Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Junction forestry board debates formalizing grace period after a company loses its certified arborist
Summary
Board members discussed clarifying code to require immediate notification when a licensed company loses its certified arborist, and debated timelines (examples: schedule test within 30 days, complete within 60 days), penalties for nonreporting, and verification steps; staff will edit draft language and consult the city attorney.
The Grand Junction Forestry Board spent the meeting refining how the city should treat licensed tree companies that lose their certified arborist, focusing on timelines, verification and penalties.
Board members opened with background from staff that current practice has varied — “sometimes it’s 30, sometimes it’s 60” — and that the city attorney advised clearer language was needed. Several members described the real-world timing for ISA certification: scheduling can take weeks and a certificate sometimes arrives long after a candidate takes the exam.
Speakers sketched a working approach the board favored: require an immediate notification when a company loses its licensee, require the company to show a testing or hiring plan within about 30 days, and allow up to 60 days to either hire another certified arborist or complete certification. As one board member put it, “you have to be scheduled to test within 30 days,” and another warned, “If they do not self report and it is determined that they do not have a certified license in their company, then we will revoke their license for a term to be determined.”
Members pressed on enforcement details: how to verify a separation date (payroll stub, calling the certified arborist), whether owners should be required to be ISA certified versus an employee, and whether subcontracting could be used as a stopgap. Several board members said self-reporting should be treated more leniently than companies discovered in violation; others argued a stricter posture deters poor work and protects public safety.
Staff noted draft code language already includes a requirement that the City Forester be notified in writing and that failure to notify may result in denial of a new license for a minimum of 60 days. Board members asked staff to refine the draft to clarify terms such as “immediate,” to require progress check-ins (for example, at 30 days), and to make explicit that the self-reporting pathway can earn a limited grace period while discovered violations would carry stiffer penalties.
There was no final vote on a specific ordinance change. The board asked staff to revise the proposed language and to consult Jamie in the city attorney’s office before bringing a formal motion in a future meeting.
