Milwaukee appeals panel waives some admin fees, upholds contractor charges in batch of nuisance and permit appeals

The Milwaukee Administrative Review Board of Appeals met June 26, 2025, and issued rulings on a large docket of nuisance, encroachment and permit appeals. The panel granted partial relief in several cases—typically by waiving administrative fees or reducing contractor charges—but otherwise upheld contractor abatements and permit-related fines in the majority of matters.

The board opened by hearing the appeal of Anthony McKenzie over an alley encroachment abatement at 3881 N. 50th St. City forestry staff said a contractor cleared vegetation on Oct. 17, 2024, and billed $235 for contractor removal plus a $50 administrative fee and tax, totaling $303.57. The board granted the appeal in part: it eliminated the $50 administrative fee and left the contractor charge and tax in place. Chair Vincent Bobbitt told McKenzie, “You will be receiving a written notice of our decision.”

Across several solid-waste appeals, the board repeatedly accepted city contractor invoices for abatements while trimming the administrative penalty. For example: - LaBoy (LaBoy/Jaisani) Figueroa (4629 N. 30th St.) appealed a solid-waste contractor abatement that totaled $719.19. After debate about whether the property owner had requested a sanitation special pickup, the board granted the appeal in part and held the appellant responsible for 50% of the total (rounded to $360). - Steven Wolf (508 W. Vienna) argued that some of the material removed was not his and that communications with city staff were unclear; the board denied his appeal and left the contractor and administrative fees in place. - Several appellants who failed to appear (including Daniel Sheehan, Santana Haskins, Steven Brick and others) had their appeals denied for nonappearance.

Other notable rulings: - Ngozi Obiora (317 E. Burley St.) appealed a contractor cleanup after an incident that damaged a porch; the board denied the appeal after hearing testimony from the contractor and the appellant. The board noted the city’s contractor removed debris shown in the record. - Elliot Strickland (2642 N. 50th St.) raised a mismatch between photographs he received and those used by the city. The city agreed to waive the administrative fee; the board granted the appeal in part, requiring Strickland to pay the contractor fee of $369.87 but refunding his $25 filing fee. - Willie Booker (1429 N. 20th St.) had the administrative fee waived while remaining responsible for the contractor charge after discussion of whether property management had made an adequate cleanup effort. - Maya Thomas (3027 N. Palmer St.) told the board she had called for a sanitation special pickup; given uncertainties in the city sanitation record and the amount of material, the board waived the administrative fee and assessed 50% of the contractor charge. - Paula Nelson (2825 N. 19th St.) told the board she was renovating and had retained a contractor; the board waived the administrative fee and required payment of the contractor charge.

On permit-related enforcement, the board heard the appeal of Crest Investments (appeal filed by Rhianna Banfield) involving unpermitted commercial paving at 1962 Prospect Ave. The Department of Neighborhood Services said work began without permits in 2022 and, following litigation, the department assessed a quadrupled permit fee under MCO 32‑3. The quadrupled fee totaled $7,296 (the base permit fee would have been $1,824, calculated as 1.6% of the $114,000 construction cost). The board denied the appeal and left the department’s assessment intact; board members noted the contractor’s role and suggested any recovery should be pursued against the contractor.

Chair Bobbitt closed the session by reminding appellants that written decisions and appeal rights will be mailed by the administrative assistant.

Votes at a glance (selected docket items below summarize motions, movers/second and outcomes): - Anthony McKenzie, 3881 N. 50th St.: motion by Alderman Jackson to grant in part (eliminate $50 administrative fee); seconded by Commissioner Kendrick Yandell; outcome: granted in part (administrative fee waived). (City contractor fee and tax remain due.) - LaBoy Figueroa, 4629 N. 30th St.: motion by Alderman Jackson to grant in part/deny in part (50% of total assessed retained); seconded by Commissioner Hammer; outcome: appellant responsible for 50% ($360). - Miss Figueroa (another spelling appears in packet): same record in panel minutes. - Steven Wolf, 508 W. Vienna: motion by Alderman Jackson to deny appeal; seconded by Commissioner Yandell; outcome: denied. - Ngozi Obiora, 317 E. Burley St.: motion by Commissioner Yandell to deny appeal; seconded by Commissioner Hammer; outcome: denied. - Elliot Strickland, 2642 N. 50th St.: motion to grant in part/deny in part (waive admin fee; appellant to pay contractor fee $369.87; refund filing fee $25); motion passed. - Willie Booker, 1429 N. 20th St.: motion to grant in part (waive admin fee) and deny in part (contractor fee $86.62 remains) carried. - Maya Thomas, 3027 N. Palmer St.: motion to grant in part/deny in part to waive administrative fee and charge 50% of contractor fee; outcome: granted in part/denied in part (appellant responsible for half the contractor fee). - Paula Nelson, 2825 N. 19th St.: motion to grant in part and deny in part (waive administrative fee; contractor fee remains); outcome: granted in part/denied in part. - Rhianna Banfield / Crest Investments (permit enforcement), 1962 Prospect Ave.: motion by Alderman Jackson to deny appeal; seconded by Commissioner Hammer; outcome: denied — the department’s quadrupled permit fee assessment was upheld.

Many other docketed appeals were denied for nonappearance; a small number of matters were concluded administratively when the city withdrew fee requests or agreed to refund filing fees. Written decisions will follow.

Why it matters: These routine enforcement appeals show the panel’s consistent approach: uphold contractor abatements where photographic evidence and contractor before/after documentation exist, but reduce or waive administrative fees when the record shows confusion about sanitation pickup or when appellants demonstrate partial compliance. The board flagged recurring process issues—chiefly inconsistent photo formats (black-and-white versus color), incomplete sanitation-system notes about special-pickup requests, and cases where private contractors gave owners incorrect permitting advice—which the panel said property owners and contracting firms should address directly.

What’s next: Appellants will receive written decisions with instructions for further appeal, typically to circuit court. The board’s next regular scheduling discussions were referenced in the hearing; staff will post dates and continued docket items with the clerk’s office.

Chair Bobbitt closed the meeting by thanking participants and noting the board would circulate formal notices.