Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds city invoice, denies homeowner request after unauthorized tree removal and citation
Summary
The Common Council denied a request related to a tree-removal dispute and upheld municipal invoicing and citation procedure. The municipal prosecutor said she would dismiss a damage citation if the city's restitution invoice is paid in full.
The Green Bay Common Council on Aug. 5 denied a homeowner’s request related to the removal of a public tree and upheld the city’s invoicing and citation procedures after hearing attorney argument and staff clarification.
City legal staff said two separate municipal authorities apply in the matter: City code section 28‑37 allows the city to invoice for the value of a removed tree, and section 40‑1 (which adopts state law) covers intentional damage to physical property and supports the citation issued by police. The municipal prosecutor told council she had offered in court to dismiss the damaged‑property citation if the restitution invoice for the tree is paid in full, and that offer remains available.
Attorney Greg Gerbers, representing homeowner Bau Hee, argued the city’s approach improperly shifted liability to the landowner where another individual actually removed the tree and that the municipal code language assigns responsibility to the person who damaged the tree. Gerbers said the homeowner hired an unlicensed contractor to remove a different tree earlier and did not authorize removal of the tree that triggered the city’s invoice.
Council deliberations focused on ordinance language and the homeowner’s options for private recovery (small claims) from the contractor; several alderpersons said the municipal invoice process and the prosecutor’s offer to dismiss the citation were appropriate. Alder Johnson moved to deny the homeowner’s request; the motion passed and the denial was recorded.
Key facts presented: the municipal prosecutor said a citation in the case was $691 and that the prosecutor had offered dismissal of the citation if the city invoice is paid in full. The amount of the city’s invoice for replacement value of the tree was discussed but not read into the record during the council discussion; staff said the invoice calculation follows the city’s standard practice for tree replacement valuations.
What this means: The denial leaves the city’s invoice and the citation in place; the municipal prosecutor reiterated the standing offer to dismiss the damage citation if restitution is paid in full. The homeowner’s legal counsel and councilmembers suggested small‑claims court against the contractor as a separate civil remedy.
Speakers included attorney Greg Gerbers (representing the homeowner), municipal prosecutor (City Attorney’s Office), councilmembers and city staff.
