Urban Forestry Task Force Recommendations

Seems like this report has been going on forever and bouncing around from agenda to agenda. Today at noon they will continue discussing. Here’s what they’re looking at now.

This is their agenda, this is the agenda item:

1. 5. Review of Report Recommendations and Prioritization, Including Review of Board of Park Commissioners Changes

Recommendations – 11/21/19

These items all are ranked for ease of implementation, Impact, Estimated Cost to City and are given a summary number.  They also list the stakeholders and city agencies.  They need to fill in the timeline and annual cost to the city.  That information is all attached to the agenda if you want to take a closer look.

Zoning and Site Plan Review

1. Private development proposals subject to city review should create and provide a Tree Management Plan. The Tree Management Plan should include, but not be limited to:
a. An inventory that identifies the locations and species of trees larger than 5” DBH for both private trees and possibly affected public trees within the adjacent public right-of- ways.
b. A statement describing the impacts of the development on the all tree resources that includes a description (size, species) of trees to be preserved and removed.
c. A construction plan illustrating how practices may affect existing trees and details physical tree preservation measures such critical root zones protection, locations for materials storage, site access, and prescribe tree measures such as pruning.

2. Include Forestry in the final approval process for any development in regards to the public right-of-way. Any street tree preservation plan shall be considered as part of the evaluation for approval at the Board of Public Works (BPW). If a tree needs to be removed that was not otherwise indicated on the plan to be removed, the plan will need to be re-submitted to the BPW and the developer will need to be present to describe the change in the plan.

3. Mature trees lost during construction reduce the public benefit of Madison’s urban forest canopy. A required replacement of mature with new trees is not an equal exchange. Even when new trees are planted, it can be several decades until they can provide the value of mature trees. In such cases where existing canopy value is lost or diminished, the city should develop a more equitable metric than “one mature tree for one sapling” when seeking measures to remediate losses even if those measures are outside of the project bounds.

4. The City should increase costs associated with public tree removal related to house moves and private development projects, such as $500 to $1,000 per inch of diameter at breast height. This would create a financial incentive for developers to avoid public street tree removal while providing Forestry funds that could be used for improve growing environments to speed future tree growth.

5. Public trees that are removed should be replaced in enhanced growing conditions, at the cost of the developer, in consultation with the City Forester. Forestry should partner with Traffic Engineering and Engineering on redevelopment projects for dedication needs to enhance the terrace and sidewalk.

6. Building set back allowances have been reduced in urban areas to increase density. These policies have likewise reduced areas for potential tree plantings in critical areas. The city should consider the loss of potential trees due to this zoning condition as a detriment to the public value of the city streets. The city should develop zoning policies that encourage, not prevent, the provision of street trees or trees on privately developed properties.

7. In the zoning code, amending landscape applicability standards should be considered to bring more legal nonconforming site plans up to current landscape standards.

8. Incentives should be established for private developments that exceed landscape requirements.

9. The City Forester should recommend an adequate soil volume to be included within landscape zoning requirements for parking lot trees and general landscape plans.

Neighborhood & Long Term Planning

1. Neighborhood-scaled canopy coverage assessments should be developed and conducted in order to set goals and strategies for canopy growth within those areas.

2. Planning documents, such as Neighborhood Development Plans and Neighborhood Plans, should include an existing tree canopy inventory and identify areas for tree preservation. As appropriate, it is recommended that existing plans be amended to address these issues.

3. Neighborhood development plans should consider developing connected greenspaces, environmental corridors, etc. Whenever possible, efforts should be taken to link existing forested lands.

Subdivision

1. Planning Division should investigate how new single-family lots, which are exempt from landscape standards in the zoning ordinance, can have a tree planting requirement. Strategies may include, but not be limited to, incentives for developers and/or homeowners to plant and maintain trees, the use of neighborhoods covenants to require trees, or direct planting programs focused on private properties. It is further recommended that the city provide guidance on best practices regarding the location of trees of lots and species selection to encourage diversity and large trees.

Street Design

1. Add to Madison General Ordinances: “In new developments, terraces shall have the following optimal minimum widths:
a. Local streets – 10’
b. Collector streets – 10’
c. Arterial streets – 12’

2. During the public planning and design phases of street re-construction projects, alternative design scenarios, such as engineered soil volume construction methods and terrace support systems, should be investigated for street reconstruction projects in order to provide a more optimal environment, in consultation with the City Forester. Public works design specifications should be updated to allow for such innovative methods and standardized details. These methods should be further identified with educational signage to raise awareness of the methods.

3. Explore requiring zones free of laterals (e.g., water, sanitary) and parallel utilities for redevelopments at the beginning of the process in order preserve open and contiguous areas used to maximized soil volumes for tree plantings.

4. The Undergrounding of Overhead Utility Lines policy criteria should be amended to account for the impact of overhead utility lines on city terrace trees. The criteria should include but may not be limited to: ability to underground, terrace width, availability of space for private trees adjacent to the right-of way, ability to improve canopy coverage, availability of cost-share funding source (e.g., TIF), potential for place-making, etc.

5. Appropriate annual funds for full or partial underground projects as a separate budget line item.

6. Amend MGO 16.23.8(g) to clarify that existing trees should not be removed for the purposes of solar panel installation. Planting trees, planting location, and species would only be in effect if the building plan includes using solar.

7. Existing policies impacting street trees, such as Complete Streets, Rural to Urban Roads, Madison in Motion, and Comprehensive plan, should be reviewed in order to ensure consistency in tree policy.

Outreach and Education

1. Create a position for a Forestry outreach and education specialist, who would combine education/communication and an arborist background. This position would help develop an Urban Forest Outreach Initiative that would provide public education; coordinate events; and create a program similar to Tree Tender, Tree Keeper, or Adopt-a-Highway, in conjunction with the City Forester. The Initiative would partner with interested groups and individuals to maintain and grow the urban forest.

2. Create a grant program that includes the City providing trees to be planted on private property.

3. Multi-year programs intended to plant trees in areas not covered by the city’s operations such as private homes, schools, and multi-family housing should be designed and supported. Such a program is key to planting more trees and providing direct outreach in the city.

4. Among other activities, the outreach program should organize volunteer tree planting and tree maintenance programs should be developed for private property and city parks in order to include citizens in a program of tree stewardship.

Canopy Coverage

1. The City of Madison should achieve an optimal tree canopy coverage goal of 40% overall, consistent with the American Forests Association current recommendations. Currently, Madison tree canopy coverage is estimated at 23%.

2. The City Forester and Sustainable Madison Committee should create a Tree Preservation Ordinance in order to preserve, expand, and protect canopy coverage overall in Madison.

3. The city should institute a range of policies and program designed to increase canopy coverage at the neighborhood level. In conjunction with neighborhood groups, staff should develop strategies for increasing tree population. Canopy trends should be evaluated with particular attention paid to rates of coverage in neighborhoods of higher poverty and greater concentrations of persons of color.

4. Public plantings along streets, in parks, and within greenways should be prioritized according to a need-based neighborhood analysis. The city should consider subsidies for street or private trees in neighborhoods or census districts with household incomes below the area mean and neighborhoods that have not historically had street trees.

5. The city should support multi-year programs to support tree planting for private homes in neighborhood with low canopy coverage, apartment/rental housing, schools, and other areas not currently covered with existing municipal plantings.

Forestry Operation and Public Lands

1. Write a biennial urban forest report. This would accomplish the same goals as a Forestry Master Plan (e.g., assessing the current state of the urban forest, reviewing the UFTF recommendations, and evaluating the success of those goals).

2. Update and upgrade the process of inventorying street trees to include up-to-date information.

3. Inventory trees on all City-owned properties including parks and greenways, in order to maintain and add new trees. The inventory would be used to mitigate and respond to threats to the urban forest as well as prioritize growth of the forest.

4. Forestry should work cooperatively with other City agencies to identify opportunities to enhance green space (e.g., pocket parks) in areas with low canopy cover, like downtown.

5. Create a canopy tree planting program for city-owned bike path corridors and other city-owned transportation corridors that are currently rented for parking.

6. Dedicate additional resources to Forestry for more frequent pruning and maintenance of new and existing street trees. The current approximately 21-year pruning cycle of street trees should be evaluated in order identify methods and resources needed to shorten the cycle.

7. The Park Commission should prepare a policy of and develop methods for canopy growth within parks by planting 2,000 more trees above the replacement rate each year for the next five years and how it could interact with other park uses (e.g., no mow areas). An assessment for park properties should be completed in order to identify preliminary tree locations, set consistent design goals, and project both priority areas and rates for tree planting. In addition, a tree preservation plan or criteria should be developed for Parks.

8. The City Forester and Engineering Division should work cooperatively to develop standards for tree plantings in greenways and other stormwater management areas and identify strategies to minimize erosion from shaded exposed soil that can result with trees and moving stormwater while maintaining the inherent functions of the greenways.

9. Revise urban design district ordinances MGO 33.24 (8-15) to remove list of allowable trees species and grant this authority to the City Forester.

10. Develop a Tree Technical Manual to create new standards and review existing standards for improvement, to increase tree canopy. This would include a detailed guide as to the currently used and recommended spacing requirements. The rationale for spacing standards and opportunities for reduction in spacing should be documented. For example, the Technical Manual should review the relationships between trees and street lights, review the need for vision corner restrictions, and review fire department requirements (whether policy, code, etc.)

11. Forestry should obtain the appropriate software licenses and permissions to coordinate more extensively with other agencies involved in Public Works projects and permits.

12. When planting on arterial and collector streets, City Forester should consult with Engineering Division to identify long-term plans for street design (e.g., bike lanes).

13. Property owners should not have the ability to veto a planting site identified by the Forestry section as an appropriate site.

14. An assessment of the street tree inventory should prioritized in order to assess current and future needs. The assessment should include, but not be limited, to opportunities for public access to data, mobile applications for fieldwork orders and data editing, and strategies for a comprehensive update.

15. The Common Council should develop an urban forest board with regular meetings or revise the responsibilities of the existing Habitat Stewardship Subcommittee to include this work, in order to advise on the recommendations made by the Urban Forestry Task Force and to address future urban forestry needs.

Emerald Ash Borer Response

1. Additional staff will be needed to care for (prune, water, etc.) 20,000 new trees. These trees require more frequent pruning and care than older, mature trees.

2. It will be necessary to gear up enforcement of regulations pertaining to dead trees.

3. The city pursue strategies to encourage tree planting to replace ash tree losses on private property.

BOUNCING ROUND THE ROOM

Sorry, that was for the Phish fans, couldn’t resist.

I guess it’s not as bad as I thought it was.  But last night at the council they were referring again #101.

SUBSTITUTE – Accepting the final report and recommendations from the Urban Forestry Task Force.

Legistar info

Committees have acted on it as follows – this is the information from the history tab in legistar:

7/2/19 COMMON COUNCIL Refer to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS, Additional referrals to Finance Committee, Urban Design Commission, Plan Commission, Board of Public Works, Committee on the Environment, Sustainable Madison Committee, Transportation Policy and Planning Board

7/17 – Board of Public Works

• Jim Wolfe, Engineering Division, Dan McAuliffe, Planning Division, and Marla Eddy, Parks Division, presented details. A motion was made by Branson, seconded by Adams, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. The motion passed by voice vote/other.

7/22 – Sustainable Madison Committee

• A motion was made by DeMarb, seconded by Ald. Evers, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. The motion passed by voice vote/other. Dan McAuliffe of Planning Department presented background and recommendations of Urban Forestry Taskforce. Taskforce met 35 times over past year and develop report that was referred by council for review by Parks Commission. McAuliffe reviewed recommendations for private and parks trees that may require zoning code update and policy and procedure changes. DeMarb requested that final report recommendations should have priorities defined, specific timeframes and actions that will need budget action. She feels without specifics and timeframes the report will languish and not be acted on. McAuliffe and Eddy will work with report to add specifics. DeMarb and other Committee members wanted to add a more specific “Be it Further Resolved” clause at the end of the resolution that specifically called out staff in various departments brining forward recommendations and cost benefits within a specific timeframe. Suggested wording: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a cross-functional staff team from Parks, Parks-Forestry, City Engineering, and Planning be created to prioritize, 3-5 specific recommendations from the report, with implementation timelines, specific costs and cost-benefit analysis, that will be presented to the Common Council by February, 2020 for consideration in the 2021 budget Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

7/31 – Urban Design Commission

• A motion was made by Bernau, seconded by DeChant, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. The motion passed by voice vote/other.

8/5 – Transportation Policy and Planning Board

• Info not available (see below)

8/12 – Finance Committee

• A motion was made by Bidar, seconded by Furman, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval of the Substitute Resolution to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. The motion passed by voice vote/other.

8/12 – Plan Commission

• On a motion by Cantrell, seconded by Rummel, the Plan Commission voted to accept the final report and recommendations from the Urban Forestry Task Force, with the proposed amendment from the Sustainable Madison Committee. Furthermore, on an amended motion by Rummel, seconded by Heck, the Plan Commission voted to modify that amendment to include Traffic Engineering in the cross-functional staff team. The amendment shall read as:BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a cross-functional staff team from Parks, Parks-Forestry, City Engineering, [ADDED: Traffic Engineering], and Planning be created to prioritize, 3-5 specific recommendations from the report, with implementation timelines, specific costs and cost-benefit analysis, that will be presented to the Common Council by February, 2020 for consideration in the 2021 budget Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

8/19 – Committee on the Environment

• Info not available (see below)

9/4, 10/2 – Board of Parks Comissioners referred

11/6 – Board of Parks Commissioners

• Info not available (see below)

Council agenda info

The Council Agenda has the following additional information:

8/5 – Transportation Policy and Planning Board

• Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Approval to the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS

8/19 –Committee on the Environment

• Recommendation: ADOPT with Sustainable Madison Committee proposed amendment.

11/6 – Board of Parks Commissioners

• Motion made by Gnam, seconded by Skidmore, to recommend to the Council to adopt the Urban Forestry Task Force Report with the Plan Commission’s recommended change to the amended resolution, and incorporating the changes recommended by staff as outlined in the “UFTF report Parks staff recommendations for BPC consideration” document, with minor modification as shown below:Plan Commission – amend resolution to state “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a cross-functional staff team from Parks, Parks-Forestry, City Engineering, ͟T͟r͟a͟f͟f͟i͟c͟ ͟E͟n͟g͟i͟n͟e͟e͟r͟i͟n͟g͟, and Planning be created to prioritize, 3-5 specific recommendations from the report, with implementation timelines, specific costs and cost-benefit analysis, that will be presented to the Common Council by February, 2020 for consideration in the 2021 budget Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and,”Parks staff recommends the following changes to the Urban Forestry Task Force Report:

  Page 9, revise bullet to read: “Forestry Section: A section of the Parks Division ͟t͟h͟a͟t͟ ͟i͟s͟ ͟b͟e͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟t͟r͟a͟n͟s͟f͟e͟r͟r͟e͟d͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟S͟t͟r͟e͟e͟t͟s͟ ͟D͟i͟v͟i͟s͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟a͟s͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟t͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟2͟0͟2͟0͟ ͟O͟p͟e͟r͟a͟t͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟B͟u͟d͟g͟e͟t͟ ͟(͟t͟h͟i͟s͟ ͟w͟i͟l͟l͟ ͟t͟a͟k͟e͟ ͟e͟f͟f͟e͟c͟t͟ ͟J͟a͟n͟u͟a͟r͟y͟ ͟1͟,͟ ͟2͟0͟2͟0͟)͟. Forestry is responsible…”

  Replace Page 11 of the report with the new Page 11 and 11A.

  Page 20, Subdivision Recommendations #1 – Add the following sentence: “The City should revise the Madison General Ordinance (possibly MGO 28.142) to include incentives to preserve existing trees of a diameter more than 10 inches DBH (diameter at breast height) as part of private development projects, including single residential lots.”

  Page 23, Canopy Coverage, Goals – Add an additional bullet to this section as follows:

  Canopy strategies should place a priority on the protection of existing large ̲o̲r̲ ̲v̲e̲r̲y̲ ̲o̲l̲d̲ trees throughout the City. Special heritage protection should be considered for large burr oaks wherever they occur, in recognition of their place in pre-settlement oak savannas.

  Page 24, Recommendation #6 – Revise as follows: “Dedicate additional resources to Forestry for more frequent pruning and maintenance of new and existing street trees. The current approximately 21 -year pruning cycle of street trees should be evaluated in order identify methods and resources needed to shorten the cycle. ͟R͟e͟s͟o͟u͟r͟c͟e͟s͟ ͟s͟h͟o͟u͟l͟d͟ ͟a͟l͟s͟o͟ ͟b͟e͟ ͟d͟e͟d͟i͟c͟a͟t͟e͟d͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟r͟e͟p͟l͟a͟n͟t͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟m͟o͟r͟e͟ ͟p͟r͟o͟m͟p͟t͟l͟y͟.͟”

  Page 24, Recommendation #7 – Revise as follows: “The Park Commission should prepare a policy of and develop methods for canopy growth within parks ͟w͟i͟t͟h͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟g͟o͟a͟l͟ ͟o͟f͟ ̵b̵y̵ planting 2,000 more trees above the replacement rate each year for the next five years, ͟t͟a͟k͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟i͟n͟t͟o͟ ͟a͟c͟c͟o͟u͟n͟t͟ ͟e͟x͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟p͟o͟l͟i͟c͟i͟e͟s͟ ͟(͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟m͟a͟s͟t͟e͟r͟ ͟p͟l͟a͟n͟n͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟m͟a͟n͟a͟g͟e͟m͟e͟n͟t͟,͟ ͟e͟t͟c͟.͟)͟,͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟v͟a͟l͟u͟e͟s͟ ͟(͟s͟i͟g͟h͟t͟ ͟l͟i͟n͟e͟s͟,͟ ͟v͟i͟e͟w͟s͟h͟e͟d͟s͟,͟ ͟n͟o͟-͟m͟o͟w͟ ͟p͟r͟a͟i͟r͟i͟e͟ ͟a͟r͟e͟a͟s͟,͟ ͟e͟t͟c͟.͟)͟ ͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟o͟t͟h͟e͟r͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟u͟s͟e͟s͟ ͟(͟a͟c͟t͟i͟v͟e͟ ͟r͟e͟c͟r͟e͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟a͟s͟ ͟w͟e͟l͟l͟ ͟a͟s͟ ͟p͟a͟s͟s͟i͟v͟e͟ ͟r͟e͟c͟r͟e͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟o͟p͟p͟o͟r͟t͟u͟n͟i͟t͟i͟e͟s͟)͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟c͟r͟e͟a͟t͟e͟ ͟a͟ ͟d͟i͟v͟e͟r͟s͟e͟ ͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟b͟a͟l͟a͟n͟c͟e͟d͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟s͟y͟s͟t͟e͟m͟ ͟a͟s͟ ͟i͟d͟e͟n͟t͟i͟f͟i͟e͟d͟ ͟i͟n͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟P͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟O͟p͟e͟n͟ ͟S͟p͟a͟c͟e͟ ͟P͟l͟a͟n͟. a̵n̵d̵ ̵h̵o̵w̵ ̵i̵t̵ ̵c̵o̵u̵l̵d̵ ̵i̵n̵t̵e̵r̵a̵c̵t̵ ̵w̵i̵t̵h̵ ̵o̵t̵h̵e̵r̵ ̵p̵a̵r̵k̵ ̵u̵s̵e̵s̵ ̵(̵e̵.̵g̵.̵,̵ ̵n̵o̵ ̵m̵o̵w̵ ̵a̵r̵e̵a̵s̵)̵.̵ ̵A̵n̵ ̵a̵s̵s̵e̵s̵s̵m̵e̵n̵t̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵p̵a̵r̵k̵ ̵p̵r̵o̵p̵e̵r̵t̵i̵e̵s̵ ̵s̵h̵o̵u̵l̵d̵ ̵b̵e̵ ̵c̵o̵m̵p̵l̵e̵t̵e̵d̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵o̵r̵d̵e̵r̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵i̵d̵e̵n̵t̵i̵f̵y̵ ̵p̵r̵e̵l̵i̵m̵i̵n̵a̵r̵y̵ ̵t̵r̵e̵e̵ ̵l̵o̵c̵a̵t̵i̵o̵n̵s̵,̵ ̵s̵e̵t̵ ̵c̵o̵n̵s̵i̵s̵t̵e̵n̵t̵ ̵d̵e̵s̵i̵g̵n̵ ̵g̵o̵a̵l̵s̵,̵ ̵a̵n̵d̵ ̵p̵r̵o̵j̵e̵c̵t̵ ̵b̵o̵t̵h̵ ̵p̵r̵i̵o̵r̵i̵t̵y̵ ̵a̵r̵e̵a̵s̵ ̵a̵n̵d̵ ̵r̵a̵t̵e̵s̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵t̵r̵e̵e̵ ̵p̵l̵a̵n̵t̵i̵n̵g̵.̵ ̵I̵n̵ ̵a̵d̵d̵i̵t̵i̵o̵n̵,̵ ̵a̵ ̵t̵r̵e̵e̵ ̵p̵r̵e̵s̵e̵r̵v̵a̵t̵i̵o̵n̵ ̵p̵l̵a̵n̵ ̵o̵r̵ ̵c̵r̵i̵t̵e̵r̵i̵a̵ ̵s̵h̵o̵u̵l̵d̵ ̵b̵e̵ ̵d̵e̵v̵e̵l̵o̵p̵e̵d̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵P̵a̵r̵k̵s̵. ”

  Page 25, Recommendation #15 – Revise as follows: ͟“͟T͟h͟e͟ ͟H͟a͟b͟i͟t͟a͟t͟ ͟S͟t͟e͟w͟a͟r͟d͟s͟h͟i͟p͟ ͟S͟u͟b͟c͟o͟m͟m͟i͟t͟t͟e͟e͟ ͟i͟s͟ ͟a͟ ͟s͟u͟b͟c͟o͟m͟m͟i͟t͟t͟e͟e͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟B͟o͟a͟r͟d͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟P͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟C͟o͟m͟m͟i͟s͟s͟i͟o͟n͟e͟r͟s͟;͟ ͟w͟i͟t͟h͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟t͟r͟a͟n͟s͟f͟e͟r͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟F͟o͟r͟e͟s͟t͟r͟y͟ ͟S͟e͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟S͟t͟r͟e͟e͟t͟s͟ ͟D͟i͟v͟i͟s͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟e͟f͟f͟e͟c͟t͟i͟v͟e͟ ͟2͟0͟2͟0͟,͟ ͟s͟e͟v͟e͟r͟a͟l͟ ͟m͟o͟d͟i͟f͟i͟c͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟s͟ ͟t͟o͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟o͟r͟d͟i͟n͟a͟n͟c͟e͟ ͟w͟i͟l͟l͟ ͟b͟e͟ ͟r͟e͟q͟u͟i͟r͟e͟d͟ ͟a͟s͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟H͟a͟b͟i͟t͟a͟t͟ ͟S͟t͟e͟w͟a͟r͟d͟s͟h͟i͟p͟ ͟S͟u͟b͟c͟o͟m͟m͟i͟t͟t͟e͟e͟ ͟w͟i͟l͟l͟ ͟s͟t͟i͟l͟l͟ ͟h͟a͟v͟e͟ ͟p͟u͟r͟v͟i͟e͟w͟ ͟o͟v͟e͟r͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟m͟a͟n͟a͟g͟e͟m͟e͟n͟t͟,͟ ͟i͟n͟c͟l͟u͟d͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟t͟r͟e͟e͟s͟,͟ ͟o͟n͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟s͟ ͟t͟h͟o͟u͟g͟h͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟y͟ ͟m͟a͟y͟ ͟n͟o͟ ͟l͟o͟n͟g͟e͟r͟ ͟h͟a͟v͟e͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟s͟a͟m͟e͟ ͟p͟u͟r͟v͟i͟e͟w͟ ͟o͟v͟e͟r͟ ͟t͟r͟e͟e͟s͟ ͟i͟n͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟R͟O͟W͟. The Common Council should ͟c͟o͟n͟s͟i͟d͟e͟r͟ ͟d͟e͟v͟e͟l͟o͟p͟i͟n͟g͟ an urban forest board with regular meetings o̵r̵ ̵r̵e̵v̵i̵s̵e̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵ ̵r̵e̵s̵p̵o̵n̵s̵i̵b̵i̵l̵i̵t̵i̵e̵s̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵ ̵e̵x̵i̵s̵t̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵H̵a̵b̵i̵t̵a̵t̵ ̵S̵t̵e̵w̵a̵r̵d̵s̵h̵i̵p̵ ̵S̵u̵b̵c̵o̵m̵m̵i̵t̵t̵e̵e̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵i̵n̵c̵l̵u̵d̵e̵ ̵t̵h̵i̵s̵ ̵w̵o̵r̵k̵,̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵o̵r̵d̵e̵r̵ to advise on the recommendations made by the Urban Forestry Task Force and to address future urban forestry needs, ͟w͟i͟t͟h͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟u͟n͟d͟e͟r͟s͟t͟a͟n͟d͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟t͟h͟a͟t͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟B͟o͟a͟r͟d͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟P͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟C͟o͟m͟m͟i͟s͟s͟i͟o͟n͟e͟r͟s͟,͟ ͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟H͟a͟b͟i͟t͟a͟t͟ ͟S͟t͟e͟w͟a͟r͟d͟s͟h͟i͟p͟ ͟S͟u͟b͟c͟o͟m͟m͟i͟t͟t͟e͟e͟,͟ ͟h͟a͟s͟ ͟p͟u͟r͟v͟i͟e͟w͟ ͟o͟v͟e͟r͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟m͟a͟n͟a͟g͟e͟m͟e͟n͟t͟,͟ ͟i͟n͟c͟l͟u͟d͟i͟n͟g͟ ͟t͟r͟e͟e͟s͟,͟ ͟f͟o͟r͟ ͟p͟u͟b͟l͟i͟c͟ ͟p͟a͟r͟k͟ ͟l͟a͟n͟d͟s͟. ”

  Motion passed by voice vote/other

On the council agenda last night it was listed as: