Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 24, 2025 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause indicated MSA funds can only be used for roadways the City has <br />designated as a State Aid route. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Clark. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 10064, <br />Requesting Municipal State Aid Funds Advance for the Ramsey County 2024/2025 Mounds View <br />Boulevard Improvement Project. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />E. Resolution 10066, Approve the Directive to Limit Duties Regarding Diseased <br />Trees on Private Property. <br /> <br />Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson requested the Council approve the directive <br />to limit duties regarding diseased trees on private property. He reviewed a chart that address the <br />amount spent on tree removal from 2021 through 2025 as well as noting the amount that was billed <br />to property owners. He commented in 2025 there would be an estimated 190 private trees removed <br />and in 2024 there were 593 private trees and 75 boulevards trees removed. He explained in 2025, <br />private trees were to be marked by the City and notices would be given to the property owners and <br />trees would only be removed if requested by the property owner. Staff commented further on the <br />options available within the diseased tree removal program and requested final confirmation from <br />the City Council on how to proceed. He reported he spoke with the City Attorney and the City <br />Attorney recommended the program remain as is. <br /> <br />City Administrator Zikmund stated staff was obligated to bring the City Attorney’s <br />recommendation to the Council. He suggested the City Attorney speak further to his <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs explained he discussed the diseased tree program with Public Works/Parks <br />and Recreation Director Peterson. He reported the City had a reasonably robust and very defensible <br />process in place. He indicated the removal of trees has become a concern in communities due to <br />Emerald Ash Borer and Oak Wilt. He commented on the liability issues that were being created <br />when these trees are not removed. He urged the City Council to trust the City Forester on which <br />trees need to be removed. He reported if a tree were to land or hit a private party in a public right <br />of way, the City would be liable. He indicated it was better for the City to have a process in place <br />to have diseased trees removed than to risk a tree falling on a private party. <br /> <br />Council Member Smith stated if Option 2 were pursued, a tree would be marked but not removed <br />and this removal would be up to the resident. City Attorney Riggs reported this was the case, noting <br />if the homeowner failed to remove the tree after it was marked, the homeowner could risk not <br />receiving a payout from their homeowners insurance if the tree were to fall and do damage. He <br />explained the City was trying to make the tree removal voluntary, but noted this was a safety issue. <br /> <br />Council Member Smith commented if the City were to continue with the current diseased tree <br />removal program, could more time be provided to the homeowners. She asked if there were grants <br />available to assist with the removal costs for homeowners with multiple trees. Public Works/Parks