Janesville property owners pay for tree removal
Photo
The owner of the house at 1605 Sherman Ave is proud of his four ash trees, but with invading insects, they could be in danger.
JANESVILLE — Dennis Luebke knows he’ll eventually have to pay thousands of dollars to take down four ash trees on his terrace after they’re killed by the emerald ash borer.
In Beloit and in many other communities, Luebke would not have to pay to remove the trees. In those communities, the cities use property taxes to pay for terrace tree removal.
Among eight area communities contacted by The Gazette, only Janesville requires residents to bear the cost of terrace tree removal. Janesville also is the state’s largest community without a forestry program.
Janesville requires abutting property owners to maintain and pay to remove terrace trees even through the terrace is controlled by the city.
Tom Presny, Janesville city parks director, predicts that most ash trees in the city will be dead in three to five years.
A lawyer who specializes in tree ownership doesn’t believe Janesville legally can put the onus of removing terrace trees onto property owners, although others interviewed said the city has the necessary authority.
Luebke, 1605 Sherman Ave., said Janesville’s ordinance doesn’t seem quite fair.
The trees were there when Luebke moved into his home years ago. Several are at least 30 years old. He wondered jokingly why the former owner hadn’t thrown in an oak or a maple.
Luebke knows the city controls the trees, but he maintains them. He knows he can’t protest if the city plants new trees once Luebke removes the ash trees.
“The city has it both ways,” Luebke said.
At the very least, the city should share the cost of taking down the trees, he said.
Aaron Imbach, 914 Martin Road, didn’t even know he had an ash tree on his terrace until a reporter knocked on his door. He was shocked to hear he would be required under current ordinance to pay to take it down.
“It’s a little discouraging that I should have to pay for anything that I don’t own,” he said.
Others are more accepting.
“I planted that tree,” said Francis Eider, who lives across from the Rock County 4-H Fairgrounds in the home he built in 1948. He accepts responsibility for the tree.
“If it goes down, it goes down,” Eider said.
He doubts, though, that he would plant another tree at age 90, he said with a smile.
Janesville city staff do not yet have a recommendation on how the city should handle the devastation expected from the emerald ash borer.
Costs will start showing up in the 2013 budget.
The city estimates 3,100 ash trees are on Janesville terraces. Another 30,000 trees are equally divided among city parkland and private property.
In the 1960s, the city removed terrace trees stricken with Dutch elm disease. Sometime in the 1970s, the city council passed an ordinance making property owners responsible for terrace trees, Presny said.
Differing opinions
An Ohio lawyer who specializes in tree and neighbor law said he doesn’t believe the city can require property owners to pay for terrace tree removal. Victor Merullo of Columbus, Ohio, speaks at gatherings of tree professionals.
Others, however, say assessing residents for terrace tree removal falls within a city’s authority.
Merullo said ownership usually determines liability and responsibility.
“The homeowner has no ownership in the trees,” Merullo said. “If they have no ownership interest in the tree, nor have control—I don’t think they (the city) have any ability to assess the homeowners to remove the tree, especially if it’s been attacked by the borer.”
Dan Thompson, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, said the responsibility for terrace trees is a variation of the sidewalk discussion. Cities determine whether trees are paid for through the general tax levy or special assessment, and cities differ, he said.
Each system has advantages and disadvantages, Thompson said. He predicted it would be difficult for some cities to find money in their budgets to deal with the emerald ash borer, especially in light of state caps on city levies.
Cities typically own the trees, just like the city owns the curb and gutter, Thompson said. Normally, a tree is considered part of the infrastructure, and a property owner isn’t allowed to cut down a terrace tree, he said.
In Janesville, property owners are allowed to cut down terrace trees, City Manager Eric Levitt said.
Thompson said he believes a city has the power to require property owners to maintain terrace trees.
“If somebody has a newer legal theory they want to test out in court, fine,” Thompson said.
But a court fight wouldn’t change the “hard reality” that the ash trees will have to be removed. Removing trees will cost somebody thousands of dollars, he said.
Janesville city staff are formulating a recommendation to take to the city council this fall, Levitt said.
The recommendation likely will address who should pay to take the trees down and who should pay to plant new trees, he said, noting both will be a major cost.
Other communities
Among area communities, Janesville appears unusual in requiring residents to pay to remove terrace trees.
In Beloit, nobody touches trees on the terraces except city workers. If residents want trees trimmed, they call the city, and a city forestry crew does the job.
Although the city of Beloit pays for trees, it still requires property owners to maintain their sidewalks.
“I’m not sure there are any best ways or right ways,” said Larry Arft, Beloit city manager.
Elkhorn, Whitewater, Lake Geneva, Evansville, Delavan and Edgerton all accept responsibility for removing terrace trees. In Evansville, the city installed a wood burner in its public works garage to reduce its energy costs by burning wood from trees it cuts down.
“We recognize it’s our property,” City Administrator Sam Tapson said. “Most likely, we planted them. We maintain them.
“We do rely on property owners to trim them on occasion.”
Aug 7, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Side effects of EAB insectisides
.
http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/Po...
Aug 7, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you do decide on trying to save your tree, research it first because there are many different types of insecticides and applications. Some are a soil injection or drench, some are trunk injections, and others are bark sprays. I'm sure there will be some that want to get rich off of you and your ash trees so reasearch it first.
.
http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/mu...
Aug 7, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you look at the charts in the Madison plan, treating the trees costs much more over the long haul because the trees will have to be treated FOREVER. Plus, you don't know if the tree will die anyways after you spent hundreds for injections.
Aug 7, 2012 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is a lot more cost affective to treat the Ash trees before they are infested with the borer. It may only cost $25 to $100 a year to treat the tree. Rather than hundreds or thousands of dollars to remove dead trees and then replant new trees.
Aug 7, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Madison's EAB PLAN with pictures, prices, charts ect. 6/2012
.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/parks/servi...
Aug 6, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Therefore any tree on your terrace is YOUR reponsibility"
.
Not in Beloit and others...read the article.
Aug 6, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes - "Licensed and Bonded" and you should add "Insured" to the list. If you let some guy with a chainsaw and a truck on to your property to do you the favor of cutting down your tree, and he happens to get injured or damage someone's property in the process, guess whose insurance will be paying for the expenses? Best to do the work yourself and set the wood by the curb - then let someone come pick it up if they want it.
Aug 6, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
The last few years I've been thinking about billing the city for the upkeep on their property. It seems appropriate.
Aug 6, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
woody: I am talking about the terrace, it is your as a property owners responsabity to keep it up which includes the side walk and grass and trees. Do you charge the city to cut the grass on your terrace? No. Do you charge the city to shovel the snow on your side walk or approach for your driveway? NO! Therefore any tree on your terrace is YOUR reponsibility! You know that going in becoming a property owner!
Aug 6, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
"IT is part of home ownership"
.
Once again, the question is on whose land is the tree located. Is it on your deeded property or the city owned terrace?
Aug 6, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
johnny...what property are you talking about? The property described in your deed or the terrace? Because, the deeded property does not include the terrace. Every property I have owned, I have identified all surveyed corner corner stakes and confermed them with a tape measure.
Aug 6, 2012 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just treat the tree with Bayer if it is a less than a certain % affected.
You planted the tree you get to take care of the tree. If you moved to a home where a previous home owner planted the tree, again, you take care of the tree. IT is part of home ownership. If a grant if won to cover this then you don't have to pay. Taxes payers should not have to pay for your tree care. I ussume there are plenty tax payer trees in the parks tax payers will have to pay for.
Aug 6, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
woody: As far as the city is concerned you do own that piece of property as you pay property tax own it but you you have no control over anything the city wants to do with that piece of land.
Aug 6, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah..."The City of Parks" - with a tree as a city symbol! Might as well call it "The City of Sidewalks" too (just as much relevance!). Now that's what we call "progressive"!
What an(other) embarrassment!
Aug 6, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
I guess it's about time for people to stop maintaining the cities property for free. What are they gonna do, bill me for not maintaining their property? That's UN-Constitutional.
Aug 6, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
"A land owner never has full control of their property..."
.
The article is about the trees on the terrace which is NOT OWNED by the property owner because it is CITY PROPERTY.
The city is saying that the property owner will pay to remove city's trees.
Aug 6, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
"to slow the spread of the disease"
.
It's not a disease, it's a bug. If trees are dead here, the bug has been here for 5 years or more and there is no harm in local people burning it for firewood.
Aug 6, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
A land owner never has full control of their property as a home owner association if there is one in your neighborhood and government will always have the last word on what you can and can't do to and in your property and who pays for what!
Aug 6, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
I cut 2 trees down on my terrace last year, I had a couple people stop by and wanted to cut them up and haul them away for me for free. License and bonded? My neighbor had her tree trimmed, and cost her like $1500. I dont care if the people are licensed or bonded, or even legal immigrants... if I save money thats all that matters. Whats the risk? I really dont care. Living is the biggest risk you'll ever face.
Aug 6, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bingo west.,Sigma simply spurts out the first thing that comes to his empty head.I burn wood, no way would I try and take down a tree in town. Liability, liability,liability. Those that do burn wood are usually used to cutting down trees in fence lines , where there are no homes ,power lines ,or vehicles to land on.Crawl back under your rock Sigma,you keep seeing your shadow!
Aug 6, 2012 at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sigma only has a point if the person who is cutting down "your" tree is licensed and bonded. Hiring some yahoo to cut down a large tree in between power lines, private and public property is a recipe for disaster.
Aug 6, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Both the City and the homeowner 'benefit' from the trees being there; why not 'split' the cost? Although I think Sigma has a point....
Aug 5, 2012 at 11:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Those of you that think burning the wood is a good option are mistaken. The trees will have to come down when they are infested with the Ash Borer. Letting someone take infested wood and moving it to another location to store it before burning will only help spread the disease. Infested trees will have to be destroyed quickly, probably in the landfill at the proprty owner's expense, to slow the spread of the disease.
Aug 5, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Be happy paying that wheel tax too.
Aug 5, 2012 at 10:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Isn't this what the tea party wants? Less government and less taxes? This comes back to the same attitude of I don't want to help my neighbor.
Aug 5, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
If I planted a tree on the terrace 5 years ago, and it's leaning oddly now, can I cut it down before it gets bigger and falls on a car/biker/pedestrian? Can I keep the wood? New at this.
Can I plant a new tree? (Not ash, I know.)
Aug 5, 2012 at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
I hope the city does not want to go a tear all the ash trees down. One reason rge city does not have the money to pay for it. Hopefully they find a solution for the one that need to come down. Finding people that burn it would be a great option. They take it down and clean up after, then they get the wood. If they start the job and not finish everything they ( the people getting the wood) should have to pay for the clean up. Maybe a contract between the city and the ones taking down the trees. Just remember the City (tax payers) can not afford to pay for the removal of the trees.
Aug 5, 2012 at 7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
"He knows he can’t protest if the city plants new trees once Luebke removes the ash trees." I am so glad I don't live inside the city limits anymore. This is crazy! Why would the city OR the landowner even WANT to plant trees on the terrace again? Wouldn't the city think of asking the home owner before replacing trees (at taxpayer cost)? City fathers need to rethink that one!
Aug 5, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Exactly Janesvillian. The usual suspects will be out in force declaring this a miscarriage of justice - how can the City get away with this travesty? All the while the same usual suspects will continue to exclaim "my taxes are too high". Biter bit.
Aug 5, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
As woody points out, this was a taxpayer-friendly money-saving idea that sounded great in the 1970s after the city had incurred a lot of unforeseen expenses due to Dutch elm disease. From this one can extrapolate the general impulse of those who spend all day thinking up reasons this or that municipal expense should not be borne by taxpayers. Biter bit.
Aug 5, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville is making good money off the landfill, then they make land owners pay to remove city trees......nice
Aug 5, 2012 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gazette quote 7/21 :"In the 1970s, Janesville had a forestry department with specialized equipment. The department was dissolved after the city finished dealing with Dutch elm disease. City ordinances were revised to make abutting homeowners responsible for the care and removal of trees on terraces, Presny said."
Aug 5, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the ash tree in the terrace dies and drops a dead branch on a bicyclist, whose fault is it?
Aug 5, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
The definition of insanity is voting the same people onto the city council and expecting different results.
Aug 5, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ok. So the terrace out front of my house is not mine. I will get in trouble if I place a rummage sale sign out there on 'city property'. The trees on the terrace are not mine. They belong to the city. Unless there is a Ash tree on my terrace. Then it is my tree to pay to be removed. Can I plant a different tree out on the terrace when the Ash tree is gone? No. The terrace is city property. Of course that makes sense.
Aug 5, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ok. So the terrace out front of my house is not mine. I will get in trouble if I place a rummage sale sign out there on 'city property'. The trees on the terrace are not mine. They belong to the city. Unless there is a Ash tree on my terrace. Then it is my tree to pay to be removed. Can I plant a different tree out on the terrace when the Ash tree is gone? No. The terrace is city property. Of course that makes sense.
Aug 5, 2012 at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
There are people that come cut your trees down and haul them away for free. Wood is fuel and its always in demand. Just put an ad out.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.