Milwaukee appeals board hears 30+ property cases; grants some appeals, denies others and splits contractor fees

The Administrative Review Board of Appeals convened Dec. 10, 2025, in Milwaukee and moved through a packed docket that included graffiti, solid-waste, tall-grass and vacant-building appeals. The board granted several appeals where evidence or procedures were disputed, denied others where the city produced contractor invoices or ordinance authority, and adjusted penalties in some cases.

Vice Chair Kendrick Yandell opened the hearing and presided as the board considered dozens of cases. In one of the earliest matters, the board granted the appeal of Radia Laster, reversing a $455 graffiti-abatement charge after Laster disputed the city’s photo timestamps and presented phone-call logs and a receipt for a graffiti-removal product. “They backdated these pictures,” Laster said during testimony; the board granted the appeal on a motion by Yandell, seconded by Alderman Jackson, and ordered the charge vacated.

The board also granted the appeal of Deborah Gillespie after the city told the panel the department had settled the matter because photos were inconclusive; Gillespie’s filing fee was refunded. Several other outcomes were less favorable to appellants: Wendy Engel’s appeal of a tall-grass and weed violation was denied after city forestry staff cited the ordinance standard (vegetation must be under 7 inches). Jody Delfosse likewise lost an appeal and accepted the $100 posting fee.

In solid-waste cases the board balanced photographic evidence and contractor billing. For Tiffany Bielsticker’s litter appeal, the board held the appellant responsible for the contractor fee but waived a $120 administrative fee. For Passion McNeely, whose property inspection resulted in contractor removal of brush and debris, the board split the contractor charge and waived the administrative fee, leaving McNeely responsible for $285.74.

Appellant Ruben Anders challenged a DNS contractor invoice that listed 133 cubic yards removed, a charge Anders described as “insane.” After review of contractor invoices and testimony that compaction counts and equipment usage produced the cubic-yard number, the board denied Anders’ appeal, noting the appellant had not produced sufficient contrary evidence.

The board also addressed vacant-building fees. Laurie Gallo of the Department of Neighborhood Services said the city assesses a $254 fee every six months for properties enrolled in the vacant-building program; Maurice Wolf acknowledged his building was vacant and the board denied his appeal.

Several matters were adjourned for follow-up, including the Roby Surgeon tree-removal appeal, which the board sent for further property-boundary verification. The board frequently relied on contractor invoices, posted orders, and the city’s inspection records when determining outcomes.

The board concluded the session by rescheduling a complex nuisance-determination matter (see separate item) and thanking long-time staffer Linda Elmer, who announced her retirement effective early January.

Votes at a glance - Radia Laster, graffiti nuisance (2463 W. Philippe St.) — Appeal granted; $455 abatement charge vacated. (Motion: Yandell; Second: Alderman Jackson). - Deborah Gillespie, garbage/recycling — Appeal granted; filing fee refunded. - Wendy Engel, tall grass/weeds (3233 S. 9th Pl.) — Appeal denied. - Jody Delfosse, tall grass/weeds (2452 N. Bartlett Ave.) — Appeal denied; $100 posting fee stands. - Ruben Anders, solid waste (3079 N. 22nd St.) — Appeal denied; contractor invoice upheld. - Tiffany Bielsticker, garbage/litter (418 E. Chambers) — Board held appellant liable for contractor fee, waived $120 administrative fee. - Passion McNeely, solid-waste (8173 W. Beckett) — Partial grant: contractor fee split; admin fee waived; appellant owes $285.74.

What this means The board’s rulings underscore the role of inspection photos, contractor invoices and documented communications (phone logs, receipts) in appeals. Where appellants presented timely evidence that undermined the city’s documentary record, the board sometimes vacated charges or reduced fees. Where the record showed contractor removal consistent with posted orders, the board generally deferred to city staff and contractors.

Next steps Most appellants were told they may appeal ARBA decisions to the circuit court and will receive written notices from board staff outlining those rights. Several items were rescheduled for follow-up evidence or additional city verification.