Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies appeal of solid-waste cleanup charge; city offers to waive administrative fee but owner disputes phone-record absence

2307811 · February 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board denied an appeal from Hassan regarding a solid-waste cleanup charge for 2109 W. McKinley Ave. DNS offered to waive administrative fees but requested the contractor cost ($520.67) remain; the owner said he had received e-mail notices and called staff who told him the matter was closed.

The Milwaukee Board of Appeals on Feb. 13 denied the appeal of an administrative cleanup charge assessed after a contractor-removal of solid waste at 2109 W. McKinley Ave.

Laurie Gallo, DNS code enforcement manager, summarized the case: an inspector posted a solid-waste violation Aug. 20, 2024; photos in the city packet showed scattered debris, loose garbage bags, and a large brush pile. The contractor, CDR Landscaping, performed the cleanup on Aug. 26, and the city assessed contractor and administrative charges totaling approximately $642.95; the contractor cost portion was $520.67.

Appellant Hassan said he had received an eNotify message, called DNS and was told the matter was closed; he said had he known the violation remained open he would have sent a contractor earlier. DNS staff said their internal records show no phone call documenting such a message at the time the order issued. DNS offered to waive administrative fees but said the contractor expense of $520.67 would remain unless the board set the matter over to supplement the record. Hassan asked for a split of costs; DNS said the city had to pay the contractor and preferred to hold the fee amount at $520.67.

Board members discussed two procedural issues: (1) whether the owner was properly represented (several appeals of LLC-owned properties elsewhere on the agenda raised the same question), and (2) whether the city had adequately documented a phone call from the owner disputing the order. Commissioner Kendrick Yandell suggested fairness concerns and recommended either settlement or rescheduling, but Alderman Jackson moved to deny the appeal under the boards three-strike solid-waste procedures and the motion carried with a second.

The board instructed staff to provide the appellant written notice of appeal rights to circuit court.