The Springfield City Council Environmental and Sustainability Committee spent the meeting discussing a draft "Urban Woodlands" ordinance intended to limit large-scale tree clearing on parcels of 5,000 square feet or more and to protect urban tree canopy as part of climate adaptation planning, Chair Councilor Zadie Govan said during the session.

The committee’s discussion focused on who would be covered, where exemptions would apply and how enforcement and permitting would work. "We called this meeting because I did wanna speak to the developers because I heard that, I guess, they had some concerns," Councilor Zadie Govan said. She and committee members described homeowner exemptions, thresholds for required permits, and a plan for additional meetings to hear developers and housing advocates before forwarding the draft to the full City Council.

Why it matters: supporters said protecting contiguous tree canopy is a citywide cooling strategy for more frequent extreme heat and climate impacts. "This is just modern urban planning," said Amy Loisel, president of the Springfield Conservation and Nature Stewardship, who has led drafting work with the committee. "The only thing that cools cities citywide are large clusters of mature trees." The draft intends to apply to lots with at least 25% canopy coverage and to trees measured at 6 inches or greater in diameter at chest height, per language discussed in the meeting.

Key provisions and clarifications discussed
- Applicability: Committee members discussed applying the ordinance to parcels 5,000 square feet or larger that currently have a canopy greater than 25%. Amy Loisel said the threshold is intended to distinguish mature "urban woodlands" from scrub or sapling cover.
- Significant-tree definition: The draft uses a 6-inch diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) threshold for trees to qualify as part of an urban woodland; the committee said Alex Sherman of the forestry division suggested that standard.
- Homeowner exemption: The draft already includes an exemption for owner-occupants who remove fewer than 10 trees and can prove residency; Councilor Govan noted the committee clarified that exemption further so homeowners cutting small numbers of trees would not need permitting, hearings or fees.
- Developer threshold and hearings: Committee members discussed a potential threshold in the range of 5 to 10 trees (members debated whether fewer than five should be exempt). One committee member noted an idea that where a development would require removal over a defined canopy percentage, no public hearing would be required if a permit were approved, but details remain under discussion.
- Urban Woodlands Commission and administration: Govan said the committee is considering housing the Urban Woodlands Commission in the forestry division of the Parks Department but called that placement "negotiable."
- Look-back period and enforcement: Committee members highlighted the need for a look-back period to prevent property owners from clearing trees and claiming prior conditions later; the draft language on look-back period was raised as an important enforcement detail to finalize.
- Relationship to setbacks and parking: Developers and some councilors raised questions about whether canopy rules would affect building setbacks or required parking; Amy Loisel said the ordinance is separate from setback rules and focuses on canopy across the lot, although the committee acknowledged parking requirements could interact with site plans and will be examined further.

Developer outreach and next steps
Committee members repeatedly noted developers invited to the meeting were largely absent. Councilor Govan said she will schedule another subcommittee meeting—targeted for mid to late August—to invite specific developers and representatives from Springfield "No 1 Leaves," a local housing-advocacy group, to provide input before the item goes to the full City Council. "If the developers decide they don't wanna come, they could block this for years," Govan said, arguing the committee should proceed with outreach rather than wait indefinitely.

Tax-title properties and incentives to build on vacant lots
City staff flagged a separate but related issue: how to incentivize development on vacant, derelict or tax-title properties rather than clearing urban woodlands. Steve Lonergan, a city staff member who handles foreclosed and tax-title properties, told the committee the state’s recent changes to tax-equity and foreclosure law have created uncertainty for local sales or auctions. Lonergan said a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision cited in the meeting — Tyler v. Hennepin County — and subsequent state law changes with an effective date of Nov. 1 have left rules unclear.

Lonergan described administrative constraints now in place: the city may need to hire a realtor to list city-owned foreclosed properties for a year before a public auction or run an RFP process, and the new rules affect how sale proceeds and excess equity are handled after costs and taxes. "At that point, we have to re you know, the stakes kinda scrambled," Lonergan said of the legal changes, adding the city is holding off major auction activity until state guidance is finalized.

Committee discussion: process, timing and outreach
Some members urged one more subcommittee meeting to vet the draft with city departments and the developers who have voiced concern. Committee member Jay LaTore said he favored a final subcommittee meeting to circulate a fresh draft to those who missed prior meetings and to compile departmental participation records to show vetting. Other councilors pushed to move the draft to the City Council for debate, noting the committee has met on this issue for roughly a year and three months.

What the committee did not do
No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred at the meeting. Committee members agreed to additional outreach and to reconvene; staff were asked to compile lists of vacant and tax-title properties for further discussion.

Next steps
Chair Councilor Zadie Govan said she will ask council staff to share the developer invitation list and to set the next subcommittee meeting in the coming weeks, with the goal of having the ordinance on a Council agenda before year-end if the committee is ready to move it forward.