NEW ULM – Tuesday, New Ulm City Council denied two appeals for snow removal charges and asked staff to look further into a third.

A New Ulm ordinance requires property owners to remove snow and ice from sidewalks within 24 hours after a snow event ends. A property that is not in compliance can be fined by the city for the cost of removing the snow in addition to a $150 administrative fee.

Recently, the city received three appeals to reduce or remove snow removal charges. One of the appeals cited health concern for non-compliance; the second objected to the administrative fee and a third argued he was in compliance with the ordinance.

City Councilor David Christian said he understood some of the hardships people have in removing the snow, but he was reluctant to approve appeals as it would set a precedent. He said if one of the appeals is approved the city might need to approve all the appeals to be fair.

Christian said one of the appeals objected to the $150 administrative fee on top of the regular fee. He explained this fee was put in place several years ago to compel residents to remove the snow instead of waiting for city employees to do it.

“We raised to $150 to make it hurt,” Christian said. “We don’t want to be in the snow business.”

City Finance Director Nicole Jorgensen said the city does not make a profit off the administrative fee. A similar $150 administrative fee is in place for lawn maintenance.

Council President Andrea Boettger said she wanted to make sure they were being fair with the fee. She also did not want to get in the habit of approving appeals for snow removal, but did suggest increasing the snow removal time from 24 hours to 48 hours to give people a little more time.

Christian disagreed that 48 hours would allow for greater compliance. He said often the city doesn’t learn about a non-compliant property until a couple days later.

Boettger asked if the city responds to snow removal on a complaint basis.

New Ulm Building Official Ellwood Zabel confirmed the city typically removes snow from a property after receiving a complaint and typically the complaint is not called in until the second day of noncompliance.

The council was prepared to deny all three appeals, but the owner of S. Payne property, Andrew Maurer, attended the meeting and argued he was in compliance with the snow and ice removal from his sidewalk.

According to documentation, Maurer had hired a contractor who completed the snow removal on January 22 for a snow event the occurred Jan. 21. The complaint against Maurer’s property had been issued on Jan. 22, less than 24 hours after the snow event had ended.

Maurer said since the city had gotten ahead of itself in identifying his property as being in non-compliance.

In addition, the contractor removing snow on behalf of the city submitted an invoice stating snow was removed from Maurer’s sidewalks on Jan. 23. This was a day after Maurer’s contractor had already completed snow removal.

Christian said in reviewing the document he did question why two different contractors were claiming to have removed snow the property on different days.

“That’s not making sense to me,” he said.

Boettger asked why Maurer’s property was on the list at all if snow event ended on Jan. 21. She said based on this information she was not comfortable denying Mauer’s appeal.

Councilor Tom Schmitz made a motion to deny two of the appeals and directed staff to confirm the facts regarding Maurer’s Payne Street property. Boettger seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Boettger said in reviewing these appeals she called on residents to avoid rushing to file complaints

“This showed me that we have a better opportunity to be neighbors to each other instead of making a phone call [to complain],” she said. “Yes, property owners are responsible for the snow removal, but instead of complaining, it is an opportunity to help.”