a motion to grant in part and deny in part the appeal of John Frost, which would be, in my calculations, we find him subject to re-inspection fees of $1,016. Do I have a motion?

I'll make that motion.

And is that, who is that? Alderman Jackson. I have a motion by Alderman Jackson. Do I have a second? I'll second it.

Who's the second from? Alex Bruzan.

I have a second by Mr. Bruzan. Any objections to that? Hearing none, so ordered. I hated to cut you off, Mr. Larrinson, but... We have a lengthy schedule and it does seem like this is just an equitable resolution to the appeal. Thanks for coming, Mr. Frost.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, while 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. Larrinson, if he puts a fence up, does that eliminate this re-inspection controversy or no?

No. 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. No, a fence by itself would not bring relief.

Okay, it just 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. That's the issue.

The issue is they come and go.

Well, no, they violate our vehicle code for residential districts.

Okay, I'm not going to move on to the next appeal if that's okay with board members. The appeal of Jihad Jihad 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 1055. I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance. I have a motion by Mr. Yandel to deny for non-appearance. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms. Hammer. Any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. I have the appeal of Jonathan Smith. Reinspection fees at 615 South 89th Street in the 10th Automatic District. Mr. Smith, will you be with us this morning? It is now 10.56. This was scheduled for 10. Do I have a motion for non-appearance? I have a motion by Mr. Eyal to deny for non-appearance. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms. Hammer. Any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. I have the appeal of Jonathan Oppo for Polk County Ventures LLC for, oh, I'm sorry. The appeal of Tawana Alexander for reinspection fees at 44.17 was how we place. Is Tawana Alexander with us? It is now 10.57. This was scheduled for 10. I'll entertain a motion for non-appearance.

I move to deny for non-appearance.

I have a motion by Mr. Yantel 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 Oppo for vacant building registration fees. I'll entertain the motion to hold for the call of the chair as requested by the city of Milwaukee. Do I have a motion?

for call of the chair.

Do I have a second?

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. Good morning, Ms. Walker. I see you on the screen. Oh, you do? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Could you activate your video, please?

Let me see.

All right.

Go ahead now. Can you see me? Not yet. Not yet. It says switch camera. I'm not sure. Hold on.

My camera should be on.

i'm not kidding is anybody else getting her uh visual no no i'm on my cell phone um i'm at work i can't get on the laptops here i'm at the va hospital there's a lot of uh hold on and i couldn't get off today cancel cancel

Well, I got my, when I turn my camera.

Hold on, please. Here.

I have an Android. I'm not sure if it's going to activate camera. Okay, hold on. What about now? Can you see me? No.

Just for other board members' information, we have included the notice that we need the visual and audio right hold on if you're unsuccessful miss walker we would reschedule but we'll wait for you okay let me see it i think we're gonna participate okay cameras activated would you like us to reschedule yeah well that would be ideal hold on to hold for the call of the chair due to technical difficulties on behalf of appellant do i have no motion i have a motion by mr yandel hold call of the chair do i have a second second by miss hammer any objection very nice order 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 11 o'clock so i'll wait till 11. it'll be just a few minutes we'll take a five minute break have a good day

Five minutes, we need a union break.

I don't know.

you

Mr. Brown? Yes.

Yes, hello.

I do see that you are connected. I understand your item was settled.

Yeah, you know, I wanted to confirm because I spoke with Mr. Westfall yesterday and he said he was going to email me something over. I just wanted to try calling. I just want to confirm that everything was taken care. I didn't want to get a no show today. That's the main reason.

OK, no, and that's fine. I appreciate you doing that, but you would continue communication with him.