Finance Committee advances ordinance to strengthen street‑tree protections, create replacement fund

The Finance Committee on Aug. 25 approved an ordinance (Legistar 89254) that amends the Madison General Ordinances to strengthen protections for street trees and establish a street tree replacement fund.

Committee members and speakers said the change is meant to ensure trees that city staff and developers agree are worth saving receive enforceable protections. Mayor (speaker in the meeting) — a sponsor of the amendment — said the ordinance applies only to trees that the city and a developer have agreed to preserve during a development project, not to every street tree or to unrelated green‑street policies: “We are talking about the street trees that in the course of approving a development project, the city and the developer agree are worth saving.”

Why it matters: supporters said stronger consequences are needed where developers have previously failed to protect agreed‑upon trees; opponents and industry representatives asked for clarifications to avoid unintended impacts on project schedules and private property rights.

Public commenters and industry representatives urged changes to clarify the ordinance’s geographic scope and to add process protections for developers. Robert Proctor of the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin said the association supports the goal of protecting street trees but asked that the ordinance explicitly limit the tree‑protection zone to the public right of way and add a practical process for resolving violations so that enforcement does not force large projects to demobilize: “Protect the trees, but do it with language that’s clear, practical, and proportional in its enforcement.” Carol Schafer of Smart Growth Greater Madison said the group supports tree preservation but requested clearer language and faster remedies for minor violations so a suspension of a right‑of‑way permit would not cripple a major project.

Staff and sponsors described the proposed street tree replacement fund as a tool both to accept donations and to provide a mitigation pathway when on‑site replacement is not possible. Charlie Romine of the Forestry division (city staff) explained the fund would allow developers who cannot replace a removed tree on the adjacent frontage to pay an agreed remediation amount into a fund that forestry would use to plant or maintain trees elsewhere, enabling a quick remedy rather than a drawn‑out appeals process.

Committee members discussed the ordinance language, administrative fees and how tree value is determined. Staff said the city uses an established tree‑valuation guide that considers species, condition and site context and that replanted tree costs and removal fees are calculated annually and available on request; the ordinance does not hard‑code those annually updated fees. Alder Figueroa Cole said she would withhold support until she had reviewed changes emerging from plan commission and other committee work; the committee recorded the vote in favor with Alder Figueroa Cole voting no.

What comes next: sponsors said they expect substitute language to be drafted following planned commission and Board of Public Works review; the item is scheduled to reach the common council on Sept. 16 pending those committee outcomes.