University Heights committee debates rewrite of tree ordinance, proposes tree commission and mitigation fee

A University Heights joint meeting of the Service and Utilities and Building and Housing Committee on April 15 discussed proposed revisions to the city—ode that would formalize a city tree program, create a volunteer tree commission and establish replacement or mitigation rules for trees removed during development.

The committee spent most of the meeting reviewing draft changes to Chapter 1072 of the city code, discussing who should make technical tree decisions, how a five-member Tree Commission would be structured and resourced, and whether residential property work should trigger requirements such as replacement trees or a mitigation fee. No ordinance was adopted; the committee directed staff to refine language and return with a revised draft at a later meeting.

The proposed draft would change the code—ook—ramework in several ways. It replaces a phrase that would have "delegated" authority with language that "authorizes the city service director" to manage selection and care of public trees. The draft also adds a provision allowing the director to consult "the expertise of a certified arborist." Committee members generally supported those edits as clarifying who has administrative authority and how technical expertise is used.

On staffing and expertise, the committee discussed whether the city rborist should be a formal, defined position or remain a contracted professional. Committee members noted the city historically has used both models; the draft now proposes a definition of "city arborist" that can cover either a contracted or a hired, certified professional. The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certification and state forestry resources were mentioned as benchmarks for professional qualifications.

The draft creates a Tree Commission of five volunteer commissioners, with the service director and a certified or city arborist as nonvoting ex officio members. The commission would meet at least four times per year, publish an annual meeting schedule, and serve in an advisory capacity on outreach, Tree City USA renewal, inventory reviews and related education programs. Committee members asked that initial terms be staggered so all five seats would not turn over at once; the draft calls for five-year terms and the committee discussed various approaches for staggering the first appointments.

Committee members debated operational details the draft leaves open. They proposed that minutes and public-record responsibilities be assigned to a paid city employee (for example, the clerk's office or other designated staff) rather than a volunteer commission secretary; that change was supported to ensure compliance with Ohio public meeting and records rules. Members also asked that the commission be required to submit an annual schedule and periodic reports to the mayor and council, but several members said the director (service director) already handles many of those administrative reports.

On public-notice and contractor practice, staff said future tree-removal contracts will include a resident-notification requirement. The service director indicated contract language could require a minimum notification window (staff suggested one to two weeks) and that the contractor notify affected residents before removals begin; committee members pressed for clearer notification timing so residents have an opportunity to ask questions before a tree is removed.

The draft's private-property provisions drew the most contention. The ordinance would require property owners seeking certain building permits or undertaking site development to replace removed protected trees or pay a mitigation fee calculated at $20 per inch of diameter at breast height (DBH) with a minimum mitigation fee of $175, the draft states. Committee members raised concerns about fairness and the burden on homeowners: several said that most single-lot residential projects would be exempt because the sections cross-referenced in the draft apply to developments of roughly one acre or larger, but others worried homeowners could face unexpected costs if the language is not clarified.

Members also discussed enforcement and collection: staff and council members agreed that unpaid mitigation fees should be collectible (for example, added to a property assessment) if not paid. Several council members said they would expect any mitigation or fine process to be tied to permit issuance or closeout procedures so the city can enforce planting or payment requirements.

Committee members sought limits and clarifications on commission duties so volunteers would not be expected to perform technical inventory work on private property without permission. Staff and council members emphasized the commission—ould "review" inventories, make recommendations and take on outreach and education, while technical inventories and inspections would remain the work of the arborist and city staff or contractors.

Several practical items emerged as edits staff was asked to make: change language from "must trim" to "shall ensure trimming" to reflect administrative responsibility rather than manual labor; add a clear definition of "city arborist" (including possible ISA certification language); state that heritage-tree designations on private property require homeowner consent; require an annual published meeting schedule for the commission; and confirm that the ordinance sections that trigger replacement or mitigation apply to development projects over one acre (consistent with existing site-development code references).

At the end of the session the committee adjourned; members agreed to continue discussion at a subsequent meeting. No formal vote was taken on the ordinance language during the April 15 meeting.