Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Refuse Recycling Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Verona council reviews draft recycling ordinance; asks staff and attorney to reconcile DNR language and contract implications
Summary
Council members identified numerous typographical and substantive corrections to a draft ordinance aligning Verona's refuse and recycling code with updated Wisconsin DNR model language, and asked the city attorney and staff to review potential conflicts with the city's collection contract before final action.
Staff presented a proposed repeal-and-replace of the city’s refuse disposal and recycling chapter to align Verona’s code with an updated Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources model ordinance and said the ordinance must be in place by April 30, 2026.
Alder Tucker Long read a lengthy list of corrections and questions — pointing to missing words and potential conflicts on preparation rules for cardboard, glass and plastics — and asked that final approval be subject to attorney review. "It's missing blue glass," Tucker Long said while reviewing the draft.
City legal counsel told the council that while the DNR model ordinance is guidance the city typically adopts, the statutes and administrative code ultimately control and that some model provisions can conflict with existing municipal contracts. "If there's a conflict between the two, the likelihood is that we're going to have to change the agreement and not what the DNR has said," the city attorney advised, noting that the practical impact will depend on whether the model language is mandated by statute or administrative rule.
Council members raised operational concerns tied to the city’s existing collection contract (transcript references to 'Pelletieri'/'Pelletary' appear in the discussion): automated collection vehicles and contractor practices could be affected by changes such as requiring bundled cardboard to be placed outside collection containers. Staff and counsel agreed to investigate whether the DNR model language imposes statutory obligations and whether the current contract would need amendment.
Outcome and next steps: Council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. Instead, members asked staff and the city attorney to research the specific corrections and any statutory or contractual conflicts and return with recommendations; administration said there would be time to bring a revised ordinance back at the April 13 meeting if necessary.
