Complaint about snow removal cost prompts city to examine procedures

When James Cannava returned home from a two-week vacation this winter he was shocked to find a $480 bill from the city for snow removal for the sidewalks on his property.

Cannava says the charge for one-time snow removal is outrageous and he’s asking the city to reconsider how it handles the situation when property owners don’t clear snow from their sidewalks. His bill shows that the contractor hired by the city charged $400 for removing snow from the property on Jan. 28 through Jan. 30, and the city charged an administrative fee of $80.

Cannava says the city code was followed, but he’d like to see the situation improved for everyone.

“We were out of town and didn’t get the letter that was placed in our mailbox,” he said. “We live in a town where a single residence can be charged $480 for a single offense. We’re all striving to keep Whitefish an affordable town and the charge I received is a draconian punishment. And I hope changes can be made so that no other residents are sent a similarly sized bill.”

City code requires that property owners remove ice, snow and slush from sidewalks within 24 hours to provide a minimum of a 5-foot clearance for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Once a property is found to not be in compliance the city hangs a notice on the door and then sends out a letter to the owners letting them know they have seven days to correct the issue. Then the city’s code compliance officer visits the address to see if the issue has been resolved, and if not a snow removal company is hired to remove the snow.

City Council earlier this month after listening to Cannava’s request during its meeting, decided to examine its snow removal policy.

Planning Director Dave Taylor said the city received multiple complaints about homes where snow wasn’t removed on Dakota Avenue, which is where Cannava resides, during that same timeframe. Of roughly a half dozen properties only two did not remove snow.

“We have a proactive snow removal policy where we look at the major arterials and we also respond to complaints,” he said. “We go check it out, put a door hanger on and then send a letter to the owner.”

Taylor said there is no way for the city to call a property owner because the only information is the mailing address that is on tax records.

Taylor said one of the reasons, in the case of the Cannava property, that the contractor had to visit the property over three days was that ice had been compacted down so that had to be removed before the snow could be cleared, and then it also snowed again.

“It’s not easy to remove the ice once it’s been packed down,” he said.

Mayor John Muhlfeld said it may be time to take a look at the city’s code to determine if it makes sense to require ice removal in addition to snow removal.

“I agree with the policy at face value,” he said. “But $480 for a one-time snow removal seems excessive. Now that I understand that the policy requires ice removal too — there’s times when you can’t remove the ice. I think that’s something we need to look at because if that’s driving the cost that raises a red flag to me.”

Councilor Steve Qunell said clearing the snow means removing it down to the concrete or it becomes difficult to remove later.

“It makes me wonder how much work was done to not make this bill $480,” he said. “We don’t have the information to call the property owners and I’m wondering if there is a way to address that.”

According to Cannava’s bill, a standard service call of $150 was charged for two hours of work, and then $75 for work after that two hours, five bags of ice melt were used at $25 each and there was a flat rate charge of $50 for snow removal.

The city’s administrative fee covers staff time for handling sidewalk snow removal issues.

City Manager Dana Smith said the city would plan to seek requests for proposals from contractors for snow removal services to ensure that rates being charged are competitive.

In addition, she said, the city would examine its administrative fee to ensure that what property owners are being charged matches the amount of staff spent handling such issues.

“We’ll come up with a plan before next fall,” she said.

Though Cannava didn’t request it, City Councilor Rebecca Norton asked if the bill could be reduced.

Smith cautioned against reducing the bill, noting that it would set a precedent for the city waiving fees for other property owners who were charged for snow removal. In addition, she noted, the contractor would still need to be paid for the work.

The city has sent out a contractor 17 times for eight properties this winter that did not clear sidewalks.