Urban forestry staff updated the Urban Forestry Advisory Board on a proposed vacation of a tree‑preservation easement on the Ozarks Electric campus and shared draft code changes intended to strengthen tree preservation and monitoring.

Staff said the vacation, which was tabled by city council the previous night, centers on a 5.3‑acre easement and a proposed 2.3‑acre dedication on the Ozarks Electric campus. The applicant declined to plant the 48 mitigation trees required under current code; staff proposed alternative conditions that would require the owner to contract for invasive‑species removal and to submit a three‑year maintenance contract with itemized proof of payment for three instances of invasive removal prior to issuance of new development permits. Staff read the proposed condition into the record and asked for board feedback on enforcement mechanisms and collateral (for example, escrow or maintenance bonds).

Staff acknowledged legal limits to enforcement and said the city attorney would need to vet any “teeth” attached to maintenance requirements. Board members discussed options including escrowed funds or maintenance bonds that would be drawn down if the developer failed to perform, and the possibility of restricting future permits until remedial work was completed. One staff speaker cautioned that formal inspection programs require qualification standards and can trigger complex enforcement processes.

Staff also outlined two larger code changes being prepared for public review: (1) explicit limits on what disturbances are permitted within tree‑preservation easements (the draft would allow targeted invasive removal while restricting other disturbances without written authorization from the urban forester); and (2) revising tree‑protection fencing from a distance-based rule that uses drip‑line or a fixed 10‑foot measure to a formula based on the tree’s critical root zone (one foot per inch of diameter at breast height). Staff said these changes will be presented to Planning Commission on July 28 and, if forwarded, to City Council in September.

Board members raised implementation questions. Some asked how to quantify “benefit to the city” (a requirement in the code for easement vacations) and suggested using a decision matrix or standard operating procedure so similar easements receive consistent evaluations over time. Members also discussed whether urban-forestry staff should carry out inspections or whether inspections should be performed by a designated independent representative to avoid placing enforcement burden solely on the urban forester.

Staff noted precedents from conservation easements and larger rural management practices — including long‑range forest management plans and escrowed funds used on larger easements — and said similar concepts (scaled to smaller parcels) could inform city language for urban easements.

Votes at a glance: A motion to adjourn the meeting was made, seconded and approved by voice vote at the close of the session.

Ending: Staff will continue to negotiate conditions with the applicant and will circulate draft code changes to the board for feedback ahead of the July 28 Planning Commission meeting.