Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances sidewalk snow-removal plan after years of citizen complaints; age exemption, fee structure remain unsettled
Summary
After extensive public comment and council debate, Anne Arundel County amended a proposed sidewalk snow-removal ordinance (Bill 7-625) to raise the age exemption and sent additional changes back for more work; the council rejected some broader deletions and kept the mechanism for the county to charge removal costs back to property owners.
The Anne Arundel County Council on Oct. 6 held a lengthy public hearing and multiple amendment votes on Bill 7-625, an ordinance intended to strengthen enforcement of sidewalk snow removal after heavy storms.
What the bill does: The draft would replace a $10 police citation with a civil-enforcement framework that shifts initial inspection and enforcement to the Department of Inspections and Permits (INP), provides a warning/notice process, allows the county to arrange removal if owners do not clear sidewalks, and assess the cost to the property owner. The initial draft also treated repeated noncompliance as daily offenses with escalating fines.
Public safety and enforcement concerns: The hearing drew multiple residents and HOA representatives who said uncleared sidewalks created hazards for schoolchildren, people with disabilities and elderly residents. "We already have a comprehensive snow removal plan," said an HOA representative, warning that mandatory enforcement would increase costs for neighborhood associations. Several councilmembers cited incidents of pedestrians forced into streets on Forest Drive during last winter’s prolonged snow event.
Amendments and votes: The council debated a set of competing amendments. Key outcomes at the Oct. 6 meeting included:
- Council adopted Amendment 3 to raise the age-based exemption from 55 to 70 years old (vote: 4–3). The change updates two references in the draft ordinance.
- A broader amendment that would have removed daily fines, eliminated the county lien-and-tax-collection mechanism, and otherwise scaled back enforcement (Amendment 2) was defeated (3–4).
- Council members asked the administration to return with a contractor cost estimate and said they preferred the county to retain the ability to charge removal costs back to property owners rather than prescribe a fixed per-day fine structure. Several members said the goal was safety, not revenue generation.
Administration position and next steps: The administration said the $10 police citation in current code is ineffective and that the proposed civil system is intended to allow INP to manage complaints without pulling police officers from public-safety duties. Karen Henry, director of the Department of Public Works, said the county is seeking contractors and will return with cost estimates and an operational plan; the administration recommended against removing the lien mechanism because it is the established tool the county uses to recoup abatement costs.
Council schedule: The council left the ordinance open for further work and scheduled the bill for further consideration at the Oct. 20 legislative session. Members asked staff to provide clearer guidance on exemptions for disability, an operational estimate of contractor costs for county removal, and suggested possible caps on per-event liabilities to limit extreme financial impacts on homeowners.
