Laserfiche WebLink
g. Section 214.02� of the <br />to pay off assessmen�s <br />if you s�ould happe� to <br />fi�e state law provides <br />praper�y ob�rner_ <br />-3- <br />City Code anly allows property owners one y�ar <br />for diseased trees. Th7s is a very shart ti�e <br />own four �r five larqe �rees that are diseased. <br />for f i ve years and ���oul d b� b�tter for th� <br />h. It is currently unclear if c�s �USt n�tify every proper�y owner in tf�e <br />ci ty and hol d a heari ng pri or �o any tr�e rerroval ; or i f bondi rtg were <br />requ�red because of volume, be�ore any contract sign7ng. Some c�mmunities <br />are aitemptinq io noti�y on�y �hose propert�es affected for a h�aring <br />a-Fter removal has occurred via the nuisance proce�ure, I� pre-no�ices <br />are required, it vrili be an added expense and a t�me delay. (See <br />Ste� 1) <br />i. 7he pxesent practice is for rerroval of all bou�evard trees as a city <br />expense. Should the property owner af the lot abuttinc� the diseased tree <br />be assessed half of the expense as the 5tate regulation allows? If so, <br />a cade chang� is needed. (See Ste�s 9 and 10) <br />j. The city provides a�50 sapl�ng for planting on abutti►�g private property <br />ENhen a bouievard tree is rerrroved an streets under the city's jurisd�ctiort. <br />Should tt�is practice be continued, expanded to cover baulevard trees on <br />county roads and state trunklines or even for thase trees rer�oved from <br />pri.wate prop�rty by aur contractor or the homeawner. Currerrt budqeted f�nds <br />do not provide for an�thinq beyond tt�e current practic�. (See S��p 9) <br />Ec. The an�fcipated pracedure is for the trained tr�e inspec�or's verdict <br />to be -F� nal wi thout addi �i onal testi ng to ava� d si gnf fi can� potenti al <br />de7ays s�vt�ich would carry us well beyond the State's 2G-�ay deadline. <br />If a praperty owner does not agree wi�th our opinion, a system must b� : <br />devel�ped to afford him the oppar�uni-�y to dis�rave our -Findings, but <br />not und�ly delay the procedure. (See Step 5) <br />1. Flaw are we to verify it the homeowner i�as removed the tree within the <br />ten day iimit? (See Step 7} <br />m. FEo�r� should the expenses be handled if the cnntra�tor is directed bv th� <br />city to remave a tree because it was still there after the ter�th day, <br />but finds the o+�ner nas since removed it? {S�� Step S�) <br />n. Shouid the awner be guaranteed at the time af no'tice v��hat the cast af <br />r�movai wo�i� be if dane by city contractor? If a difference is found by the <br />contrac'tor i n tree di �rneter versus aur i ni ti al measurem�nt, the oarner wou1 d <br />be paying more or iess than he though'i. (See Step 5) <br />o. Schedul ing this year Vai 71 be di �Ffi cui t because of the 1 ate date, marr�atary <br />State reaulations and many variabies, such as code changes, hearing <br />requiremen-�s and contract needs. Of these, t�e awardinq of contracts <br />appears to be of primary im�±ortance if exned�tiaus action can be fiaken <br />on the oth�r matters and lega� inierpretations. (See Step 11) <br />