Empathy List Archives

RJ

Ray Jones

Fri, Aug 5, 2022 10:24 PM

Greetings this joyous Friday!

I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=76293 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services.

The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don't think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities.

I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City.

Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful.

Thanks and best!

Ray

[cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340]

Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director
119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax)
www.lytlesoule.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.

Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106<https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=76293> that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services. The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don't think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities. I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City. Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful. Thanks and best! Ray [cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340] Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director 119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax) www.lytlesoule.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.

JM

Jon Miller

Fri, Aug 5, 2022 10:30 PM

Ray,

I would research the issue of the tree interfering with use of the easement. Owner might own the tree, but I don’t think that gives the owner the right to interfere with the city’s use of the easement. It has been a while, but last time I researched I recall the owner can’t interfere with use of an easement.

Jon Miller

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef

From: Ray Jones jones@lytlesoule.com
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:24:24 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Tree Question

Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
sophospsmartbannerend

Greetings this joyous Friday!

I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=oscn.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cub3Njbi5uZXQvYXBwbGljYXRpb25zL29zY24vRGVsaXZlckRvY3VtZW50LmFzcD9DaXRlSUQ9NzYyOTM=&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=UWgybmhtdXpKQTdaZFRyNXYwLyt2Y3VIVGprUDNsWVFCbUVvU3pOSnBaaz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services.

The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don’t think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities.

I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City.

Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful.

Thanks and best!

Ray

[cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340]

Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director

119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax)

www.lytlesoule.com https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=lytlesoule.com&u=d3d3Lmx5dGxlc291bGUuY29t&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=KzFPOHZGeFVrVXViZnVWRUdvMWpObVhjbjdzYkMzNDBrTzVMdS8xT3liYz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.

Ray, I would research the issue of the tree interfering with use of the easement. Owner might own the tree, but I don’t think that gives the owner the right to interfere with the city’s use of the easement. It has been a while, but last time I researched I recall the owner can’t interfere with use of an easement. Jon Miller Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Ray Jones <jones@lytlesoule.com> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:24:24 PM To: oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Tree Question Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=oscn.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cub3Njbi5uZXQvYXBwbGljYXRpb25zL29zY24vRGVsaXZlckRvY3VtZW50LmFzcD9DaXRlSUQ9NzYyOTM=&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=UWgybmhtdXpKQTdaZFRyNXYwLyt2Y3VIVGprUDNsWVFCbUVvU3pOSnBaaz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184> that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services. The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don’t think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities. I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City. Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful. Thanks and best! Ray [cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340] Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director 119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax) www.lytlesoule.com<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=lytlesoule.com&u=d3d3Lmx5dGxlc291bGUuY29t&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=KzFPOHZGeFVrVXViZnVWRUdvMWpObVhjbjdzYkMzNDBrTzVMdS8xT3liYz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.

TE

Tammy Ewing

Sat, Aug 6, 2022 2:12 PM

These are my notes under "Tree Law." I stole them from Patrick Boulden a few years ago. I haven't updated them. FWIW (for what it's worth).

I. Statutes

A. 2 O.S.16-60 Cutting Down Trees

B. 11 O.S. 22-122 Trees

C. 11 O.S. 36-106

D. 60 O.S. 67, 68

II. Case

A. Iglehart v. BoCC Rogers County, 60 P.3d 497

Tammy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Miller JMiller@cityofmustang.org
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:30 PM
To: Ray Jones jones@lytlesoule.com; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Re: Tree Question

Ray,

I would research the issue of the tree interfering with use of the easement. Owner might own the tree, but I don't think that gives the owner the right to interfere with the city's use of the easement. It has been a while, but last time I researched I recall the owner can't interfere with use of an easement.

Jon Miller

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef ________________________________
From: Ray Jones jones@lytlesoule.com
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:24:24 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Tree Question

Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
sophospsmartbannerend

Greetings this joyous Friday!

I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=oscn.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cub3Njbi5uZXQvYXBwbGljYXRpb25zL29zY24vRGVsaXZlckRvY3VtZW50LmFzcD9DaXRlSUQ9NzYyOTM=&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=UWgybmhtdXpKQTdaZFRyNXYwLyt2Y3VIVGprUDNsWVFCbUVvU3pOSnBaaz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services.

The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don't think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities.

I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City.

Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful.

Thanks and best!

Ray

[cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340]

Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director

119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax)

www.lytlesoule.com https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=lytlesoule.com&u=d3d3Lmx5dGxlc291bGUuY29t&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=KzFPOHZGeFVrVXViZnVWRUdvMWpObVhjbjdzYkMzNDBrTzVMdS8xT3liYz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.

These are my notes under "Tree Law." I stole them from Patrick Boulden a few years ago. I haven't updated them. FWIW (for what it's worth). I. Statutes A. 2 O.S.16-60 Cutting Down Trees B. 11 O.S. 22-122 Trees C. 11 O.S. 36-106 D. 60 O.S. 67, 68 II. Case A. Iglehart v. BoCC Rogers County, 60 P.3d 497 Tammy -----Original Message----- From: Jon Miller <JMiller@cityofmustang.org> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:30 PM To: Ray Jones <jones@lytlesoule.com>; oama@lists.imla.org Subject: [Oama] Re: Tree Question Ray, I would research the issue of the tree interfering with use of the easement. Owner might own the tree, but I don't think that gives the owner the right to interfere with the city's use of the easement. It has been a while, but last time I researched I recall the owner can't interfere with use of an easement. Jon Miller Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Ray Jones <jones@lytlesoule.com> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:24:24 PM To: oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Tree Question Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106 that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend Greetings this joyous Friday! I have a tree in a ROW question. I am aware of 11 O.S. 36-106<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=oscn.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cub3Njbi5uZXQvYXBwbGljYXRpb25zL29zY24vRGVsaXZlckRvY3VtZW50LmFzcD9DaXRlSUQ9NzYyOTM=&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=UWgybmhtdXpKQTdaZFRyNXYwLyt2Y3VIVGprUDNsWVFCbUVvU3pOSnBaaz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184> that authorizes a municipality (by proper ordinance) to direct the manner of planting and cultivating trees within the curb line of streets and avenues. The City I represent has not passed an ordinance pursuant to the statute. The city has a water main running in the ROW, although there is a utility easement on the back of the lot in question. There is a tree interfering with the water meter that is connected to the water main, and the meter is starting to leak. The city wants to move the meter. But, the owner of the property is complaining that the city will have to pay to have the house reconnected to the meter. The owner of the property is renting the house. The renter is the person with the contract for water services. The first part of the 11 O.S. 36-106 states that the owners of real estate have title to growing trees that are within the boundary line of streets and avenues and within the curb line. I take this to mean that ownership of trees between the curb line (the edge of the street) and the ROW line that is granted by the plat is owned by the property owner. So, I don't think I can argue that the tree is interfering with our water meter and make the property owner pay for the installation of a new connection line once the meter is moved in light of the fact statute permits trees to be in the ROW and the City has not passed an ordinance regarding trees in ROWs or impacts on city utilities. I am concerned that by moving the meter, we may breach our contract with the utility customer. The contract does not mention anything about the right and authority to move the meter or thrusting the onus on the customer or property owner to pay for reconnection. Neither is there an ordinance that states who is responsible for payment of reconnection costs if a meter has to be moved at the direction of the City. Then there is the restriction on the use of public money for the benefit of a private citizen issue. I am trying to find an answer or solution to this dilemma, so any questions, insight or input would be helpful. Thanks and best! Ray [cid:image003.png@01D8A8F0.34227340] Robert Ray Jones, Jr., Director 119 N. Robinson, Suite 1200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7471 | 405-232-3852 (fax) www.lytlesoule.com<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=lytlesoule.com&u=d3d3Lmx5dGxlc291bGUuY29t&i=NjBhNjhkYzZhZmIzMmUwZjVhOTkxZDZk&t=KzFPOHZGeFVrVXViZnVWRUdvMWpObVhjbjdzYkMzNDBrTzVMdS8xT3liYz0=&h=dd7e5d84258147ea8efffa24fe61f184> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s). E-mail to clients of this firm presumptively contain privileged and confidential information. E-mail to non-clients are presumptively confidential and may be privileged. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information, directly or indirectly, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers in which it resides.