Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Oak Wilt Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ferguson supervisors move to repeal recent tree‑ordinance changes and debate Oak Wilt mitigation funding

Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors · August 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board voted to repeal a February 2025 amendment to the township tree ordinance and discussed township responsibility for Oak Wilt mitigation, equitable enforcement across growth and rural areas, and potential municipal‑lien and assistance options.

On Aug. 5 the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors moved to repeal a February 2025 ordinance amendment addressing tree violations and penalties and directed staff to prepare replacement language to restore the board’s intended provisions and resolve inconsistencies.

Staff told the board that the 2025 amendment did not clearly delineate removed versus added language in the violations and penalties section of Chapter 25, creating a need for corrective legislative action. Board members debated how enforcement currently applies only within the regional growth boundary while some rural zoning districts (RR, RA) are treated differently.

The board engaged in a wide discussion about Oak Wilt — a contagious disease that affects oak trees — and whether the township should absorb mitigation costs for private property. Staff and speakers provided example cost estimates from a prior case: roughly $4,000–$5,000 to remove infected trees and $10,000–$12,000 in injections and treatment for a 22‑tree site. The ordinance language in chapter 25 allows the township to carry out work and recover costs through a municipal lien if property owners do not comply after notice; a 2016 resolution authorizing up to $10,000 in preauthorized expenditures for immediate response was noted as inconsistent with that process.

Board members asked staff to solicit more input from affected landowners, especially farmers and owners of large parcels in rural zones, and to return with a recommended amendment and options for equitable funding and mitigation that consider fiscal impacts and possible assistance programs. No final policy change on funding was adopted at the meeting.