The Municipal Services Committee met 07/25/2022. One of the items they voted on was a request to waive a nearly $400 snow removal assessment fee for the commercial property on South Oneida Street consisting of Houdini’s Escape and the lot that formerly housed Kokomo’s bar.
The committee ended up voting 4-1 against waiving the assessment. Normally fee waiver requests are pretty clear-cut, but this one was a little more involved, obviously to the point where Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) was in favor of waiving the assessment. [In my opinion, the facts of the case as presented did raise some questions. It sounded like he was doing work the city should have been doing, but the city was still charging him an assessment for it. It didn’t really make sense, and I felt bad for the property owner.]
For the purposes of getting the item on the table for discussion, Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) made a motion to approve the waiver. Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) seconded it.
Eric, the property owner, spoke to the committee. He explained this was an ongoing problem that he had ended up talking about with Mayor Timothy Hanna back in 2019 when he was still in office. Eric’s perception of the situation was that the city’s plows were plowing snow onto the sidewalk which his employees then had to shovel sometimes two or three times after they had already cleared the initial snowfall. The city was then charging him for snow removal.
The snow the city plowed onto the sidewalk was already heavy and slushy with big chunks in it such that a snowblower couldn’t go through it and it had to be shoveled by hand. Being billed by the city on top of that didn’t seem right, and he thought the policy needed to be changed. He also was hoping the city would stop plowing snow up on the sidewalk and instead plow it into the bike lane.
He passed out a picture (which unfortunately was not included with the meeting minutes) illustrating the snow the city plowed onto the sidewalk.
Alderperson Siebers clarified that this was a commercial property, and then clarified the issue Eric wanted them to deal with. Was the problem the assessment or the snow being owed onto the sidewalk or both?
Eric responded that if they had to shovel the sidewalk, then they shouldn’t be charged. He reiterated that it had been an ongoing problem and he was hoping for it to be fixed in the long term.
Alderperson Siebers asked Michelle Block, the new Director of Public Works, to speak on the matter. Her understanding was that the policy was in place because in tight urban settings where the streets had no terraces, there was no place for the snow to go other than on the sidewalks. After plowing, the street crews would come back out and remove the snow from the sidewalk.
Alderperson Joss Thyssen (District 8) noted that the assessment did not list a date for when the snow removal happened. She asked what the snow removal date was and how many days past the snowfall it had happened.
Director Block responded that her understanding of the policy was that the assessment was levied every year no matter how many times the street crew went and removed snow. It was not a per-occurrence assessment but rather a seasonal assessment that happened whether street crews went out there once or 15 times.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said this this seemed different than the snow removal levied against homeowners and asked for an explanation of the differences between snow removal assessments against commercial properties vs residential properties.
Director Block answered that residential properties usually have a terrace. If there’s a complaint regarding snow removal it was usually because someone had not been shoveling. City street crews would address the issue and the property owner would be charged accordingly.
In the case of the property before the committee that day, the assessment was based on the policy and the address listed. The policy listed properties by tiers. Properties were charged based on the tier they fell into and the number of feet their frontage was. The assessment was for the annual service of removing excess snow from the sidewalk.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said her understanding was that this was a standard annual charge that was assessed whether or not snow was removed from the sidewalk. She wanted to clarify: was this a standard yearly charge or was this amount assessed because snow had been removed from the sidewalk?
Director Block answered that her understanding was that it was a standard annual charge.
Alderperson Siebers was confused by this [as was I] and asked whose responsibility it was to remove the snow from the sidewalk.
Direct Block responded that it was the property owner’s responsibility.
Alderperson Siebers did not understand why the property owner was being assessed, if it was his responsibility to remove the snow.
Direct Block answered that this assessment was for areas where there was nowhere else to put the snow. In tight urban areas, there was nowhere to put the snow so property owners would shovel it in between the street and the sidewalk. A mound of snow would build up from both what property owners were shoveling from the sidewalk and what was being thrown up by the street plows. The street crews would then come and remove this built-up snow and haul it away.
Eric said that he had an area to put his snow on his property. The snow that was coming up onto the sidewalk was from the plows, not from his business. He said he wouldn’t really mind the assessment if he didn’t have to shovel the sidewalk multiple times. He reiterated that he thought the city should leave the snow in the bike lane.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was not a committee member, but she was in attendance. She asked if all the properties listed in the policy were being assessed the same charges this property owner was but only this property owner was having an issue with the assessment?
Director Block answered that, as she understood the policy, that was correct.
Alderperson Firkus said he thought he understood what the issue was. There was not enough space to put the snow between the street and the sidewalk. The built-up snow did get removed. At a location like this it was impossible for the snowplow to not push up snow on the sidewalk. It was a tug of war. He thought if they waived this assessment, they would be looking at potentially having to waive it for every property in that situation. [I personally felt that while what he described was certainly part of the issue, it was not the entire issue. The other problem to me seemed to be that this property owner was removing his own snow and the snow kicked up by the plow while the city was not removing any snow, but the city was still charging him for snow removal.]
Alderperson Firkus didn’t think plowing the snow into the bike lane was the right solution. He understood that not many people biked during the winter, but nobody would bike in the winter if they had to share the car lane. “I understand the problem, but I just—I have a hard time voting to say we should waive this one if we’re not gonna waive it for everyone else.”
Alderperson Siebers said that one problem he had was that the property owner was removing the snow once only to find it covered with snow again, so it was a continual process of needing to remove snow more than once.
Eric said, “I think that the property owner should be treated just like anybody that owns a home in Appleton. The snow that falls from the sky and goes on the sidewalk you got removed, but you shouldn’t have more added to it.” He also thought the city should really review the policy as a whole because he did not think he was the only person having this issue. In fact, he had talked to some people on Wisconsin Avenue who received an assessment.
Alderperson Siebers asked if those property owners were fined or assessed.
Eric didn’t know whether they were assessed or fined or both, but he did know those people were in a situation similar to the one he was in.
Alderperson Siebers mentioned that in his district (District 1) there was a street that had no terrace and the people on that street were shovel their sidewalks constantly because there was no place to put the snow.
Eric acknowledged that but pointed out Oneida Street had more lanes than a residential street.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said she understood what Eric was saying, but, at the same time, she couldn’t really understand how any of the affected properties to get a better deal than to have all of that snow hauled away. She thought that in a full winter, they would be spending more than $200 on a service like that. So, it seemed like this was actually making things easier for most people. She also wondered if they had ever received a complaint from any of the other affected properties about this.
Deputy Director of Public Works Ross Beutow answered that this was not the first time this had happened [which I took to mean, not the first time they had received complaints]. He said the physics of the situation was that the plows had to plow the snow to the sides, and they couldn’t do it all in one pass. They tend to come back and do cleanup later, especially during a huge snow event like in the picture Eric had provided. It then took a couple weeks before the snow removal crews came through and did the snow removal for which property owners were being assessed. He acknowledged it was not a great situation, but, as Alderperson Firkus has said, it was a tug-of-war with no easy solution.
Alderperson Siebers noted that there was not an “easy solution” but asked if there might be a solution of some sort. Regardless of what the vote on the waiver request turned out to be, he knew that constituents liked to be heard, and after they had been heard they liked to receive some communication. Rather than just hold the vote and thank Eric for coming, he wondered if there was the possibility of having Eric sit down with someone and see if something could be worked out. Maybe something couldn’t be worked out, but at least Eric would have the satisfaction of knowing he was heard.
Alderperson Siebers then asked Eric if he had sat down with anyone and noted he had mentioned having talked with Mayor Hanna.
Eric said that he talked with Mayor Hanna who sent him to somebody else, so there had been some conversations. He had been told that drivers were not supposed to plow snow onto the sidewalk, so he thought it really came down to getting the drivers to do the right thing. He also wanted to clarify that the city had not removed the snow in the picture he had provided to the committee. His business had to remove the snow. The city was giving them snow but not removing any of it for them. “We’re getting road snow on our sidewalk, and we have to remove it. There’s no help from the city.”
He thought maybe the city should go over that entire strip of Oneida Street on both sides with one of its sidewalk cleaners given that they were already doing that north of McKinley and along the Oneida Street Bridge.
None of the committee members or city staff commented on that suggestion.
The committee then voted 4-1 to uphold the assessment and not grant the waiver with Alderperson Siebers being the only one to vote in Eric’s favor. Alderperson Siebers did let Eric know that this was only a recommendation, and it would be voted on by the full Common Council at the 08/03/2022 Common Council meeting.
[I think this issue warrants a little more attention which hopefully the Council will give it. The idea that, per Director Block, is levying an annual fee that certain property owners are assessed whether or not the city needs to come out and clear snow seems like something that should potentially be clarified with the Attorney’s Office.
Additionally, in this specific case, Eric said that he was removing the snow, not the city, but he was still being assessed. That seems at the least unethical and potentially legally dubious as well. If the city can charge property owners for services it isn’t actually even performing, wouldn’t that be the easiest solution ever to our levy limit issues? Just start assessing property owners for services, pocket the money, and then don’t perform the services you’re charging them for. Problem. Solved.
I understand that it sucks if there is no terrace in front of your property and you need to clear the snow pushed up on the sidewalk by the snowplow. Presumably that’s one of the things a person takes into consideration when purchasing a property. However, in this situation it sounds to me based on this discussion that, while Eric was responsible for initially clearing the sidewalk, he didn’t have to clear the snow pushed up on the sidewalk by the snowplow. Instead, the city was assessing him $400 a year for them to come through and clear away that snow, which seems like a really good deal. What I don’t understand is why then-Mayor Hanna and the city staff members Eric spoke with back in 2019 never explained to him that he didn’t have to worry about removing that extra snow. Why didn’t they just explain to him that all he had to do was clear the initial snowfall, pile it up on the sidewalk next to the curb, and let the city come through and haul it away. And all it was going to cost him was $400 a year which seems like a pretty sweet deal to (a) not have a big pile of snow in his parking lot and (b) not have to deal with the heavy, back-breaking snowplow snow that everyone hates shoveling. Instead, it sounds like the city has been profiting off his misunderstanding of the policy for years by continuing to charge him this assessment while never letting him know that he didn’t need to do all that extra work, even after he reached out to them about it.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=982991&GUID=9FFFD603-3733-4B15-A385-D5C6961C1E74
One thought on “Municipal Services Committee Denies Request To Waive Snow Removal Assessment – Property Owner Claims He Removed The Snow, Not The City”