8/9/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(6) Settlement on Oak Trees at 5336 Walker Avenue The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Collins: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: V) L' William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Settlement on Oak Trees at 5336 Walker Avenue In the period between November, 1985 and early January, 1986, the County made application of a pesticide known as Krovar to certain ditches around the County. (See attached memo dated December 10, 1986 from Albert L. VanAuken, Superintendent, Road and Bridge Department.) The Krovar application can cause damage to oak trees near the application sites. A number of people throughout the County had oak trees affected. Most of these individuals have relinquished all claims against the County in exchange for the County removing the dead or damaged oak trees from their property at no expense. We now have an offer of settlement on the last outstanding case, the claim of William A. Gardner, Jr. for trees damaged at his residence at 5336 Walker Avenue. The herbicide Krovar was applied for weed control along a ditch adjacent to Mr. Gardner's property line. Apparently through capillary action, the pesticide was taken up through the root system of a number of trees along the east property line of Mr. Gardner's residence. Although this incident occurred several years ago, Mr. Gardner has delayed in bringing his complaint in a good faith attempt to see whether any of the affected trees would revive. After a couple of years went by, Mr. Gardner retained two consulting foresters to evaluate the extent of the damage to the trees on his property. In independent appraisals of the damage, his consultants estimated the damage to nine separate trees at $8,114.78 and $9,465.35, respectively. Based on these professional appraisals Mr. Gardner made an initial demand for the amount of the higher appraisal, and later revised that demand to the amount of either appraisal. The County retained a consulting forester to evaluate the damage and made a counterproposal of a settlement at $5,700.00. Mr. Gardner reduced his demand to $7,859.41 based on his evaluation of our consultant's report. Both the Attorney's Office and Mr. Gardner now believe that it is in everyone's best interest to compromise on a settlement rather than go to court. The County Attorney's Office and Mr. Gardner have agreed, subject to approval by the Board, to a settlement as follows. A cash settlement of $6,779.71 for damage to five of the trees, plus removal of three of the dead oak trees with full restoration of the property after removal. BOOK 7� "�E: