New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: WALSTON Mary F <br /> Cc: ANDERSEN Chris F; PLAMONDON Scott F; HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: RE: Warren's request for info - Tree Permit Program Public Hearing <br /> Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 10:08AM <br /> Priority: High <br /> Hi Mary, <br /> The Urban Forestry budget cut was for $70,000 with $10,000 revenue support. So the total removed from the <br /> operational budget was $80,000. Of this $80,000, a portion totalling $18,000 was a cut to the Park Tree Removal <br /> Program and the remainder of $62,000 was for regulating "trees on private property". <br /> This $62,000 was the total program allocation in PWM for administering the private tree removal permit program, <br /> providing consulting to other departments regarding private trees(mostly PDD), and providing any public <br /> information regarding city programs /regulations involving private trees. <br /> We are asking for $15,000 to reinstate the program as modified. It is anticipated that the permit program <br /> component ($5,000) would be fully fee supported but an additional $10,000 would be needed to cover non -fee <br /> recoverable activities for public information and citizen interaction. <br /> The November meeting resulted in our being asked: <br /> - what determined an "approved development plan" <br /> - what determined the "minimum necessary" trees removed. <br /> - how would citizens know removals were permitted or not <br /> (To achieve the above three instructions was why the limited permit program, posting of trees permitted for <br /> removal and requiring private professional certification of justifications for removal was proposed.) <br /> - to change language to allow any city resident to be illegible to start a private cause of action. (Was so changed <br /> in March version.) <br /> - to determine if the citizen taking action would be the recipient of any fines or could we awarded "damages ". <br /> (Answer provided to council in March that attorney's fees would be the maximum $$ the person could get. The <br /> code allows only injunctive relief, not damages due to it being very difficult to define how someone would be <br /> damaged by tree removal on someone else's property. Any fines assessed would go the courts.) <br /> - to draft an ordinance under a "suspension" model which would suspend but not delete the current ordinance and <br /> allow its reinstatement when funding could be returned. (Chris responded to this at the March meeting citing <br /> subsequent funding decisions make by Council superseded this instruction.) <br /> The March meeting was mostly several Councilors stating individual questions: <br /> Betty <br /> - Wanted the existing ordinance left in place and if anything strengthened not weakened. <br /> Nancy <br /> - Liked this version better than the November presentation. (She liked reinstating a limited permit program. In <br /> case of a request for injunctive relief, this makes a judge's ability to understand the facts of the situation and issue <br /> decisions easier. (i.e. Either a permit exists, or it does not. Either the removal was specified in the permit, or it <br /> was not.)) <br /> - Wanted to know if the Landscape Architect's Board or Arborists Society would censure its members at our <br /> request. (The answer to this is that they have the power in both cases to take action but have little history of doing <br /> so. Having served on the Engineering Board, I think Chris would be well prepared to answer this question.) <br /> - Wanted to know how brush clearing would be impacted. (I think she was answered at the time that this proposed <br /> ordinance, like the existing ordinance, shouldn't have much impact on clearing brush due to most brush being <br /> Page 1 <br />