Council removes property-owner penalty clause from proposed public-trees ordinance

The Dayton City Council on April 22 discussed proposed revisions to the city’s public-trees ordinance and removed language in Section 53.07 that would have explicitly required some private property owners to remove diseased trees or face code enforcement action.

During consent-item review, council members raised questions about a line in Section 53.07(A) referring to public health, safety and welfare and a subsequent subsection — 53.07(B) — that stated property owners "have the duty to remove" diseased trees. Several council members said they were uncomfortable ordering removal on private property, especially when the trees are on large parcels or adjacent to regional open space such as Three Rivers Park.

City Attorney and staff explained the ordinance gives the city authority to declare diseased trees a nuisance, require removal by the owner, and then abate the hazard if the owner does not comply; that is a standard code enforcement mechanism. Councilmembers who objected said they preferred the city to encourage removal rather than make it a mandatory duty in every instance.

Because 53.07(B) was on the consent agenda but generated substantive discussion, council pulled item E from consent, debated it, and voted to strike subsection 53.07(B) from the ordinance. The motion to approve the ordinance with 53.07(B) removed carried 5-0.

Staff recommended removing the language from the consent packet and re‑presenting the amended ordinance. Council instructed staff to return the ordinance with the struck language removed and to continue coordination with park staff and residents on the tree program and any outreach needed.