The issue of the City of North Battleford's sidewalk clearing bylaw and its requirements on residents and businesses to remove snow from the sidewalks continues to be a hot one for city council and area residents.
The controversy erupted recently after backlash from those upset at receiving bills from the city for failing to clean up snow and ice from the sidewalks adjacent to their property, as required by the sidewalk clearing bylaw, passed March 22, 2010.
Instead, the city had the snow and ice cleaned up and sent the bill for the costs to property owners. Pursuant to section 333 of the Cities Act, the City may complete the work and add to the tax roll of the adjoining property the unpaid expenses and costs incurred.
The issue was raised at the July 25 council meeting when Ms. Nettie Smolinski made a presentation asking that her snow removal invoice be cancelled. That request was eventually denied at the next council meeting.
It wasn't just Smolinski who objected to having to pay snow removal invoices. In a memorandum to council dated July 29, public works director Stewart Schafer stated "approximately 15 complaints from property and business owners were received claiming they either thought the sidewalk was clean enough or that they were unaware of the bylaw requirements." As of July 26, 2011, there were still 28 outstanding invoices for a total of $5,177.25.
The issue was revived at city hall at their regular council meeting Sept. 12 when Councillor Grace Lang inquired on how many outstanding snow clearing bills currently exist. Lang suggested that if there were several such bills, then perhaps council needed to re-examine the sidewalk clearing bylaw. She noted a lot of people who were upset before would be upset again.
City Manager Jim Toye responded that all requests for write-offs and reductions have been denied so far, with the unpaid bills tacked on to property taxes.
The sidewalk clearing removal issue came up again a week later at council's Sept. 19 municipal services committee meeting, where the backlash against the bylaw was again discussed.
Some further sentiment was expressed in favour of perhaps taking a second look at the bylaw, mainly to determine the extent of the liability the City would face under the Cities Act.
Councillor Ron Crush expressed agreement with Lang that it might be a good idea to revisit the snow portion of the bylaw, given the heat the city faced over it.
"The intent of our bylaw was to make our environment more clearable, if you will, for the traffic and to help the business owners keep the streets and allow access with limited liability," said Crush.
He had looked at the Cities Act and it seemed to suggest the city's liability might only extend to street crossings and not to businesses' sidewalks. Crush wondered if perhaps by cleaning up the snow off the streets the city was simply "relieving the businesses of their own liability."
Councillor Don Buglas was of the opinion, largely shared by Mayor Ian Hamilton, that the real issue was more about the desire of residents for the city to be passable and for people to be able to walk safely.
Snow removal was an issue brought forward by residents and city businesses who wanted the city to be passable in the wintertime, Buglas said. The city was "enforcing what the community's wishes are."
"Often these bylaws are looked at as though it's city council and adminstration, the mayor and city council," said Buglas. "It isn't. Citizens of our community - we're all a part of this community that should take on their own personal responsibility."
Buglas went on to say, "trying to lash out at those who are trying to say 'let's live together in such a manner that is respectful to everyone within our community' doesn't place the onus on council. The responsibility is on the citizens of the community to do what we need to do to be a part of the community."
