The Jefferson city council had the first of what may be several discussions of ways to address the number of dead trees on private property.
The city has removed more than 450 dead trees from the city-owned right-of-way between sidewalks and streets, with about 150 still remaining. The council’s streets committee and city administrator Scott Peterson have drafted a plan of action for the trees remaining in privately owned yards.
City building/zoning officer Chad Stevens told the council he estimated 417 dead or near-dead trees in yards.
According to Peterson, “a dead tree on private property is absolutely, 100 percent a private issue for that property owner. It’s their responsibility to take care of it… If they fail to take care of it, it falls under the city’s notion of nuisance.”
Peterson said it would be a comprehensive, city-wide effort. “We want to do what we can to facilitate this with folks,” he said.
He said working through the nuisance process could help property owners deal with the problem.
The plan starts this September with an effort to inform the public regarding the responsibility to remove trees on private property and the proposed timeline for the project.
In October, city staff would send individually addressed “friendly reminders” to property owners explaining their responsibility and that dead trees not addressed by the spring of 2025 will become a public nuisance.
In February, 2025, city staff will inventory the remaining dead trees and seek bids from contractors for tree removal. Staff would also mail the official notices to abate a nuisance with a 60-day deadline to remove the trees or have documented arrangements for their removal.
The council would award a bid to a contractor in April with the expectation that tree removal would take place from April through June.
Owners of property from which trees were removed would receive invoices in July, payable within 30 days. The city council in September would pay the contractor for outstanding invoices and authorize putting the debt on property owner’s property taxes as a special assessment. If the city needs to incur debt to pay the contractor, the special assessment would be large enough to cover both the debt and the interest on the debt.
“The helpful side of this would be for our lower income homeowners who would find this to be a financial hardship to take care of this. We’d be able to offer them a special assessment to be paid over years,” Peterson said.
He went on to say that the city would not be a low cost provider, and that there’d be interest on the special assessment. “I don’t want somebody to see this as the city financing their removal of trees. It’s a nuisance abatement type of situation.”
Peterson said there could be more than 100 trees that are taken care of this way.
“I guarantee this will raise some feathers out there in the community, about folks being forced to take down these trees,” he said.
Sue Bose spoke as a member of the public. She said city ordinance addresses trees that states particular conditions under which trees would be a nuisance, but states they must also present imminent danger to pedestrians or motorists. “Are you saying all these trees create imminent danger?” she asked.
Peterson answered that dead trees become brittle and subject to breaking and dropping limbs.
She asked that the future inventory note what an imminent danger would be.
Council member Darren Jackson mentioned that contractors are already very busy taking down trees for property owners, and that in some cases property owners may have contracted for tree removal but the job isn’t completed by the nuisance deadline.
Peterson said there could be allowances for that.
Bose added that a contractor told an acquaintance that there’s a two-year wait list for tree removal.
Council member Dave Sloan said by next year there may be more dead trees by next year. He estimated that if the city has 300 trees removed, it could cost more than $800,000. “The city’s not a bank. We need to figure a plan out. I don’t think we can get it done in one year,” he said.
Sloan suggested prioritizing which trees would be removed first, with those closer to the road or more visible being removed first. Jackson and council member Harry Ahrenholtz agreed.
Council member Matt Wetrich said adding interest to the special assessment is “adding insult to injury.”
He also favors prioritizing trees that are more likely to create problems and dealing with them first.
Mayor Craig Berry asked Peterson and city staff to get more information about what other communities are doing.
Ahrenholz invited feedback from city property owners about the plan, along with what roadblocks they have.
Sloan also said the city needs to complete that task of taking down public trees before initiating a program for removal of private trees.
Sean Sebourn asked if city workers could remove trees on private property. Peterson said the issue would be putting the city in competition with private firms.
City staff will continue working on a plan. “This might end up being a pretty passionate issue. We need to be sure we’ve thought through this pretty thoroughly. It’s going to affect a lot of people so we want the mayor and council to be on board with it,” Peterson said.
