Stonecrest council defers matrix fee study after debate over tree‑preservation fees

City finance staff presented a revised matrix fee study during the May 26 City Council meeting and asked the council to decide. Councilwoman Carmisha Smith asked for more time to review updated numbers, and multiple members agreed the packet required additional study.

Councilman George Turner raised the most pointed concern: he said some homeowners report facing steep penalties after cutting a tree and asked whether the fee structure differentiates between homeowners and developers. Finance staff (Kesha Franklin) and planning staff said the tree preservation ordinance does distinguish fees for homeowners versus developers and that enforcement—rather than a new ordinance—was part of the concern. Council discussed whether current penalties are reasonable and how Stonecrest’s fines compare with neighboring jurisdictions. Staff said the matrix contains detailed supporting material in the meeting packet and that the full spreadsheet reflects recent adjustments from Parks and Recreation and finance.

Because council members requested additional time to digest the material and validate the numbers, Councilwoman Smith moved to defer the resolution for the matrix fee study to the next work session; the motion passed 4–0 with one member absent.

Council directed staff to provide clarifying documentation, including the fee checklist and comparisons to county or nearby municipal rates, and to highlight how the ordinance treats small homeowner removals (the meeting noted a threshold of roughly "three or four" trees annually without fee in some cases, but the exact number was not specified in the meeting record).