#3 Discuss and direct staff on sidewalk snow removal policies
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM
March 4, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: John Whitcomb, Operations Director
SUBJECT: Snow Removal on Sidewalks Abutting Private Property
Summary
This memorandum is in response to a request from Council members Perrotto
and Truman to review more aggressive enforcement measures relative to the
City’s sidewalk snow removal Ordinance. A discussion of current procedures
and the procedures of peer communities in the state is included.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends maintaining current enforcement procedures for this program.
Recommended Motion
No formal Council action is required at this time.
City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager recommends maintaining the current policy. This policy was
implemented at the beginning of the winter. From the staff perspective this policy
has proven to be more effective than the policy implemented in previous years.
We could review a re-inspection fee, but I believe it would be less effective than it
is in the other two types of inspections, since the City can clear the sidewalk 24
hours after the initial inspection.
Even though parked vehicles is a separate violation, we can also look at
increasing the fines on parked vehicles concurrently if the Council wishes for
these policies to become more aggressive in enforcement.
Background
Authority State Statute 66.0907 (5) requires the City clear sidewalks of snow
and ice when abutting property owners fail to do so. This statute further allows
the City to pass along, to the property owner, costs incurred by the City. No
timeframes for property owner compliance are established by statute. City
Ordinance 12.08.080 requires sidewalks be cleared of snow and ice within 12
hours of cessation of snow.
Current Procedures The City’s response to snow-covered sidewalks is
primarily reactive, relying initially on citizen complaints. The following procedures
are implemented:
1
An Operations Division staff member inspects the address where the
complaint was noted and also reviews other nearby properties for
compliance.
If non-compliance is observed, a notice is left at the property indicating the
nature of the violation and directing the occupant or property owner to
correct the violation within 24 hours. Direct contact with the property
owner or occupant is attempted when possible.
After 24 hours has elapsed, a City crew or private contractor hired by the
City is scheduled to clear the sidewalk.
When sidewalk clearing has been performed by the City or its contractor,
the abutting property owner is sent an invoice for associated costs. The
current minimum charge is $127.00.
Digital photos are taken before and after any clearing is performed by the
City or its contractor.
These same procedures are followed regardless of the number of
instances of non-compliance at any given property.
The current procedures were first implemented in December 2010 at the
direction of the City Council. The Council’s primary goal was to shorten the
amount of time to gain compliance and the changes have been successful in this
regard.
Peer City Procedures A review of procedures in 16 Wisconsin cities was
conducted in 2009. In summary:
Twelve communities respond to snow covered sidewalks on a complaint
basis only.
Four communities do some form of proactive inspection.
Twelve communities utilize a door hanger to notify tenants of buildings as
notice of non-compliance.
Three communities mail letters to property owners as notice of non-
compliance.
One community does not provide any notice of non-compliance prior to
clearing a sidewalk.
Twelve communities take picture documentation at each location. These
communities indicate this was important in proving the work was
performed, especially when using contractors.
Five communities include an inspection fee in their charges.
Three communities include an administrative fee in their charges.
Four communities issue citations for violations.
Options
Proactive Inspections Rather than waiting for citizen complaints, a proactive
inspection program could be established. The scope and frequency of such a
program would dictate the amount of additional staff time devoted to inspections
2
and managing clearing activities. Any added staff time devoted to such a
program would reduce the amount of time staff devotes to other activities. Equity
issues could arise if scope and frequency of inspections are not consistent city-
wide.
Citations Current Ordinance provides for citations up to $100 per day per
occurrence. Staff is not aware any citations have ever been issued under the
Ordinance. Issuing citations would provide additional financial incentive for
property owners to comply with Ordinance. Extending citation authority to
additional city staff would likely be required if citations are to be issued,
particularly should the Council also wish to implement a proactive inspection
program.
The City Attorney has also provided the following relative to citations:
The property owner must be personally served the citation.
Each instance of non-compliance would need to be made unlawful, not
just instances occurring after a first instance.
Due process might be implicated because a property owner may not have
had a chance to contest prior alleged instances of non-compliance.
Notice of each previous instance of non-compliance would need to be
provided a property owner at the time of each instance of non-compliance
(or shortly thereafter) with an opportunity for the property owner to contest
before an impartial person or group.
Re-inspection Fees A re-inspection fee could be assessed those property
owners having multiple instances of non-compliance in a season. The fee could
be assessed after a first instance of non-compliance and where the City or its
contractor takes action to clear the sidewalk. This fee, like a citation, could
provide financial incentive to maintain compliance with Ordinance. Currently,
Neighborhood Services and Building Services each have $50.00 re-inspection
fees. According to the City Attorney, re-inspection fees can be attached to the
real property tax rolls if left unpaid. Implementing additional charges would likely
result in more property owners contesting charges which would require additional
staff time.
3