Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Snow Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Ogden councilors discuss sidewalk snow removal, leave ordinance language largely unchanged
Summary
City councilors at a work session debated whether sidewalks on cul-de-sacs should be exempt from a sidewalk snow‑removal requirement and asked staff to return with clearer language and designated exceptions; council did not adopt immediate changes.
North Ogden City Councilors discussed, during a work session, whether residents should be required to clear snow and ice from sidewalks that primarily serve cul‑de‑sac lots and how strictly the city should enforce sidewalk‑clearing requirements.
City Manager John Cole brought proposed ordinance language to the council and said he had used a 48‑hour window as a “placeholder” after reviewing local examples: “24 hours is kind of the minimum, and 48 is kind of the maximum,” Cole said. He and councilors discussed tradeoffs between safety, enforceability and the practical effects of plowing patterns that can dump snow back onto sidewalks.
The discussion focused on three points: how long after a storm a property owner should have to clear a sidewalk; whether sidewalks that serve only a few homes in cul‑de‑sacs should be exempt; and whether the city should establish designated snow‑storage areas on plats so buyers know where piles are likely to form.
Councilors and public‑works staff described enforcement limits. Public Works staff and council members noted most cul‑de‑sacs are plowed differently and that plow routing can put snow against fences and park strips, making full compliance difficult. Council members also raised safety concerns for children who walk to bus stops or along “safe routes to school” and suggested prioritizing those sidewalks for prompt clearing.
Several councilors and staff said enforcement should remain realistic. Staff warned a strict, time‑bound rule (for example, a required removal within 24 or 48 hours) could be hard to track and could create burdens for residents who are out of town or who rely on contractors. One councilor suggested giving the public‑works director authority to grant exceptions for “unusual circumstances.”
By the end of the discussion the council gave no direction to adopt immediate ordinance changes and indicated it would keep the current draft language “as is” for now while staff returns with clearer definitions and options. Councilors asked staff to draft clearer text about ‘‘prompt’’ removal, identify designated snow‑storage locations on plats, and propose administrative exceptions by the public‑works director for problem locations.
Councilors did not take a formal vote on ordinance language at the work session. Staff said it will bring revised language and practical options back for future consideration.
