Permit office agrees to review submission logs before deciding disputed $75 renewal fee

Nora Bellamy and the Municipal Vendor Permit Office have settled on an evidence review before resolving her request to cancel a $75 late-renewal fee and correct her renewal record. The agreement does not immediately waive the fee; it makes that relief conditional on confirmation that she submitted the application on time.

The dispute, brought before an administrative review court in Madison, turns on two potentially different moments: when Bellamy submitted her renewal and when it entered the office’s staff processing queue. The office’s record establishes the latter, but does not establish the former.

The parties agreed to review Bellamy’s submission evidence alongside the office’s portal logs, including any available portal submission timestamp. They will share the review result before either side takes a final position.

If the review confirms submission by August 14, 2025, at 5 p.m. Central, the office will waive the $75 fee and correct the renewal record. If timely submission is not confirmed, the parties will discuss a limited fee reduction, without either side committing to a specific amount.

That distinction leaves two possible paths rather than a guaranteed financial outcome. Confirmed timely submission triggers the agreed waiver and correction; an inconclusive or adverse review leads only to further discussion about reducing the fee.

Bellamy sought cancellation of the fee and correction of the renewal record. The office’s stated position was that the fee should remain unless a submission record established that the completed application arrived on time.

The office disputed cancellation based on payment alone, arguing that payment did not establish timely submission of a completed application. At the same time, it acknowledged that its queue record did not tell it when Bellamy submitted the renewal.

The settlement therefore directs attention to evidence capable of answering the disputed timing question, rather than treating the processing entry as conclusive.

Application V-2816 was due by 5 p.m. Central on August 14, 2025. The notice assessing the $75 late fee recorded its entry into the staff queue at 8:16 a.m. the following morning.

That next-morning entry was the office’s only known basis for treating the application as late. It reflected staff receipt for processing, not Bellamy’s submission time; the missing evidence was a record showing when she submitted the application.

The agreement leaves that central fact unresolved pending review. It contains no finding that Bellamy filed either late or on time, and no fixed reduction if timely submission cannot be confirmed.