HomeMy WebLinkAboutA026 - Staff Report on Tree Removal at 624 Duff Avenue (continued from March 24, 2026)ITEM #:30
DEPT:ADMIN
May 12, 2026
Staff Report
TREE REMOVAL AT 624 DUFF AVENUE
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on March 10, 2026, the City Council directed that a matter related to a tree
removal at 624 Duff Avenue be placed on a future agenda for discussion.
On November 18, 2025, the City Forester received an email from an Iowa State Professor
regarding a dead tree at 624 Duff Avenue questioning who the responsible party would be if
the tree failed and fell into Duff Avenue. The Forester viewed the tree and found it to be an
imminent danger due to there being a hole through the center of the tree. As a result, the
Forester asked Inspections to open a code case for the tree.
Inspections staff contacted the City’s Legal Department to confirm there was support to move
forward with abatement of the tree under emergency abatement procedures. Legal staff
responded that they were supportive if the Forester was willing to testify to the imminent
status. The Forester agreed to testify to the imminent status and to draft an official
assessment for the record.
The Community Codes Liaison opened a case on November 18, 2025. As with any imminent
case, staff attempted to make contact with the owner through all available resources. Staff
were unable to make contact via phone calls and text messages. A voice message left with
the property owner explained the tree had been declared an imminent danger, the City would
be removing the tree immediately, and that all charges associated with removal would be
assessed to the property.
Weiss Tree Service was contacted for tree removal. Weiss agreed the tree was a danger and
understood the expedited timeline for removal. They agreed to remove the tree the next day
and coordinated traffic control to shut down the eastern lane of Duff Avenue and with the
Electric Department to protect adjacent power lines.
On November 19, 2025, Inspections staff had not yet made contact with the property owner so
they attempted an on-site visit prior to the scheduled tree removal. The owner was not home
at the time so staff remained on-site through the removal process. The Forester was on-site
conducting the damage assessment and commented that the property owner had reached out
in September asking if there were any cost-share programs for tree removal.
The owner called staff on November 20, 2025 and was happy to have the tree removed, but
uncertain about her ability to pay. The Community Codes Liaison sent the property owner a
copy of the invoice for $8,025 on November 22, 2025 and directed them to the Finance
1
Department to discuss the possibility of a payment plan."
Subsequent to the removal of the tree, the City Manager received a call from Mrs. Robinson,
who identified herself as the owner of the property from which the tree was removed. She was
concerned by the amount of the bill, $8,000, and the fact she was not given enough advance
warning for her to solicit bids from other contractors that, she believed, could have been less
than the amount she is being billed.
Staff is sympathetic to her concerns. The significant cost apparently was due to the fact it was
a large tree complicated by the requirement that Duff Avenue had to be closed down during
the removal process. In this instance, there was not sufficient time for alternate bids to be
solicited by the property owner. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine how much less, if
any, the bids would have been if Mrs. Robinson had been able to seek alternate bids.
OPTIONS:
Staff believes it is appropriate for the City Council to provide direction regarding how
much to charge the property owner in this unusual case. The following options (and
others) could be considered by the Council:
Amount $8,000 $6,000 $4,000
Current Billed Amount 25% Reduction 50% Reduction
Term 5 years 5 years 5 years
Interest Rate 3.53%3.53%3.53%
Annual Payment $1,774 $1,330 $887
Term 10 years 10 years 10 years
Interest Rate 4.09%4.09%4.09%
Annual Payment $991 $743 $495
STAFF COMMENTS:
This is an unusual tree removal situation. This large tree was found by the City Forester to be
an imminent danger, and therefore removal was warranted. The tree removal required the
closure of traffic lanes to safely proceed, which increased the cost associated with the
removal. Despite attempts to make contact with the resident, staff was unable to make contact
between the time the tree was identified as a hazard and when it was taken down.
The resident believes that had she been provided an opportunity to do so, she would have
been able to obtain competitive quotes for the removal of the tree. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to determine after-the-fact whether this would have been the case. The City Council
may believe in this instance that a reduction in the amount owed for the tree removal is
warranted.
This topic was initially on the March 24, 2026 Council agenda. At the time, the homeowner
was unable to attend, and Council requested to defer this to a future meeting. At the same
meeting, there was a motion passed by Council for the Legal Department to review the options
2
for securing the financial obligation should an agreement be reached. Attached is the follow-up
memo from the City Attorney.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Memo on options of securing payment.pdf
3
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146
Legal Department
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Motion: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to request the Legal
Department review the options for securing the financial obligation should an
agreement be reached. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
The Iowa Code provides a process for the City to collect its costs for a nuisance
abatement. The Council certifies a special assessment, which is levied against
the property and collected for the City by the County Treasurer in the manner of
property taxes. Typically, payments for special assessments are due annually in
the month of September.
Of course, the property owner, if able, can always pay the entire costs upfront
and avoid the collection efforts.
Cities are allowed to require the abatement of diseased or dead trees and can
do so itself if the property owner doesn’t or if it’s an emergency. (Iowa Code
§364.12(3)(b)). The Iowa Code then provides a method for collecting the costs
of abatement by assessing the costs to the property (§364.12(3)(h)). If the
costs of abatement exceed $500, a city may permit the assessment payments
to be spread out up to 10 years (§364.13). Special assessments are a lien
against the property until the assessment is paid in full. Special assessments
have equal precedence with ordinary taxes and are not divested by judicial sale.
(§364.13A)
4
The discussion regarding the motion made at a recent Council meeting was for
the City Attorney to investigate whether obtaining a mortgage could be used in
lieu of the assessment of the costs of the nuisance abatement.
Theoretically, a mortgage could be used, but there are potential issues
with doing so.
First, a mortgage would be voluntary, which means that the property owner
would have to agree to it. There would be a need to be a negotiated promissory
note, and decisions would need to be made regarding a payment schedule,
interest rate and other customary terms. The assessment process is not
voluntary, the City simply has the right to assess the costs to the property.
Next, in the case of a judicial sale (for example, a foreclosure), the special
assessment would have equal precedence to property taxes owed, and a
mortgage would not have that assurance.
In taking a mortgage on the property, additional consideration should be given
to the available equity in the property, including a review of existing liens upon
the property. Like any other mortgage lender, it may also be appropriate to
conduct and pay for an appraisal on the property to determine value. A
thorough review would likely require the expenditure of additional sums
associated with recording mortgage documents and conducting a title search to
evaluate the borrower’s available equity in the property. A proposed borrower
would certainly have a right to have their own legal counsel review any
mortgage documents, at the borrower’s additional expense.
The advantage to the property owner is that with a mortgage, payments could
be spread out over a longer term than the ten years allowed in a special
assessment. But that also means it would take longer for the City to get repaid.
There is additional risk if the owner stops paying the mortgage with the City.
Would the City be willing to foreclose on the property?
5
I checked with the other large-city city attorneys, and about half of them
responded and none of those had ever used a mortgage to secure payment of
abatement costs. So, there really is no precedent of cities doing this.
So, using a mortgage as a method for an Ames property owner to pay back
the City for the costs of a tree removal or other nuisance abatement is
theoretically possible, but it comes with costs, both financial and staff time,
and risks that aren’t present with collecting the debt by special
assessments. Add to that the fact that no other large city in Iowa seems to have
used a mortgage in lieu of a special assessment. A special assessment is
the method prescribed by the Iowa Code, and it seems to be less work, less
cost, and less risky for the City than using a mortgage for that purpose.
6