Replace current City Ordinance Section 177-12 Snow and Ice Removal with revised ordinance language to address property owner responsibilities for snow and ice removal

Transcript (~51 min @ 2:02:00)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 2:01:47 Maya Jamaleddine: Alright, Thank you. Now we are back in legal and legislative committee first. Um, and the only item on our agenda is ID number 12 27 9, replace current city ordinance section 7 17 7 dash 12 snow and ice removal with revised ordinance language to address property owner responsibilities for snow and ice removal. This, um, uh, ordinance is sponsored by Vice Chair Devin Romanul and Counselor Williams, uh, vice Chair Romanul.

▶ 2:02:22 Devin Romanul: Okay. I know it's been a long night, but, uh, we'll, I'll try to make this speedy. Um, first things first, I, I just wanna say I have amended language I'd like to introduce, but I just want to talk through some of the, some of the changes before I read it out. Um, I wanna thank the testimony both people in the audience and online and over email. We got over three dozen, uh, our residents, uh, giving testimony and, and the colleagues in the administration for your feedback both around the table. Um, the, the comments that, uh, you all made in particular, uh, made an impression and I, I really appreciate your openness to the inclusion of the process. Um, I think we saw a lot of alignment around the shared values of civic responsibility and safety and mobility. Um, so I'm really grateful for that. I just wanted to share a, a couple of quick things. I did, um, you know, talk to someone in the Attorney General's office to confirm that, uh, the precedent set by Papalo V Target in 2010 did, um, maintain liability on the property owners for slipping and falling in your sidewalk, irrespective of whether or not you've cleared it, irrespective of whether or not there's a municipal ordinance. So, um, you know, this doesn't really impact legal liability on that front. Um, and I did wanna share that some feedback that I, I did accrue, um, around, um, you know, folks feeling like maybe penalties, uh, um, you know, for missing here and there felt an antithetical to the notion of, um, you know, of, of who we wanna be as a city. And that, um, and that frankly, the, the civic, the financial reality is that we don't have the code enforcement, um, as presently constituted or potentially projected into the future, um, with the way our budget is turning out to even enforce, um, additional penalties beyond the ones that are already exist. Um, so, and then also there was the, some commentary around exemptions potentially being an additional administrative burden where we simply do not have the staff presently to sort through that. So I totally hear you. Um, and, and I want to bear that into account giving, pairing in mind that we want to create that shared value of, of safety and mobility in our streets. So, um, I hope that number one, this will push residents. Um, you know, that the administration, given the amendment I'm about to introduce will push residents towards more resources, be, be it the, um, you know, uh, snow angels or otherwise. Um, and also, uh, you know, maybe create, um, more, uh, uh, expect regular expectations for the DBW, um, on what municipal properties and and shared public spaces are gonna be cleared. I think that conversation has already started with the administration, and I hope that residents will be more compelled to look out for each other, um, you know, given the language that we're discussing tonight. Um, and I finally just wanna say, um, I hope that this council will monitor conditions, see how residents feel, and if there are tweaks that we meet need to make in the future, I, I'd really love to, um, you know, think about it, particularly for those examples that we heard of just folks who really never, um, you know, dig out. And I think for 95 plus percent people regularly do that. And I, I really love that about our city. Um, so when I, um, maybe that's something that we brainstorm. If this is privileged to move to full council, I, I'd love to brainstorm how we attack that problem. Um, you know, without, uh, um, you know, shedding our values there. So I'll just say, I'll read the full language and I just emailed it Taji, uh, to, to our clerk. Um, just so you have the, you have the amended language, but the, the quick changes that I made, um, bearing in mind the feedback that I've received from here, the administration and, and our residents, um, in, uh, section A I just amended, um, or is, um, is exactly the same as it was before. Um, and exactly what, um, city law is now in, uh, section B. My amendment, um, just, uh, clarifies, uh, that the owners are responsible. Unless, and the way that it the legalese works is that, um, you know, unless a person having such charge of property, it, you know, if you're renting it would be in your, your lease agreement. Um, in section B, uh, part four, I just shortened it to, uh, clarify, um, uh, what constitutes reasonably safe. Um, in Section C, uh, for the DPWI clarified that the DPW is also responsible for clearing its responsible, um, properties within 24 hours. Um, I, uh, I also, on the residential side, I changed 12 from 24 hours relative to some, and clarified that language. So then that way people aren't feeling like, oh my gosh, the last flake smell, uh, fell three minutes after sunset there. Ergo, you know, it triggered some, you know, different, uh, timeline. So I get that my original language was confusing. Um, and then, let's see, on the penalty section on the, uh, enforcement section, I wiped out the last three sections, um, because, uh, to acts, the administrative burden that might be incurred by trying to figure out exemptions here or there. And under the penalty section, I kept everything as, um, is currently constituted under the law, where you have large apartment buildings are responsible for clearance under current law, um, and, uh, commercial and, um, industrial places are responsible for penalties, um, under the current law. And, uh, and the way that I, oh, you'll see in a second to read it out. Um, made sure that you're still liable for throwing snow in the street as it is under current law if he can't do that. Um, but, uh, the residents would not be penalized under this. Um, you know, this permutation. Alright, with that, I'm gonna read it real quick and then I welcome your feedback. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Um, so, uh, the amendment, uh, as, uh, presently reads, um, which will replace my existing, uh, amended languages. Part one, placing snow and ice on the street. No owner occupant or tenant of land, or a building, or any agent thereof shall cause any snow or ice, uh, from said land or building to be placed in the sidewalk road or other public way in the city. Alright, part B, snow and ice to be removed from sidewalks by abutting property owners. Section one, in order to provide for safe pedestrian passage and access, every owner of a building or lot of land abutted a sidewalk, any person or having charge of such property shall remove and clear away or cause to be removed and cleared away snow and ice from a portion of the sidewalk that abuts their property. Sidewalks shall be cleared for, uh, provide a minimum passage of 36 inches wide or to the full width of the sidewalk if narrow. Section two for those properties abutting sidewalks with curb cuts, ramps, or other access points, abutting property owners shall provide unimpeded access to the street. Section three, snow and ice shall be removed, and sidewalks and ramps shall be treated within 24 hours after snow ceases or, uh, fall after ice forms. Section four, all sidewalks shall be cleared to the surface of the sidewalk or where it is impractical. To do so, the sidewalk shall be treated with sand or other suitable material to make travel if they're unresponsible or reasonably safe. Uh, part C, snow and ice on public grounds, all sidewalks adjoining public buildings or grounds shall be cleared under the direction of the director of public works. Within 24 hours after snow, uh, ceases or fall after ice forms, snow eases, forgive me. And then finally, uh, section D Enforcement, uh, section one. The property owner shall be liable for any fines incurred as a result of violations of a, of the section that's the throwing snow on the street. The property owner of commercial, industrial, or multifamily properties with greater than four units shall be liable for any fines incurred as a result of violations of b of this section. The fine for any violation of any provisions in A or B of this section shall be $50 for each day of non-compliance. Violations in this section shall be enforced as of September 1st, 2025. Section two, the director of public works, or their designee, shall have the authority to enforce all provisions of this section in the event of unusually heavy snowfall. Or when weather conditions necessitate, the Director of Public Works or their designee has the discretion to extend time limits for compliance to the Melrose Police Department is authorized to assist in the enforcement of this section. I'd like to make a motion to replace my amended language with that amended language

▶ 2:10:29 Speaker 12: Point of order. Can we have, um, the city clerk email the amended version to us? 'cause I don't think she can update that in I QM two, and it's really hard to follow along verbally. Sorry.

▶ 2:10:41 Speaker 5: Sorry. I apologize. Um, so if you can email.

▶ 2:10:44 Speaker 12: Yeah. Thank you.

▶ 2:10:49 Maya Jamaleddine: So, um, uh, while, uh, my colleagues will have the email, um, you made, uh, vice chair, you made a motion to amend

▶ 2:11:01 Devin Romanul: Yes. To amend my original language with that whole original language. Okay. And if it's helpful, I'd also be happy to talk about the changes one by one.

▶ 2:11:12 Maya Jamaleddine: So we have a motion made by Vice Chair Manjula to amend with the, uh, um, amended text, uh, or suggested text, um, uh, from, uh, vice Chair Manjula. Do we have a second? Second that I have, um, a second from, um, counselor Vandiver. And now on discussion, I'll open it for anyone who wishes to comment. Counselor V.

▶ 2:11:46 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, I, I think we might benefit from going through the changes a little more slowly, because there, there was a lot to try to absorb really quickly. Yeah. Um, and my one specific question, so I, I guess it would ask you to perhaps like, repeat the key points, um, or maybe one at a time that we could kind of go through. But, um, my specific question is the amended language goes through D two and the, um, the version we had in here before went through I think D four five. Um, so does that mean that there's no D 3 4 5 at this point and in the amended version? Okay, thank you. So the, the, the version we just received by email is now what we're considering is the complete text of what this ordinance would become, So, okay.

▶ 2:12:34 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Uh, Romanul,

▶ 2:12:36 Devin Romanul: Madam Chair. Uh, I'll just say, uh, yes, this was envisioned as an amendment of a substitute. Um, and my apologies for the, the format. Um, so I appreciate your, your patience in dealing with my, uh, the dulce tones of my reading voice and the challenges that presents. Um, but yes, uh, would it be helpful for me to talk through the individual changes? Yeah, Go ahead. Once again. Um, so yeah, so the language that, um, uh, Madam Clerk just emailed us, um, uh, constitutes a, uh, amendment as a substitute. So this would be the full and complete language. So, uh, through the chair, uh, councilor Vandiver, I, I'd say that, um, yes, the, the enforcement section was, uh, truncated significantly to, uh, collapse the, um, the, the backend exception, um, you know, and legal components that, uh, I felt were, were unnecessary given the, the feedback that I received publicly. And, and, um, and, uh, yes, the, the other changes were to, um, create, uh, uh, extend the timeline from 24 12 to 24 hours. Um, and to simplify that language, um, was to apply that 24 hour figure to the Department of Public Works as well, um, rather than just the residences. So we have equitable expectations on both the public and, and, uh, residential, uh, sections. Um, I also, um, uh, I changed the date of, um, uh, of, of the start date rather than November 1st, uh, to September 1st, given that we might get snow in October. And I'd love for residents not to be confused. Um, and, uh, and then the big one was on the, um, enforcement, um, that, uh, um, would, this amendment would keep in place. Uh, the, uh, the current laws, it currently states not to throw snow in the street, um, which we, we cannot do. It keeps, um, commercial, industrial and large multifamily buildings with awnings. Um, so the language is a little different, but the implications are the same. Um, saying that you do have to clear your sidewalk and there is a penalty there, but for the vast majority of units, the single family, the multifamily, small multifamily, uh, there is no penalty for lack of removal. Um, uh, due to the feedback that I received about the inability for code enforcement to back that up at the moment. And, um, you know, creating that, that sense of, um, you know, residents maybe not feeling comfortable with that right now. So that's my amended language. Thank you. Open to suggestions. I'm open to feedback and, um, other, other amended language.

▶ 2:15:17 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, um, from voting members, I have first, uh, RO

▶ 2:15:23 Cal Finocchiaro: Yep. Thank you so much for, um, you know, doing this work and, you know, revising the language. Um, I know you spoke to a lot of people and they provided feedback, and I appreciate that. Um, so I have to say, originally I was confused, but I was first looking at it because I wasn't sure if the fine was for single family homes as well. Um, and I have to say my, um, experience just living here, however, however many years I've been here and just walking around my, um, what I've noticed is that people like repeat offenders of not shoveling tend to be multi-family homes, because usually not owner occupied. Um, so you'll notice like maybe the plow will come by and do the driveway, but then the sidewalk's not done. Um, so, but they'll be done maybe at a later time because of contractual reasons. Um, just noticed one recently, you know, and, and that being said, I have to say, you know, with each snowstorm, knowing that this ordinance was sort of, you know, in play here, I've been paying attention, uh, to the sidewalks. You know, I walk my dogs everywhere in the city, pretty much. And I think, I'd say like 99% of the residents do a really good job of shoveling. Um, I know there's obviously people that don't, um, for whatever reason. But I do find that when I stumble upon residence, that is not shoveled, it's usually a four or five family home. I'm, I'm guessing that it's not o owner occupied, that they have like some, like I said, contractual agreement with a plow. And, um, it does usually get done. It's ju it is usually not within the 24 hour period, but, um, and I, I'm not a huge fan of the fine portion of this ordinance. Um, I support an ordinance, but, um, but anyways, I, I'm actually, I'm happy that it's not for single family homes 'cause that was my major concern. Um, so anyways, I'm just rambling here

▶ 2:17:26 Speaker 9: and giving you feedback, but, um, thank you. 'cause I appreciate the update language.

▶ 2:17:33 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Any, uh, other voting members wishing to councilor? Um, um, GEPE, and then I have President Ali.

▶ 2:17:44 Mark Garipay: Um, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Um, um, yeah, um, it's just a lot of changes umm, trying to decipher from 'em all. And, you know, I'd like to actually have visual hard copies as you can see. So I'm struggling through it, through this. Um, I may need a little bit more time, but, uh, where are we on number B one, right? Um, I'm sorry.

▶ 2:18:16 Mark Garipay: B four talks about, uh, sidewalks shall be cleared to the surface of sidewalks, um,

▶ 2:18:24 Mark Garipay: treated with sand and all that when we have a lot of times where you have melt melting and refreezing and I, not that the intent is not there by people mm-hmm. But there's, you know, we talk about, um, you know, seniors that actually pay someone to come out and shovel, they're not gonna pay someone to come back and throw sand down, right? And that is a cost every time someone, someone comes out. So that, that concerns me a little bit there. Um, I mean, a lot of this we think is common sense and you would hope people do it. And I think what we've heard is, you know, 90, 95, 90 7% of the people are, are shoveling. Um, one of the item where it goes back up to B one, and we talk about, I see a lot of people that do shovel and make an attempt, but they might do a width of a shovel. And now, you know, do we get, we get neighbor disputes, all right, I'm not happy with this, this individual, so I'm gonna call and, you know, have someone, he's not 36 inches, he's in violation, or he or her family, whatever. Um, I, I, I think we gotta get, as a ward counselor, I don't wanna manage neighborhood disputes because when, when you've been doing it for a few years, you do get calls about stuff that are totally, when you, when you dig deep and you peel back, it has nothing to do with, with, with the city. It's actually when you, when you peel it back, there's people that just, you know, want to call and, and may not like a neighbor or whatever. So I think we, I don't want to be managing that, that end of it. Um, so I get concerned about the 30 to 36 inches, 'cause people do, do try that may not have the means to hire somebody, but they go out and they do what shovel with. Mm-hmm. That, that, that kind of concerns me there. This, and this is just feedback getting thrown at me right now. Um, um, not saying I can't get there, but I need to decipher this a little bit. Sure.

▶ 2:20:36 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Uh, president Elli.

▶ 2:20:38 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, um, councilor model for coming up with this, these revisions. And, um, similarly to Councilor Repe. I still, I think I just need to digest this more before approving it. Um, I hadn't thought of until Councilor Repe mentioned the 36 inches wide and how that, I don't, I don't know the width of a standard sidewalk, if that is 36 inches. Um, but agree that if people are making a, a good faith attempt to clear the sidewalk, I wouldn't want to see them penalized for not doing the full three feet. Um, two other things I wanna bring up. The, the whole concept of using this to hold, um, DPW accountable for their snow removal. I would maybe wanna separate that from this conversation because I believe DPW has their own processes that are not incorporated in an ordinance. I think that they do not deploy that the sidewalk clearing machine, um, until it has snowed four inches on the ground. So I think our prior snowstorms this summer, this winter, we're not four inches. You did not see that apparatus out there shoveling all their, um, all the, uh, sidewalks that are covered in the map that's saying that they're shoveling, but they do shovel, um, or they do take care of snow clearance around schools the way this is written, if snow falls and, you know, you would want it to be cleared 24 hour, less than 24 hours if that's when school starts. So I just feel like those are kind of complicating two or conflating two different things. Um, I actually, I'm a kind of the opposite of some of the counselors have said, I feel like if we're gonna have a, an ordinance about snow removal, that we should be having some enforcement around it. I get that we don't have the, um, you know, enfor, we heard, you know, heard about the enforcement, um, or lack of enforcement. There might be, or, or inability to, to, uh, put in place enforcement. But I feel like it, you know, I actually think the emails we received were people who were saying, yes, I'm in favor of this. And yes, and please do enforce it. Do add some type of fee responsible for it. My experiences in Melrose, um, walking around, because I don't, I, there are not a lot of multifamily homes in the area that I live in walking around. So I, I do see the same repeat offenders. Um, there they might be people who are not living in their homes full-time, that are not shoveling. Um, I, I don't know why, you know, so I'm not noticing any pattern given where I'm walking in terms of, okay, yeah, I know this, this person's this, this person that. Um, so, uh, you know, and I, and or the reverse, I know people are two able-bodied people living in a home that are, are capable of shoveling and they just aren't. Um, I am very concerned about people falling, slipping and falling while walking. Um, I feel like that's a risk, maybe more so than us trying to, to mitigate unfairly fining people. I would feel like I would rather see, I think in the other version, in the enforcement section it talked about or exemptions, I would like to actually bring back some type of exemption language, um, around senior citizens. I don't exactly know off the top of my head what head, what that would look like, but I, again, it's helpful to have this sort of revised language and I would be happy to kind of take a look at it again and perhaps offer up amendments, um, to be voted on or not, you know, or not voted on by the committee in order to move this forward. Thank you.

▶ 2:24:43 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Um, I have, uh, next, um, counselor ro for the second time, and a counselor ver uh, for voting members before we move to the non-voting members.

▶ 2:24:58 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. Um, so I'll be brief because I do agree that maybe we, um, need to look at this a little bit more. Um, but I think the exemption part didn't sit well with me only because we didn't address people with disabilities as well. And then once you kind of go down that wormhole, it's sort of like, do people have to kind of come forth with their disability to get an exemption? And then it's like, just sort of a, a big process and we already cut it off, is, you know, so I, so I, I guess my feedback was, you know, start with a kind of a simpler form of this ordinance, because we don't have anything other than one, we have one out there for businesses, right? And, um, I don't think it encompasses multifamilies, is it it, sorry, just businesses.

▶ 2:25:57 Cal Finocchiaro: Sorry, I don't mind. Don't mind me. Um, so anyways, I, I was appreciative of a, an ordinance just to get something out there to hold people accountable. Um, but I did feel like all the extra language could just be a lot for us to manage as a city. And like we said, the personnel that's gonna follow up with these issues. Um, so anyways, that's just, I'll leave it that, but, um, I do think that this needs a little bit more time, but

▶ 2:26:26 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 2:26:29 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Um, through the chair. My, my comment is around the, the potential exemptions language or whether should there should be exemptions, um, with the previous version where there was a, an exemptions clause, um, my question would've been, um, how would I, as a neighbor know if the person next to me is just not taking care of it, or if they've received an exemption and there's no expectation that they are taking care of it. Um, and so I, I think, I guess one, if we did go in that type of a direction, I would want to see some way for neighbors to be aware, you know, that property 1 0 5 doesn't, doesn't have an expectation. And if you want it done, the neighbors should do it, or something like that. I mean, I think that might hopefully get taken care of in a neighborhood anyways. Um, otherwise, though, I, I, I almost think the argument of that kind of comes back around to, you know, if somebody for whatever reason can't complete it themselves, um, that they should kind of self-identify that. And probably as a, you know, as a homeowner, still be responsible to then figure out who they're gonna ask to help them out if nobody has already stepped out, whether that's a neighbor, whether that's hiring someone, whether that's calling the mayor's office and saying, please, can you send the DPW 'cause I can't find anyone, whatever it is. But like, I think if you, I think as a, I think, you know, a lot of our incoming male has talked about responsibility and like civic obligation. I think that's a reasonable expectation of whoever is in charge of that property, that if they can't beat themselves, they identify that that needs to get done. Um, and I, I also just, uh, along those lines, wanted to comment. I do appreciate the part in the current section B one about, um, that basically says if you have a, I believe a small rental unit, not a large rental, that the, the obligation kind of is, is expected to be on the person having charge IEI see, I, I, I believe the renter is, um, the one that, that speaks to as opposed to like the owner who may not live nearby. And I, I think that does seem like the, the right expectation that if I'm a renter in a unit, that I take on that type of a, you know, in the same way that I would put the trash out every week, I would shovel my snow if it snows. And, you know, I would take on being the temporary or, you know, for whatever duration of time, resident of that space and, and those responsibilities. Thank

▶ 2:29:00 Maya Jamaleddine: You. Thank you. I'll, um, uh, I have, uh, counselor Kara Sheti, uh, in queue, and then Counselor Stewart, counselor Kara Sheti. Yes.

▶ 2:29:14 Manjula Karamcheti: Hi, sorry. Apologize, Madam Chair. Um, so one small thing, and I don't, I don't know that I'm, I don't think I'm proposing an amendment, but I'm sharing a piece of feedback that I got from one of my constituents in B one. There was a hope for some more clarification around from the portion of the sidewalk that abuts their property to encompass those of us actually like myself who live on a corner. And it's not just one sidewalk, it's actually two. And so just some additional lang language around sidewalk slash s sidewalks, depending on your property. Um, just to be very clear that it's actually both, um, for those of us who have the good fortune of having two sidewalks to shovel. Um, and so just again, through the chair, this is more of a comment, and I'm using this past Sunday as a reference, it, like, I do think an ordinance is needed. And Sunday morning I did my neighbor Jack sidewalk, and our neighbor Michael did the sidewalk with his snowblower that we share. And there is that piece of like, looking out for each other too, and checking in on each other. And so I guess I'll just say that that's like an interesting tension that I have with the ordinance. I, I do think it's needed accountability. Take care of your property, make it clear, make sure people are safe. And I think I also am resonating with the 9-year-old daughter. Like, it's a shame that we need an ordinance like this. So just kind of yes to the ordinance, but also how can we do the, if someone isn't shoveling, knock on their door, are you okay? Do you need any help? I don't. That's just how I roll. So I kind of just wanted to put out there that I think it can be a yes and have an ordinance and also try to take care of each other.

▶ 2:31:26 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, councilor Che. And, uh, council Stewart.

▶ 2:31:31 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I appreciate, um, the feedback as a non-voting member. Um, I just wanted to add some, some commentary chair. Um, so I, I think it's important through the chair that, uh, uh, council Romanul pointed out both the, the liability that we all have on our property, and that there an implicit, um, I think responsibility for safety of people. And that is by itself the enfor an enforcement. Um, you know, for the, uh, the, the situation that we would all hope and wish does not happen, if someone does, does have an unfortunate incident on a sidewalk, um, they're protected. Um, and that, I think that is, um, in my, at least in my case, that is a deterrent. Um, I think it's a strong deterrent too. Um, the other thing that, uh, was briefly mentioned was the Snow Angel program, which I've seen be very successful, have, um, I had until recently a a woman who, who was in her mid eighties and, uh, at every snowstorm, um, a high school student would come shovel out this woman, uh, typically they come twice, once during the storm, once after the storm. Uh, I think there's, uh, per perhaps better awareness that needs to be made of that program. It works, it's effective, and it gets, I think, links, um, the, the, um, the teenage community with, uh, some of the elderly or disabled folks. And I think that's a good thing. Um, uh, I think there's, I I've heard the discussion about exemptions. Um, there's, I mean, you can just go on and on about what exemptions you could have. And I, you know, like right across the street, I have a snowbird who's not there from November to April, and so I shovel his drive. I shovel his driveway and sidewalk every single time because he is not there. Um, there's a house that was until very recently, not occupied for years. Um, the woman was, uh, she lived in upstate New York. Um, she was looking to sell the house. She was, uh, much older. And, uh, I, I think it would be very, um, shortsighted of us to want to find someone in that situation. And, and I think that we can go on and on, whether it's disability or handicaps or, or other situations, single mom, uh, that has responsibilities that she can't get to. Uh, I'd be concerned that it would just become, and, and I've found that any, any kind of governance that requires a whole lot of exceptions probably doesn't work very well. Um, so that's, that's where I, I would, um, question the exemptions. Uh, and finally, uh, on the fine, I, I, I'm not in favor of a fine at all. Um, I think that, um, even with a multi-family property, my concern is that it's gonna be inequitable. And we talk a lot about equity, uh, in the horseshoe here. And I feel as though the cost of not, not shoveling would be passed along to the people that could afford it the least. That's my concern about that, uh, because it ultimately would get passed on to, for example, renters, uh, uh, in these multifamilies that are typically rentals. Um, and these are folks that, um, we know of the housing crisis, we know how expensive it is to live here, and now we're putting an additional burden on someone that may or may not be able to handle that may not even realize that that's their responsibility. So I'd be concerned about that. Um, and, uh, and finally, the, the, um, just the trying to understand, uh, what is a penalty and what isn't is somewhat hard to determine, uh, because we've had a lot of examples. Okay, if it's two inches, or if it's four inches or it's six inches, people that go out and walk their dog early in the morning and they create snow tracks and that gets frozen and then, you know, that can't get removed, and then there's a danger there. And so do they salt and I mean, just the list, or if we get two feet of snow and someone just doesn't have the wherewithal to go out and shovel all of that. I mean, there's many instances that I'd be concerned, um, that it, it would be hard to govern. Uh, so that's where I would, I would rather see, I think the, the ordinance is important to get the message out that it is your responsibility to shovel and clear your sidewalks. You have a responsibility, uh, that you need to uphold. Um, but I think there's, I'm more for the carrot and the stick in these kind of things. I think there's a lot of great suggestions, uh, around the shoe. You know, knock on the door, uh, encourage the snowing to call the city. There's a lot of different options for people to do. I think just going to simply imposing a fine, I think is, um, not gonna work. Uh, I mean, it's like the idling car, right? You know, you're not allowed to idle your car in your driveway for more than three minutes, and you can get fined for that. 'cause then you, you know, and everybody starts the car in the winter and lets it warm up. So, and, you know, and no one, and that never, ever gets enforced. So I feel as though I'd rather see something that is gonna be more encouraging, uh, but makes a statement as opposed to, uh, simply creating another governance order with a fine that doesn't really get enforced.

▶ 2:37:11 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, councilor Stewart, any other comments? Uh, from my colleagues, uh, uh, counselor, uh, Hamilton, and then, uh, president Ali.

▶ 2:37:21 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. Just briefly, um, some time ago, councilor Romanul reached out to me and, um, asked my thoughts on this, and I immediately said that I was open to supporting such a measure, and I am, um, and he's done a lot of work, and I respect him in his earnest to make an impact in our community, an important one. We all thought about this yesterday, shoveling the heavy damn snow, um, damp. I said, um, this, this is has, is no, has no bearing and has no reflection on the work that he's done or what he's proposing. But this is something that's come up in the last year, plus that I've been involved on the council. And that is the issue of enforcement. When you have regulatory legislation, whether it's single use, plastic straws, plastic bags, the noise ordinance, maybe a food truck or shoveling enforcement falls on DPW, and are they in,

▶ 2:38:32 Ward Hamilton: are they on board? Are they committed? Do they have the capacity? What does that look like? And in no way, shape or form is this, um, an attack on them or any other department in the city, which we understand is strapped. And, uh, everybody's working, I believe, to maximum capacity and doing a great job. I don't think otherwise, but this is, would be yet another responsibility. And so for me, the one piece that would be, that stands out is, um, you know, someone from DPW, whether it's, uh, the di the superintendent or Jim Troop or someone else to appear before us and talk about what does this look like in real time? Like, yeah, we can do this and here's how it would work. Um, so that's the piece that I would be interested in. But I think Council Roal for his work on, um, something that has been contentious over the years and not particularly popular, and I think, uh, he's a brave man.

▶ 2:39:35 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. I do. For Taking this wrong. Thank you. Thank you, president mc.

▶ 2:39:40 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna just say for just point of information, I've been googling around, um, to look at different city and towns, um, snow removal ordinances and, um, including the towns that I've lived in before, uh, moving back here. And everyone that has an ordinance has some type of find to go along with it. I'm willing to continue to look and, and find out, but I, I, I hear both sides, like, I wish we had enfor more enforcement. Yes. It seems sort of silly to add something on when we are having challenges with enforcing. Um, but it also seems like kind of a weird move for us to put something in, to ask people to do in an ordinance, um, if that were the case. And I would just say like, not do the ordinance and just have some type of public information campaign about shoveling, but I just don't know how, how responsible that is. And also interesting to point out that, you know, we are a, a community of side. We're a sidewalk community. Um, yes, I know I don't have a sidewalk counselor,

▶ 2:40:45 Speaker 12: but I live in your ward. But yes, we are primarily,

▶ 2:40:47 Speaker 2: We're gonna put one in there for,

▶ 2:40:50 Leila Migliorelli: Um, sidewalk. I would love the sidewalk. Um, but it just, you know, we have all of these, um, it, it just see, it just to me seems sort of interesting that we're arguing against something that a lot of our neighboring towns, um, and cities already have in place. Um, and when we're aware we have gotten so many emails in favor of it too. I think it would give me pause if I were hearing from constituents in the opposite direction. I'm not, I have not. So I suppose this is an invitation if we do decide to hold this for people to reach out if they do not agree with this ordinance. Um, but I have not received any emails against it.

▶ 2:41:33 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, councilor gpe.

▶ 2:41:35 Mark Garipay: Yeah. Um, just one quick question through the chair. Uh, councilor Armano, what, um,

▶ 2:41:47 Mark Garipay: Did we have any, like the last few storms? It's, and know, we, and we've had conversations, the snowplow to council, uh, president Mili, or point is it only goes out if it's four, four or five inches. So when does it, when do we, when do we, if, if, if the city is not doing their part, I don't under, I'm struggling with requiring the residents too, right? So, um, and we've had this, we've had this conversation, um,

▶ 2:42:21 Speaker 2: and I don't know where we can't tell them how

▶ 2:42:23 Mark Garipay: to operate their budget, right? And, um, man in manpower and 20, when you have a big storm, 24 hours, I mean, we haven't had a big storm in a while, but when we have a 1214, it takes, they, they're cleaning up intersections and everything for, for more than, more than 24 hours. And I, I just don't know where we start. Is it, is it, do we do it after three, four inches? Or is it, you know, dusting? That's, that's where I'm trying, trying, trying to come to grips because the, we know, especially in a tight budget, um, un unfortunately, the plow truck's not gonna be going out there unless it's a plow, probably a palable snow. Um, and, and I don't know, someone had mentioned around Wyoming Cemetery, um, and the, one of the worst offenders is the Armory state owned property. Um, I just don't, I'm struggling on where we start. So, and I don't know, I don't know if it's a matter of getting with DPW to see if, to see what we can come up with as a solution, because if they're not gonna go out when it's until it's four or five inches, I don't know how, um, you know, we can have the DPW go out and potentially find someone else. If I understood this, I don't have a hard copy, but I, I think I understood what, what the changes were,

▶ 2:43:57 Maya Jamaleddine: so thank you. Thank You. Um, the vice chair Romanul, so

▶ 2:44:02 Devin Romanul: Given the, I just have a very quick response, but given the hour, I think it would be wise, uh, to, uh, revoke my motion and, uh, motion to hold. So then that way we have some opportunity. But by, by way of doing that, I just wanna offer, um, totally great points, uh, across the board to really cherish your, your opinions and feedback. And I, I think there is a, uh, some consensus here that is findable, but between, you know, the width of the sidewalk or the threshold, you know, the trip wire, uh, uh, that, that, um, that hits. I think there are perhaps some other municipal examples. I'm happy to socialize, uh, in the, in the interregnum period. I think that, you know, my goal is to, you know, you, um, to the chair, uh, one of the comments, um, by, um, uh, by one of the counselors around sanding, um, and, you know, not trying to punish people who are operating in good faith, that certainly is not my legislative intent. Um, I think that, um, I, I concur with the element about the, um, uh, quicksand of, of exemptions and how that that could create an, an unnecessary, um, you know, as not trying to unduly punish, uh, people who, uh, do not have the means to physically do it. Um, and, and good points raised about the, the DPW time period about the clearance at, at 24 hours. Um, those are totally internal operations. My reasoning, just so you know, uh, my thought process is that the current ordinance, and I think it might be worth me recirculating, um, to those who are here tonight. So you can kind of see where the current law is, because it, it does actually govern, uh, DBW snow removal as well as residential snow removal. So if it's a matter of bifurcating this discussion and, and doing 'em separately, I'm absolutely open to that. I was just rewriting and reorganizing the whole statute, um, for simplicity sake. But again, open to doing that. So, um, and then I'll just say on the, the current law actually does have the, the places where current law applies, uh, that penalty, and I believe it's $50, I'll have to go back in, is for commercial, industrial and large, the, the way it's, it's written is kind of stilted, but I think it's large apartment buildings with overhangs, uh, is the way that it's intended. And so I had substituted multifamily units with greater than four or multifamily buildings with greater than four units. So, um, I, I am, if there's language around like, you know, application of those, so my amendment is intended to keep those fines, if I have not clarified that to your liking, I'm really open for you to come and say, Hey, this is how I get comfortable. Um, you know, this is, this is what I'd like. So my, my ask to my colleagues would be, if there are are particular amendments that you have in mind on some of these issues, either trip wires or width, or, you know, um, timing, um, DPW will have to do some administrative legwork, and I'm happy to do that legwork. Um, or, uh, you know, exemptions really, um, would ask that, uh, next time we come to reconsider, um, you know, if it's something you wanna discuss beforehand, great. Uh, if it's something you want to bring in debate, like would, would really love that. 'cause I, I think we're all animated. We've got a bunch of constituents who are animated and, um, who knows, we might actually pass something by next snow season. So, um, with, thank you. With that, um, I'd like to withdraw my motion and, uh, motion to, to holding committee

▶ 2:47:25 Maya Jamaleddine: Second So we have the motion to hold in. Uh, so we have, uh, so councilor, vice chair, uh, Romanul withdrew his, uh, motion. And we need, uh, the second to be withdrawn. Uh, councilor Van Devin. Can I point

▶ 2:47:43 Manjula Karamcheti: Of clarification? 'cause we're, it's the newly amended one that we're holding. Is that not true?

▶ 2:47:51 Devin Romanul: I guess it's the whole, it would be withdrawing my substitute amendment and motioning to hold the original order.

▶ 2:48:01 Maya Jamaleddine: So we have a motion to withdraw the amended, uh, uh, version.

▶ 2:48:11 Speaker 9: I don't think we ever voted on. We

▶ 2:48:13 Speaker 5: Haven't, Well's, what? I'm, he opened it

▶ 2:48:14 Speaker 9: Up, putting a motion. It was never seconded. We

▶ 2:48:17 Speaker 10: Never, it was second councilor point of order.

▶ 2:48:19 Mark Garipay: We just, I think, um, council ver has to remove her

▶ 2:48:24 Maya Jamaleddine: Second. Yes. So that's what I was trying to, uh, to say. So, um, we have, um, vice chair, uh, Romanul withdrew his, uh, uh, motion and Councilor Vandiver with draw the second, uh, withdrew her second. So now we are back to the initial, uh, version. And I, sorry, go ahead. Point, point

▶ 2:48:45 Leila Migliorelli: Of order, actually, just, I didn't repeat, but I, uh, discussed this with the city solicitor because the, not the specific ordinance, but, um, the order as written is just replacing current city ordinance section with revised ordinance language. So that's the, that's the motion that we would, or that's the order that we would be holding committee. So it doesn't really matter whether it's your revised version or not. Right. So, but I think you're right, like you wouldn't wanna pass the order. There's no motion to pass, so we can just motion to hold and your language still stands, so it's not going anywhere.

▶ 2:49:20 Maya Jamaleddine: Do we have a motion to hold? Yes. Um, so motion to hold, uh, made by Vice Chair Romanul. Second, seconded by Councilor Gpe. On discussion, I would actually, uh, would like just to, uh, share that I personally would like to see this ordinance, um, including, um, this city as, um, a wide, uh, rather than excluding the, uh, single family homes. I do understand that there is a reason, uh, for that with the capacity of our city, but, um, that, uh, also creates, um, to alienate, uh, those, um, uh, multifamily buildings and multifamily homes. Uh, and, um, and this would create some kind of a bigger issue, uh, down the road. That's my personal opinion. Um, I do hope that if we are going to start this, uh, ordinance would be inclusive of the whole city and not just in, uh, uh, part or one group. Um, I do appreciate that we are starting this effort. So it's okay if we, we are gonna start it on a bigger, on a smaller scale, and then we build up on it, uh, as, uh, the need rise. Um, I also wanted to name that, you know, while I, I love the, the way that my colleagues, colleagues, uh, shared suggestions about, you know, knock on your neighbor's door or, or, or try to, you know, uh, check on them. There is some cases where, um, when it becomes repetitive, it's not about knocking. And unfortunately, this creates some kind of frustration we heard from some constituents where no matter how many times, you know, they knock and check, it's something that, it's just not a habit of cleaning or, or shoveling the, um, you know, from their neighbors. So that creates some kind of frustration. Um, uh, and this is something that if I personally don't, um, struggle with it, but I wanted to be mindful of those that are actually struggling with that and, and unable to resolve this issue. And it's creating some safety issue, uh, and concern, uh, such as, um, you know, our neighbors that, and constituents that came before us and, uh, shared their stories and incidents. Um, with that, uh, do we have anyone else on discussion? Councilor v very

▶ 2:51:58 Kimberly Vandiver: Briefly, um, on the topic of fines, um, the reason I think, I think there should be something in there about fines, even if it is not intended or expected to be used very often, only because of, when I first became a ward counselor, the prior ward counselor gave me a driver around the neighborhood, pointed out past issues, things to be aware of, and there are certain cases, um, but what I'm thinking of is, you know, is a sidewalk next to a daycare that was chronically under shovelled. And you need, you need the stick available so that if, if there's a really important situation, the city or whoever else could escalate that, right? It's, it's, you need to be able to send a letter from the city solicitor and say, Hey, we've given you three warnings, here's the fine, you know, whatever it is, because it just, it won't be effective to, you know, have the city solicitors say, look, it's written down. You know, you have to have something to escalate, escalate to. Occasionally that's, and I know it's late, so that's my, my comment on

▶ 2:52:54 Maya Jamaleddine: That. Thank you. And with that, do we have any other comments? Okay. Uh, and we, we have a motion to hold in committee. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Um, this order is held in committee and vice