Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Yard Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee upholds $91 yard-waste fee for 2965 Shelter Creek Lane after staff photos show material in street
Summary
A Green Bay resident who appealed a $91 fee for placing yard waste in the street lost the appeal after the committee reviewed staff photographs showing a pile extending roughly two feet into the roadway.
On Feb. 26 the Improvement & Services Committee denied an appeal by the owner of 2965 Shelter Creek Lane against a fee charged after staff removed yard waste that had been placed in the street for collection.
Staff told the committee that the property had previously been warned, then on Nov. 7, 2024 a significant amount of leaves and yard waste was again noted in the street. Photographs taken by staff show a pile extending approximately two feet into the roadway with green yard-waste material on top of the pile, not just wind-blown leaves. Staff submitted an invoice to the property owner for the removal; the fee cited in the hearing was $91, which staff described as a minimum service-based fee tied to time and resources required to remove the material.
Property owner Craig Francis attended the committee meeting and submitted photos showing typical leaf piles on his lawn and curb; he told the committee he had tried to keep leaves off the street and urged clearer guidance and consistency from the city on enforcement and the amount assessed. Francis said he receives frequent public inquiries as a longtime local real-estate agent and recommended that the initial notice include the fee amount and a clearer definition of what constitutes a violation.
Committee members discussed the photos and enforcement policy. Some alderpersons noted repeated complaints they receive about leaves clogging gutters and the DNR requirement to limit material entering storm sewers. After discussion, Alder Rex moved and Alder DeLay seconded a motion to deny the appeal (i.e., to uphold the charge). The motion carried.
Staff explained that the charge is a service fee — not a punitive fine — and that it represents a minimum time-based charge for city crews to stop, collect and haul the material. The committee was advised the enforcement approach had been more lenient previously but the city has resumed charging to reduce material entering storm drains and to comply with stormwater requirements.
