Brookfield residents can be charged fees for repeated public nuisances, new ordinance says

City of Brookfield property owners or tenants can now be billed for services and time spent by officials like emergency and police crews responding to repeated public nuisance issues on properties.

Brookfield’s Common Council voted Tuesday night to allow the city to charge premises owners for city employee time and related costs to abate ― remove, end or fix ― chronic public nuisance issues.

A “public nuisance” in the City of Brookfield refers to an act or thing that substantially endangers or annoys the comfort, health and safety of the public or offends public morals and decency. The nuisance is considered chronic when three or more public nuisance activities occur at a premises on separate days during a 180-day period, according to the updated ordinance.

The updated ordinance defines and provides examples of public nuisance activities in Brookfield, which can range from public health issues like general pollution and junk stored on one's property to things like noisy animals and blighted or disorderly buildings.

Ald. David Christianson asked staff to review the city’s public nuisance ordinance after the Brookfield Police Department repeatedly responded to calls at a property in his constituency, District 1, which is in the northeastern part of the city, according to an email from the city attorney in November.

The property is a licensed adult family home for people with developmental disabilities whose owner has received at least two violation notices from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services in recent months, the Journal Sentinel confirmed through documents.

Members of the Legislative and Licensing Committee discussed and crafted the ordinance in December, asking alders to submit comments for the legislation before referring it to the Common Council.

There are a number of law enforcement calls that people cannot be fined for under the ordinance. Emergency calls for a suspected drug overdose are not public nuisances. Neither are calls for law enforcement for domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking, per Wisconsin state law.

Supporters of the new rule say it’s a start to help the city regulate instances of repeated nuisances and is an ordinance that can be updated. Alders who voted against the ordinance expressed their worry that gaps in its language would harm vulnerable people asking for mental health care and could put the city at risk of a lawsuit.

What is Brookfield's new public nuisance ordinance?

Under the new ordinance, city officials who identify an issue happening three or more times at a property will consult with the city attorney and get attorney approval before issuing a written notice to a property owner that the property has been designated a chronic public nuisance. The letter will notify the owner that they may be required to pay for the city’s enforcement efforts, including staff time, equipment and materials used to abate the issue.

If the nuisance happens in a multi-tenant building, a chronic public nuisance designation would apply to the same tenant or portion of the property that services have repeatedly responded to. City officials must notify tenants that their residence has been designated a nuisance and serve a notice by mail to the tenant at their last known address.

Once they receive the notice, tenants or property owners must submit a written abatement plan to the city of how they will take care of the nuisance issue. Once reviewed and approved or modified by a city official, the tenant or property owner has 45 days to implement the plan.

If residents or property owners successfully complete that plan, they won't be billed. If they don't complete the plan, or if the issue continues about two weeks after their additional notice, the city can enter the premises to abate the issue and bill the property owner or tenant for the enforcement costs.

The ordinance leaves room for interpretation of whether landlords or tenants would be responsible for coming up with an abatement plan and paying the city.

According to the ordinance, "The City shall recover the expenses incurred by billing the property owner and/or tenant, if applicable, jointly and severally, and placing the expenses on the property tax roll as a special charge if said expenses are not paid within 30 days."

Ald. Mike Hallquist, who advocated for the council to include tenants in the ordinance's language and voted against the ordinance, told the Journal Sentinel that whether the tenant or owner would be responsible for the bill would "likely depend on what the nuisance is and if it's related to property owner's obligation or tenant’s obligation.”

The city attorney was not immediately available to comment on that topic.

Tenants have the right to appeal the initial designation of their property, but not the costs imposed under the ordinance, the ordinance states. Such an appeal would be heard by the Administrative Appeals Board.

Alder who voted no on the chronic public nuisance ordinance worried about people calling for mental health care

After about 30 minutes of discussion Tuesday, the Common Council voted 11-3 to adopt the ordinance.

"This will give us some control of properties and people who are misbehaving and causing a possible deterioration of our neighborhoods," said Ald. Bill Carnell, who, along with Christianson, represents District 1.

While Hallquist said he doesn't think Brookfield's ordinance is all bad, he worries gaps and vagueness in its language will unintentionally harm people in vulnerable situations and deter people from calling for help, like those who need mental health care in cases of self-harm or welfare checks, for example.

"This whole ordinance should be alarming to folks," he told the Journal Sentinel. “Are you creating an incentive for people to not use the public services paid for by tax dollars?"

Similar ordinances across the country are being scrutinized, Hallquist said in the council meeting. The Department of Justice recently found that an anti-crime law ordinance in the city of Anoka, Minnesota violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act by denying tenants with mental health disabilities opportunities to receive emergency assistance. Under the housing ordinance, the Minnesota city can issue fines or revoke a landlord’s license if they don’t pursue evictions after repeated nuisance calls.

City Attorney Jenna Merten said during Tuesday's meeting that with the abatement plan, ability to appeal, and requirements for city attorney approval and notification to tenants or property owners, there shouldn't be concern of a lawsuit.

“I believe with all the checks and balances, and with the appeals process, we can be on sufficient and strong legal ground to proceed with this ordinance,” Merten said.

Milwaukee has a similar nuisance ordinance

The City of Milwaukee has a similar rule for properties that qualify as a nuisance.

After receiving at least three phone calls for service in a 30-day period, the city sends the property owner a letter and requests the property owner create and follow a plan of action. If complaints stop, there is no further action taken against the property owner but if it continues, the property is billed.

Ordinance amendments sparked by repeated calls to law enforcement for group home

Carnell, who encouraged council members at the meeting to vote for the ordinance, said he had received many complaints about disruptions at the group home from people in his district. He said residents in the home are not getting the help they need to progress and be safe.

He added that the ordinance won't change things overnight, but it is his philosophy that disruptive activities need to be addressed sooner rather than later for the community.

“I consider these (homes) like a cancer, and if we let these cancers fester it can (deteriorate) a neighborhood," Carnell told the Journal Sentinel, adding "you just can't have this type of thing in the neighborhood."

When asked by the Journal Sentinel about the reasons police were called to the group home, Carnell mentioned screaming that had disrupted neighbors, but directed the question to the city's police department.

The Brookfield Police Department did not respond to numerous requests by the Journal Sentinel for an interview for this story.

Ald. Kathryn Wilson, who voted against the ordinance, said while she is sympathetic to District 1 neighbors who had called due to disturbances, she didn't believe the ordinance sufficiently addresses the issues occurring at the group home.

“Most of the residents of that home, as far as I can tell, are members of protected classes, people with intellectual disabilities and serious mental health issues,” Wilson said. “They needed police assistance, and we were able to provide it."

She said that's a good thing, even though it is disruptive to some neighbors.

“People needed help and we helped them recover," she said.

Wilson said the Department of Health Services should intervene at the residence, adding that she thinks the facility should lose its license.

Bridget Fogarty can be reached at bfogarty@gannett.com

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: New ordinance in Brookfield allows fees for chronic public nuisances