The ordinance proposal, at first blush, seemed like a crowd pleaser. St. Paul City Council President Rebecca Noecker crafted language to ensure when St. Paul Public Works or their contracted crews take down trees for city road work or another municipal project, they would have to replace them on at least a one-to-one basis, or make equivalent contributions to a tree replacement fund.

Against a small tempest of criticism, that effort is now on hold for six months while Noecker and city staff gather more information.

Noecker introduced the “Tree Preservation for City Sponsored Projects” proposal in January, only to be met with hefty community feedback, including concerns that the ordinance language, as drafted, does not go far enough to protect the city’s tree canopy, already hard-hit by the invasive emerald ash borer.

Following a Jan. 22 public hearing, Noecker laid over the proposal until Feb. 26, allowing more time to collect public input.Some of the most vocal criticism has come from members of Save Our Street, or SOS, and the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association, or SARPA, which are both led by residents opposed to a proposed Summit Avenue bikeway. In early February, an online community conversation about the tree preservation ordinance drew some 30 attendees for a session with Noecker, St. Paul Public Works Director Sean Kershaw, Parks and Recreation Director Andy Rodriguez and St. Paul Forestry Manager Rachel Jongeward.

On-to-one replacement

Among critics’ concerns, not all trees are created equal.

Replacing a “heritage tree” of particular size, age and community significance, like an old oak tree, with a thin sapling or common birch would never do, they said. Instead of one-to-one tree replacement, some members have called for tree replacement on a one-to-five basis, or even a one-to-10 basis, depending upon the type of tree impacted by construction.

Thomas Darling, president of the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association, noted that under the proposed ordinance, St. Paul Parks and Recreation will write up the rules outlining what qualifies as feasible preservation, rather than seeking review over what trees can be saved from independent experts. In essence, the city would police its own projects.

And the prospect of making a donation toward a tree preservation fund read to some like an invitation to developers to pay an extra fee to have free rein to tear down any tree at all.

Who waters freshly planted trees?

Residents also raised concern that the city does a poor job of maintaining freshly-planted trees, such as the newly-planted trees along Shepard Road and the Fairview/Summit Avenue median. City forestry officials, in turn, have used door tags to remind private property owners that it’s generally their responsibility to water freshly-planted municipal trees near their property. That varies depending upon the type of property, with residential boulevards maintained by individual homeowners and parklands left up to the city parks department.

“In some of the work we’ve been doing with Tree Trust to promote youth jobs, there are sections of new tree plantings that come with watering for the first year,” said Clare Cloyd, a spokesperson for Parks and Rec, on Monday. “We do provide water bags, or gator bags, that can be put around the base of the tree if residents request those.”

Not all the feedback has been critical. Noecker’s tree preservation proposal, as written, drew the support of the Friends of the Mississippi River and Great River Greening, as well as the Ramsey Hill Association.

Proposal on hold

After thinking over the feedback, Noecker told the city council last Wednesday she will put the proposal on hold again, this time for six months, allowing for at least two or three future meetings of an informal advisory committee she plans to assemble. The goal is to iron out the particulars before the overarching tree preservation ordinance is voted upon, not afterward.

“I was able to have a really productive conversation with a number of community members who are really interested in this subject,” said Noecker, addressing the council. “One of the things that came out of that conversation was a desire for more time for more advice from the community, and also to adopt the rules at the same time as the ordinance.”

“Community made a really strong argument that the ordinance can’t take effect until the rules are adopted anyway, so it made sense to adopt both at the same time,” she said.

The city council will revisit the proposed tree ordinance on Aug. 27.