Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Jonathan Douglass, Assistant to the City Manager
CC:	Scott McCullough, Planning and Development Services Director Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager
DATE:	October 14, 2008
RE:	Changes to Sidewalk Snow and Ice Removal Ordinance

In March 2008 the City Commission considered changes to the existing Sidewalk Snow and Ice Removal Ordinance (Ordinance No. 7456). Problems with the existing ordinance and enforcement program were generally identified as an overly long compliance period, lack of provisions for removal of snow and/or ice by the City if the owner or occupant does not remove it, and occasions when City snow plows throw snow off the street onto sidewalks that have already been cleared. The City Commission directed staff to bring back options for possible modifications to the ordinance (see minutes from 03/04/08 meeting). In response staff has prepared a number of options for an amended sidewalk snow and ice removal enforcement program and ordinance.

“Good Neighbor” Option

The first option recognizes the difficulties inherent to the issue of sidewalk snow and ice removal and takes an approach that relies on faster notification of violations but gentler enforcement action. The attached draft ordinance “A” keeps the current twenty-four (24) hour time frame from the end of the winter weather event until snow or ice must be removed. However, when a violation is identified, a door hanger with information regarding the ordinance will be left at the property, rather than being mailed. The door hanger will contain information regarding the sidewalk snow and ice removal ordinance, information regarding the “Safe Winter Walkways” program for people who need assistance clearing their sidewalks, as well as an acknowledgement of the difficulties caused by snow plows throwing snow from the street onto sidewalks that may already have been cleared. The fine provision of the ordinance has been eliminated. Enforcement would remain largely complaint driven due to staff resources available for the program.

This ordinance and enforcement program will lead to notices of violation reaching property owners and tenants much faster, but the notice will be less legalistic and more helpful in encouraging people to clear their sidewalks. The rationale for eliminating the fine is that the City rarely forwards these complaints to Municipal Court because the violations naturally resolve themselves long before cases actually came before the court. It is frankly not worth the staff time and resources of the Development Services Department, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Municipal Court to prosecute sidewalk snow and ice removal violations, even at elevated fine levels. The disadvantage of eliminating the fine provision is that there would not be an avenue to prosecute blatant repeat offenders if that need ever arose. A provision could be added to the ordinance to address that situation if desirable.

Another approach for achieving the same results as the “Good Neighbor” option would be to repeal the existing sidewalk snow and ice removal ordinance entirely and establish an administrative policy for encouraging neighborly behavior. This may be preferable to having an ordinance on the books that has no penalty for its violation.

“Abate and Assess” Option

The second option (see draft ordinance “B”) offers a more aggressive enforcement program, giving forty-eight (48) hours of notice following the initial twenty-four (24) hour compliance period before the City abates the violation (via contracted snow and ice removal services) and assesses the cost to the property owner. Enforcement would remain largely complaint driven due to staff resources available for the program.

An advantage of this approach are that the violation gets cleared in a timely manner regardless of the property owner’s response, with little change to the amount of staff time dedicated to the program, as long as the number of complaints does not significantly increase. Staff does, however, have concerns that adopting this program may create unrealistic expectations that would stretch thin City staff and funds. For example, it is not inconceivable that a citizen could call in a complaint that most of the sidewalks on 6^th Street, Wakarusa Drive, 23^rd Street and Iowa Street are not cleared. The citizen would likely expect that the City would inspect the properties, send out notices of violation, and have the sidewalks cleared as necessary. This is not a reasonable expectation, unless staff time dedicated to inspecting and initiating enforcement action is greatly increased.

This option could also be perceived as heavy handed enforcement, especially given the shorter notice period, the conflict between snow plows and sidewalk snow removal, and the needs of individuals who are physically unable to clear their sidewalks. The notice period could be lengthened of course, but that would counteract the attempt to gain compliance earlier than it is usually accomplished via sunshine and warmer weather.

“Incremental Change” Option

The third option (see draft ordinance “C”) is to make a few changes to tighten up the ordinance, but recognize that there are no more resources available to dedicate to the enforcement program at this time. The notice period following initial determination of violation could be reduced from five (5) days to three (3) days, and the fine could be raised from $20 to $50.

This shorter notice period and steeper fine may be incentive for faster sidewalk clearance in some cases, but the fastest someone would have to clear their sidewalk before facing a possible fine would be four (4) days. There would still be no provision for the City to clear the sidewalk if the property owner failed to abate the violation in a timely manner. We would likely still experience the situation where the sidewalk is covered in snow and ice for days, but sun and warmer temperatures finally clear the sidewalk before the property owner faces any consequences.

“No Change” Option

The final option is to make no changes to the current sidewalk snow and ice removal ordinance, recognizing and acknowledging that while snow/ice covered sidewalks are inconvenient, Lawrence only experiences a few significant weather events most winters that usually clear up within a relatively short time period. The ordinance allows the City to prosecute violators, and a program is in place to assist individuals who are unable to clear their sidewalks (Safe Winter Walkways).

Conclusion

Staff cannot recommend the “abate and assess” option because of concerns that it will create unrealistic expectations that the City cannot reasonably meet. Commission direction on whether other changes are appropriate is desired.

ACTION: Consider changes to the sidewalk snow and ice removal ordinance and enforcement program. Direct staff as appropriate.