Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint Building and Service Committees debate proposed tree ordinance, pesticide limits and penalties
Summary
City officials and arborist Jason Knowles reviewed proposed Ordinance 2024-65 to update Chapter 1072 (Trees, Hedges and Shrubbery). Key issues included whether technical planting and protection specifications should be moved to an administratively updated manual, pesticide exceptions for tree health, replacement-caliper rules and whether criminal penalties for violations are appropriate.
City of University Heights officials and their consultant arborist spent a Feb. 19 joint meeting probing proposed Ordinance 2024-65, a comprehensive rewrite of Chapter 1072 that would formalize tree protection during development, set replacement requirements for removed trees, create a Tree Commission and restrict pesticide use on public property.
Jason Knowles, the city’s consulting arborist, told the Joint Building and Service Committees he reviewed the draft and recommended keeping the ordinance focused on policy while moving technical details — species lists, caliper/planting specs and construction protection methods — into a separate “Arboricultural Specifications Manual” that can be updated administratively. “What they did was hard and dealing with trees and the public was not easy,” Knowles said, urging flexibility because chemical approvals and planting best practices change over time.
Why it matters: the changes touch every parcel in University Heights. The ordinance would affect street and park trees the city manages and private property trees when removals occur in connection with development or building permits. Committee members said the rules could influence canopy cover, property values and the city’s ability to respond to pests such as emerald ash borer, oak wilt and spotted lanternfly.
The debate split into three main threads. First, members discussed how replacement requirements should work when a large-diameter tree is removed. The draft allows replacing lost diameter-at-breast-height by planting multiple smaller trees or paying into a shade-tree fund. Knowles warned the current dollar amounts make it cheaper for owners to pay a fine than to replace canopy: “It’s much less expensive to just pay the fine and move on,” he said, and recommended increasing mitigation fees so replacement is a more attractive option.
Second, the draft’s pesticide language drew scrutiny. One provision largely bars pesticide application on public property except for limited subsections; Knowles and Service Director Allen Pennington said that prohibition should not block targeted tree-health treatments such as trunk injections for emerald ash borer. Pennington, who said his policy has been to avoid pesticide spraying on city property, nonetheless supported language that preserves a narrow tree-health exception and places detailed pesticide guidance in the technical specifications rather than in the ordinance.
Third, committee members pressed over enforcement and the proposed penalties. City counsel (Mr. Maliskas) argued stronger financial or criminal consequences may be needed when owners refuse to replace trees or pay mitigation so that noncompliance is more costly than compliance. Several council members disagreed with elevated criminal penalties for private-property tree removals, saying existing minor-misdemeanor procedures may be sufficient and that criminal sanctions are better reserved for public-safety or health violations.
The proposed ordinance also creates a five-member Tree Commission to advise the director on inventory, canopy assessments, public education and funding. Council members asked that the commission be explicitly advisory, include technical ex-officio members (for example the arborist or service director) and clarify appointment qualifications and funding authority; some members suggested linking solicitation of donations to an existing non-profit so donors could receive tax benefits.
Other drafting fixes the committee flagged: replace outdated references to “building commissioner” with the city’s current Chief Building Officer (CBO), clarify when replacement rules apply (site redevelopment vs. routine private maintenance), and move repetitive technical specs into an administratively updated manual subject to periodic council review.
No vote was taken on Ordinance 2024-65 at the meeting. Chair Sheri Sax said the next steps are to send consolidated questions to the law director and to the prosecutor for guidance on criminal penalties, to refine the draft based on the committee’s comments, and to hold further joint committee review. The meeting adjourned on a motion by Councilman Christopher Cooney, seconded by Vice Mayor Michele Weiss; all present said “aye.”
Sources: Committee discussion and testimony at the Feb. 19, 2025 Joint Building and Service Committees meeting; presentation and remarks by City Arborist Jason Knowles.
