Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Snow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed downtown snow-removal ordinance after heated public debate
Summary
A proposed ordinance to charge downtown commercial businesses for sidewalk clearing and center-meter snow removal prompted sustained public comment and council debate; council voted to table the item for further study.
The Mount Shasta City Council held a public hearing on proposed changes to downtown snow-removal services on Feb. 24 and ultimately voted to table the ordinance after extended public comment and council discussion.
Ken (staff) outlined the proposal’s key elements: shrink the city’s center-plowed area, charge commercial downtown businesses for sidewalk clearing and center snow removal, and base charges on building square footage billed via business-license fees. Ken described the rationale as operational efficiency and cost recovery: after major storms it can take the city days or weeks to remove center berms and clear sidewalks, and the proposal aims to reduce contracting costs and speed clearing.
Ken said the staff-recommended approach would bill actual annual snow-removal costs to downtown commercial accounts, explaining, "the most defensible way is to track the actual cost every year." He also described equipment purchase needs for narrow sidewalks and other operational clarifications.
The proposal drew strong pushback from multiple downtown business owners who said charging businesses (but not residences) is inequitable and would harm small businesses that already lose revenue during storms. Nayan Majesta said moving the market to Castle Street halved vendor sales and argued the city should prioritize high-visibility locations to support businesses. Bill Ramshaw and other business owners said fees would be an additional burden; one business owner estimated a hypothetical $548 to $1,000 addition to a business license after a heavy winter.
Councilors questioned legal constraints and alternatives. Staff said including residences in a similar charge would likely require a public vote, and legal counsel advised that the city can limit charges to affected downtown businesses under existing authority. Council members discussed alternatives including a flat fee, benchmarking across five-year averages, or shifting sidewalk responsibility back to property owners (as in many other jurisdictions).
After extended discussion about fairness, enforcement and alternatives (flat fees, inclusion of residences, and potential utility-bill assessments were raised), the council voted to table the ordinance and directed staff to return with revised options and more outreach to downtown stakeholders.
No new fee was adopted at the Feb. 24 meeting.
