Leave it to the law to require a ‘winter’ definition. In a otherwise ordinary council meeting this past March 2 that saw one otherwise routine operator license approval get struck from the …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
Leave it to the law to require a ‘winter’ definition. In a otherwise ordinary council meeting this past March 2 that saw one otherwise routine operator license approval get struck from the agenda’s consent items (item ‘d’ in the list) for a reportedly missing certificate, the city council went on to amend its official snow ordinances, in part to clarify matters, but also to allow for less wiggle room and more incentive on the part of those who would thumb their nose at the city’s snow removal codes. Minimum snow removal fee charged from the city for those who fail to remove or else hire someone to remove their sidewalk white stuff after each snowfall? Seventy-five dollars—but there’s more to the story!
“Essentially the problem we were running into is the definition of hazardous, which is non-hazardous conditions,” Stanley Police Chief Lance Weiland told council members regarding the prior snow removal language for city ordinance 6-2-8 (c) (1) (2). “I just felt like it wasn’t very resourceful,” he said of the old ordinance language regarding its effectiveness with confirming the city’s efforts to keep public walkways free of obstructions. Now amended with new verbiage to make clear just what is expected of Stanley residents, the amended ordinance section 6-2-8 (c) (1) (2) reads as follows: “Failure to Remove; Notice and Removal of Snow from Sidewalks. If the owner shall fail to keep said sidewalk clear of snow and ice as set forth in Subsection (b), City law enforcement officers shall take the following action: (1) If a City law enforcement officer determines that the removal of ice, sleet or snow has not occurred within 24 hours of the cessation of the event, a written notice shall be served at the residence or mailed to the owner of said property (at their last known address), directing the accumulation to be removed within 24 hours. A written notice will only be issued once per property during a given winter season.
(2) If the ice, sleet or snow has not been removed within 24 hours of the written notice, city personnel may immediately take action to remove said accumulation. The cost associated to the work completed by city personnel (or otherwise designated personnel) will be billed out to the property owner at a minimum rate of one (1) hour at the current city rate at the time the work is completed.”
That last part was decided at a minimum of $75 per removal, in case anyone was unclear. Then it was on to the meaning of ‘winter.’ “Where does the current definition of winter come in?” someone on the council wanted to know. Alderman Jesse Frey looked at the packet. “There’s nothing…” Alderman Kent Barby pointed to the end of the statute, which had ‘given winter season.’ “We could put first snow to last snow,” he offered. Another council member suggested tying the ordinance in to winter parking rules, while Frey was somewhat less stringent in his ideas. “I think ‘winter season is fine,” Frey said, “ we all kind of know what that means,” then going on to offer October to May as a time window.
City Alderwoman Laurie Foster seemed to agree with Frey in the evident understanding of winter. “It means there’s snow on the ground,” she said. Chief Weiland took notes as it was stipulated by the council that ‘winter’ should be more clearly defined. The ordinance update later passed with a motion by Barby that was seconded by Frey. But what might that mean come next snowfall for the future of snow on city sidewalks? Included with the ordinance update was a sample notice letter, which Chief Weiland said he liked to have delivered in person rather than through the mail.
“Dear Property Owner,” the letter provided as a sample in the council packet read, “This letter is to inform you that your property is in violation of city ordinance 6-2-8 as it relates to Snow and Ice Removal from the sidewalk adjacent to your property….” Stated in the updated and revised version of city ordinance 6-2-8 is that “owner” refers both to the legal property owner as well as the occupant “of any parcel or lot which fronts or abuts a sidewalk.” It was further stated during the meeting that if the offending property is a rental, the notice to clear snow within 24 hours would be sent to the landlord as the responsible party. After the first letter to remove snow is doled out, however, no additional notices will be given in the future. Instead, the city would show up with its skid steer and do the removal for residents, sending them the bill later. Take notice and shovel or arrange to have the sidewalks cleared then, or else pay the bill from the city for doing it for you—$75 minimum charge.