Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Snowplows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bountiful council backs public process to name snowplows; staff and drivers to vet suggestions
Summary
Council members discussed a proposal to allow community-suggested names for city snowplows, heard drivers’ concerns about being singled out, and directed staff to develop a process that includes crew input and a pilot program.
Bountiful City Council on Feb. 11 discussed a proposal to solicit resident suggestions for naming the city’s snowplow trucks and directed staff to design a public process that includes input and veto power from the city’s snowplow drivers.
Charles, a Public Works employee who spoke to the council about the drivers’ views, said crews “like to be behind the scenes. They don't wanna be in the spotlight. They don't want any attention.” Charles told the council drivers were split on the idea about half for and half against, and that allowing drivers to vet or veto proposed names could reduce resistance.
Council members and staff said residents commonly praise the city’s snowplowing operations and want a way to show appreciation. Several members referenced examples from other Utah cities (Sandy and Logan) where similar programs reportedly worked well and did not create major staff problems. One council member suggested a staff advisory group that includes employees to craft selection criteria (for example: no derogatory language, no personally identifying tags) before soliciting public suggestions.
Council direction at the work session was procedural: staff should draft a public-engagement plan for naming trucks, involve Public Works crews in selection or veto decisions, and consider a pilot on a handful of vehicles rather than rebranding the entire fleet at once. Charles said Bountiful runs 24 active plow routes with additional spare trucks, and staff proposed recruiting a small employee group plus department leadership to establish clear naming criteria before public solicitation.
The council stressed sensitivity to drivers’ professional pride and potential social-media scrutiny if a truck bearing a nickname were singled out for poor performance. Staff agreed to return with a proposed process that: (1) creates basic vetting criteria with employee participation, (2) solicits public name suggestions, (3) allows crews to veto names they find inappropriate, and (4) pilots a limited number of named trucks before any broader rollout.
No formal vote was taken; council members expressed consensus support for the staged, staff‑driven approach. Staff said they will return with a proposed public-engagement plan and draft criteria for council review.
