Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Claims Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on forgiving resident's trash-hauler charge after disputed dresser removal
Summary
Council amended a claim disposition to attempt full waiver of a $565 charge tied to removal of a dresser, approving an amendment in committee but ultimately failing to adopt a final resolution to forgive the entire claim; council discussion focused on whether administrative notice omitted the dresser and who should bear hauler costs.
The Lansing City Council debated and ultimately failed to adopt a resolution to forgive a $565 claim tied to abatement of debris at a private property after a dispute over whether a dresser had been included on the city's notice.
Council Member Brian T. Jackson summarized the committee's review: the resident removed carpet and other items listed on a notice but left a dresser that was not listed on the official notice; the city's hauler paperwork, however, listed a dresser. The resident appealed the subsequent administrative and hauler fees charged after the dresser was removed by the contractor.
Jackson said the committee recommended reducing the administrative portion of the fee because the city's documentation was inconsistent. He moved to amend the resolution to forgive the entire claim.
Councilman Jeff Brown, Council Member Peter Spadafore and others emphasized that the city did incur a hauler cost and that the $300 contractor charge reflected the minimum the city must pay under the contract; committee members described $265 as an administrative fee for enforcement work.
On the amendment to forgive the whole claim, the council recorded an amendment vote described in the record as passing by a 4-3 margin. After further procedure and a subsequent vote on the amended resolution, the council did not adopt the final resolution forgiving the claim; the meeting record states "the resolution fails." The clerk and city attorney explained that, if the amended resolution failed, the original amount would remain due.
Why it matters: The item illustrates how documentation and enforcement procedures matter for residents facing abatement and how city contract minimums can result in unavoidable costs even when administrative errors are identified.
What happened to the resident: The council debated an amendment to reduce the administrative $265 fee; the amendment was adopted in roll-call as recorded in the meeting, but the final motion to grant the appeal in full failed and the clerk said the original total would be due if the final resolution did not pass.
Implementation details: Council members said the hauler charge of $300 reflected the contracted minimum for one hour of labor and three cubic yards; the $265 administrative fee covers city enforcement costs. The record does not show final payment status in the meeting minutes.
