Oak Wilt Ordinance - 12/19/2024

[Adam Benefield]

The agenda packet did not post the latest version of Chapter 6.212 Oak Wilt Control. While the City makes the update, I felt it was prudent to post the proposals here for review:

 

[Adam Benefield]

1. Proposed Changes in Timing:

• Current ordinance: Property owners have 30 calendar days to remove and destroy diseased trees
• Proposed version: Property owners have 14 calendar days to remove and destroy diseased trees

1. Definition Changes:

• Proposed version adds definition for "Contractor" in section (b)(4)
• The current ordinance does not include this definition

1. Enhanced Oak Wilt Prevention (Section j): The proposed version expands this section to include:

• More detailed requirements for exceptions including:
  • Required documentation with detailed descriptions
  • Photographic evidence
  • Written justification
  • Specific preventive measures
  • Dates and duration of approved exceptions
• New requirement for licensed tree workers to report suspected oak wilt by next business day

1. New Sections Added:

• Treatment and Abatement Requirements (Section k):
  • Specifies 14-day timeline for property owners to act
  • Provides options: remove/dispose or treatment by qualified arborist
  • Details city's authority for enforcement

1. Prevention Guidelines (Section l):

• Adds specific requirements for:
  • Avoiding pruning during high-risk months
  • Wound treatment procedures
  • Equipment sterilization methods
  • Firewood handling guidelines
  • EPA registered pesticide requirements

1. Penalties (Section m):

• Adds specific fine structure:
  • Homeowners: Up to $500 per tree/day/violation
  • Contractors: Up to $1,000 per tree/day/violation
  • Specifies each day as separate offense

 

[Paul Roberts]

"Thank you, Councilman Benefield, for providing this additional information and helping clarify the proposed amendments to our Oak Wilt ordinance.

Regarding the proposed fines, I appreciate the emphasis on the key language, 'Up to...' This approach offers flexibility and ensures the penalties can be tailored to the severity of each violation. I think it’s important for everyone to remember that a violator can appeal their fine to the City Council, this provides an important safeguard for property owners, allowing for a fair review process.

I do want to flag a couple of considerations regarding the proposal:

1. Penalty Structure: The fines for homeowners ($500 per tree per day) and contractors ($1,000 per tree per day) seem significant, especially given that violations can accumulate daily. This could potentially lead to unintended financial hardships for violators, particularly homeowners who may be unaware of the ordinance or the presence of Oak Wilt. It may be helpful to include an explicit provision for warnings or educational outreach prior to imposing fines.
2. Compliance Timeline: The revised timeline of 14 calendar days for removal or treatment (previously 30 days) is quite stringent. While it underscores the urgency of addressing Oak Wilt, it could be challenging for some property owners to comply within this timeframe, especially if specialized services are required.
3. Enforcement Discretion: The ordinance vests enforcement responsibility with the City Manager or their designee, who can make exceptions under specific circumstances. However, the lack of clear guidelines for these exceptions might lead to inconsistent enforcement or perceived favoritism.

Perhaps we could explore ways to address these concerns, such as:

• Offering an extension of the compliance period in cases where the property owner demonstrates a good-faith effort to address the issue.
• Developing a tiered penalty system that reflects the severity or duration of the violation.
• Including a robust public education campaign to increase awareness of the ordinance and prevention measures.

Your work on this issue is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to discussing these points further at our next meeting.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the proposed Oak Wilt ordinance amendments Councilmen Roberts. I appreciate the careful consideration you've given to potential impacts on our community members. Allow me to address each of your concerns:

Regarding the penalty structure, while the fines may appear substantial, they reflect the serious nature of Oak Wilt and its potentially devastating impact on our oak trees. The "up to" language provides significant flexibility in enforcement, allowing for consideration of circumstances such as lack of awareness or immediate cooperation. The high maximum amounts serve primarily as a deterrent, particularly for contractors who should be well-versed in proper tree care practices.

On the 14-day compliance timeline, this shorter period is actually crucial for effective disease control. Research shows that Oak Wilt can spread rapidly through root systems, potentially affecting neighboring properties within weeks. The previous 30-day window simply allowed too much time for the disease to spread. However, it's worth noting that the ordinance allows for treatment as an alternative to removal, providing flexibility in how property owners address the issue.

Concerning enforcement discretion, the ordinance actually includes quite specific guidelines for exceptions, particularly in Section (j)(2). These requirements include detailed documentation of circumstances, photographic evidence, written justification, and specific preventive measures. This structured approach helps ensure consistent enforcement while maintaining necessary flexibility for genuine emergencies.

Additionally, I'd like to highlight that we've incorporated several safeguards:

1. The ordinance mandates professional verification of infection before any action is required
2. Property owners have multiple compliance options, including treatment by qualified arborists
3. The appeals process provides an important check on enforcement
4. The City Council maintains oversight through the appeals process

Regarding public education, I absolutely agree this is crucial. The ordinance is part of a broader strategy that includes community outreach and education. In the agenda packet, road signs are being requested for purchase along with other types of public education measures.

The seemingly strict measures in this ordinance reflect the aggressive nature of Oak Wilt disease itself. Every week of delay can mean multiple additional trees infected and thousands of dollars in property value lost, not just for the affected property owner but for their neighbors as well.

I remain open to discussion on these points and appreciate your commitment to ensuring the ordinance serves our community effectively.

 

[Paul Prince]

I agree this is an important subject, thank you Council member Benefield for the work on this. I believe that you are proposing some clean-up and improvements on an existing ordinance, not creating a new ordinance where none exists today. This may be a significant point based on some social media pushback on too many regulations.

In the draft version council received today, there a are a couple of things I see.
(1) Abatement... 6.212(c) and 6.212(k) both address abatement. In one case (c) it states a 30 day deadline, in (k) it states 30 days. Perhaps these sections should be combined all under section (c).
(2) Penalties; 6.212(m) and 6.214 might be better merged into one section. Also, similar to Council member Roberts, I am concerned that multiple days could quickly accelerate the penalty amount. Some discussion on this seems warranted.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you for your thoughts Counselor Prince. I agree on the push back that it was perceived as new regulation instead of enhancements. I'll try to do a better job in the future making that more clear.

1) In the new proposal, both 6.212(c) and 6.212(K) will be reduced from 30 days to 14 days. Here is a comment from above. "On the 14-day compliance timeline, this shorter period is actually crucial for effective disease control. Research shows that Oak Wilt can spread rapidly through root systems, potentially affecting neighboring properties within weeks. The previous 30-day window simply allowed too much time for the disease to spread. However, it's worth noting that the ordinance allows for treatment as an alternative to removal, providing flexibility in how property owners address the issue."

I'm fine combining if all the option of preventative treatment remain which is not currently an option for infected trees.

2) I did not add 6.214 into my original proposal and will recommend not applying that to this section. Here is another exert from above. "Regarding the penalty structure, while the fines may appear substantial, they reflect the serious nature of Oak Wilt and its potentially devastating impact on our oak trees. The "up to" language provides significant flexibility in enforcement, allowing for consideration of circumstances such as lack of awareness or immediate cooperation. The high maximum amounts serve primarily as a deterrent, particularly for contractors who should be well-versed in proper tree care practices."

Look forward to a healthy dialogue and will remain amicable to ideas and thoughts.

 

[Rob Durbin]

"Thank you, Councilman Benefield, for providing this additional information and helping clarify the proposed amendments to our Oak Wilt ordinance.

Regarding the proposed fines, I appreciate the emphasis on the key language, 'Up to...' This approach offers flexibility and ensures the penalties can be tailored to the severity of each violation. I think it’s important for everyone to remember that a violator can appeal their fine to the City Council, this provides an important safeguard for property owners, allowing for a fair review process.

I do want to flag a couple of considerations regarding the proposal:

1. Penalty Structure: The fines for homeowners ($500 per tree per day) and contractors ($1,000 per tree per day) seem significant, especially given that violations can accumulate daily. This could potentially lead to unintended financial hardships for violators, particularly homeowners who may be unaware of the ordinance or the presence of Oak Wilt. It may be helpful to include an explicit provision for warnings or educational outreach prior to imposing fines.
2. Compliance Timeline: The revised timeline of 14 calendar days for removal or treatment (previously 30 days) is quite stringent. While it underscores the urgency of addressing Oak Wilt, it could be challenging for some property owners to comply within this timeframe, especially if specialized services are required.
3. Enforcement Discretion: The ordinance vests enforcement responsibility with the City Manager or their designee, who can make exceptions under specific circumstances. However, the lack of clear guidelines for these exceptions might lead to inconsistent enforcement or perceived favoritism.

Perhaps we could explore ways to address these concerns, such as:

• Offering an extension of the compliance period in cases where the property owner demonstrates a good-faith effort to address the issue.
• Developing a tiered penalty system that reflects the severity or duration of the violation.
• Including a robust public education campaign to increase awareness of the ordinance and prevention measures.

Your work on this issue is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to discussing these points further at our next meeting.

Paul:

Setting a wide penalty range is important to give the Municipal Judge the maximum amount of flexibility. The structure here leaves the Judge with plenty of options. The Judge can consider any timing difficulties the homeowner has or any other reasonable excuses regarding timing. I do agree with you that the City Manager or his designee should be cut out of the process. If someone is in violation hit them with a warning then give them a ticket. Thanks ....Rob