Oakdale tree board recommends flexibility, repayment options as council reviews private‑property abatement rules

Marge Seggstetter, acting chair of the City of Oakdale Tree Board, led a substantive discussion after staff presented Chapter 22, Article 6 — the city’s disease control and tree‑trimming ordinance and its implications for private‑property trees.

Board members told staff and the City Council liaison they want more flexibility in the ordinance’s 20‑day removal requirement for nuisance trees on private property, and they recommended the council consider a repayment/assessment option to help homeowners cover removal costs.

Corey (staff liaison) summarized the staff memo and described how other nearby municipalities handle private‑property nuisance trees, noting consistent features: a written notice, a 20‑ to 30‑day window to abate, city removal if homeowners do not comply, and assessment of costs to the parcel if invoices go unpaid. City forester Tim Melhorn provided cost estimates the memo used: a full backyard removal with stump restoration for a roughly 22‑inch diameter‑at‑breast‑height (DBH) ash tree was estimated at about $3,200 per tree; front‑yard removals and smaller diameters would cost less.

Staff also described several local examples: Stillwater and Roseville generally use a 20–30 day notice and transfer abatement costs to property owners; White Bear Lake includes a mechanism to defer special assessments for applicants who meet hardship criteria (defined in their code as household income not exceeding 80 percent of recent median household income); Woodbury set a one‑time $500,000 fund (2025–2027) to reimburse or support property owners for tree abatement, capped per property and distributed first‑come, first‑served. Staff said many of those cities still act on private‑property trees mostly on a complaint basis.

Board members’ feedback focused on three items: (1) flexibility for the 20‑day removal requirement when homeowners can show they have an executed contract or are on a contractor schedule (several commissioners proposed documenting a contractor arrangement to extend the timeline, with one suggestion to allow a second 20‑day window once documentation is provided); (2) whether inspections should remain staff‑driven (the board generally favored retaining the ordinance’s current approach that authorizes the city forester or authorized agent to inspect when staff has reason to believe a nuisance tree exists, rather than a blanket city‑wide inspection effort); and (3) council consideration of a repayment/assessment process to reduce upfront financial hardship for homeowners and encourage compliance.

Tim Melhorn confirmed property owners may call Public Works to request an inspection by the city forester. Staff noted limitations: the city does not inventory private‑property trees and would face staffing and logistical constraints if directed to perform mandatory city‑wide inspections, although the council could authorize contracting outside inspectors if needed. The board also asked staff to clarify the term “authorized agent” in the ordinance to identify who may carry out inspections and determinations.

There was no formal vote on ordinance changes. Staff asked the board for written feedback to forward to the City Council for its consideration in any code amendments.

Why this matters: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and other tree diseases can create hazard and infrastructure risks, and abatement is frequently expensive for homeowners. The board’s recommendations — permitting documented contractor scheduling to extend removal windows and evaluating repayment/assessment assistance — are aimed at balancing public safety with household financial constraints.

Next steps: Staff will forward the board’s feedback, including suggested flexibility for the 20‑day deadline, the recommendation to keep staff‑initiated inspections in the ordinance, and support for council consideration of repayment options, to the City Council for its policy decision.