Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milwaukee board upholds reduced vacant‑building fee after owner shows good‑faith rehabilitation efforts
Summary
An owner who bought a placarded duplex at 2569 N. Buffum persuaded City staff to cut a vacant‑building renewal fee; the Administrative Review Board did not vote after the parties agreed to the compromise.
The Milwaukee Administrative Review Board on April 15 recorded a staff‑city settlement that reduced vacant‑building inspection fees for a property at 2569 North Buffum after the new owner said he had begun rehabilitation.
The case arose after the city placarded the front duplex as unsafe on May 2, 2024, and later assessed vacant‑building renewal and related fees. Laurie Gallup of the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) testified that the placard makes the structure “unsafe for any occupants” and that, under the city’s vacant‑building program, inspection fees are assessed every six months beginning on the date the building is declared vacant.
Why it matters: vacant‑building fees are intended to cover city inspections and contractor work at properties that the city has determined to be unsafe and a potential public‑safety or nuisance risk. Property owners who take steps to repair and re‑occupy a building can limit future fees but remain responsible for past renewal and contractor charges unless the city agrees otherwise.
DNS told the board that the front duplex on the parcel was placarded on 05/02/24 and remained in the vacant‑building program through subsequent reinspection cycles. Gallup said a renewal fee and an additional fee tied to open code orders were issued 11/16/24; city records showed the purchaser, identified by DNS as Keith Sy, did not acquire the property until mid‑June 2024. Inspectors returned on 03/14/25 and still found the building vacant and largely boarded; Gallup said permits were later obtained and the property was found occupied and under active rehabilitation on 04/10/25.
The property owner, identified in city records and DNS testimony as Keith Sy, told the board he had purchased the building in June 2024, shortly after it was placarded, and said he did not know what a placard meant when he bought the property. “When I purchased the property, there was nothing on the property,” Sy said. He said he asked DNS before purchase whether there were outstanding issues, was told there were not, and then later pulled repair permits and began rehabbing the building when he learned of the placard.
Gallup said DNS’s records show the owner was first contacted about the fees on 11/16/24 and that the department did not have a vacant‑property registration on file for the parcel. She told the board that DNS keeps photographic evidence of placarding and of subsequent inspections and that its policy is to post a fluorescent orange placard on door or window openings when a structure is vacated. Sy said the placard had been removed or obscured at the time he viewed the building, and provided photos he took in early June that he said did not show the orange placard.
After board members questioned both sides, Gallup — noting staff turnover in the vacant‑building appeals unit — offered to reduce the assessed fees. DNS told the appellant the fee total of $508 would be reduced to $254 as a settlement; Sy told the board he accepted the compromise and asked that the board not take a formal vote because the parties had resolved it between themselves. The board chair said the panel does not typically vote on compromise settlements and the matter was closed by agreement.
Ending: DNS said it will send written confirmation and instructions about any remaining obligations to the property owner. The board moved on to other scheduled appeals.
