Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends denying waiver for $3,841 unauthorized tree-removal fee
Summary
A property owner asked the Parks Committee to waive a $3,841 fee assessed after a city-owned street tree was removed without authorization. The committee questioned transparency of billing and contractor liability but voted 2–1 to recommend denial to the Common Council.
The Green Bay Parks, Recreation and Forestry Committee on July 9 recommended denying a request to waive a $3,841 fee assessed after a city-owned street tree was removed without authorization from the 500 block of South Oakland Avenue.
Staff told the committee its inspection found a stump in the right-of-way that the forestry supervisor had not authorized. The city’s policy for assessing unauthorized tree removals — adopted by the City Council and included in the meeting packet — uses an industry-standard appraisal method that calculates a tree’s value based on diameter, species and condition; staff said the fee equals the calculated tree value plus stump-removal costs.
Attorney Greg Germers spoke for his client, the property owner, saying the owner contracted a contractor to trim a larger tree for roof-scraping limbs and did not instruct removal of the smaller street tree. Germers said the owner learned of the municipal citation and invoice after the work and would have preferred advance notice or clearer public information about the fee-calculation method. The owner had offered to replace the tree at a lower cost.
Committee members raised several issues: whether invoices should include the appraisal worksheet and calculation, whether contractors who remove street trees without authorization can be pursued for cost recovery, and whether the city’s policy should be more visible to the public. Forestry staff said invoices generally are sent with a letter but acknowledged the policy and calculation form are not easy for the public to find online and offered to provide the calculation on request and to post clearer guidance.
After discussion, the committee voted to recommend denial of the waiver request; the committee’s recorded recommendation forwarded to the Common Council was 2–1 in favor of denying the waiver. Committee members also asked staff to prepare a communication or return with recommendations to increase transparency about how fees are calculated and about contractor licensing and enforcement.
