Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest Canopy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers tell council city tree‑trust spending and canopy loss need clearer oversight
Summary
Multiple speakers questioned how the city spent the tree trust fund, citing invoices they said show small, non‑shade plantings and asserting the program has favored ornamental trees over canopy‑building species.
Speakers at the Tampa City Council meeting pressed for greater transparency in the city’s tree trust fund and said current expenditures are not restoring canopy where shade trees were removed.
Public commenters pointed to recent invoice line items and departmental reports they said show money going to ornamental plantings rather than replacement shade trees, and urged the council to tighten rules to favor live oaks and other canopy species.
Steve McElhinney, representing builders and homeowner associations, said a working group created a fair tree fund plan after the city could not account for roughly $3.3 million in earlier receipts; he urged the council to prevent the fund from being used as a “piggy bank” for other projects. McElhinney said the fund’s purpose “was intended to replace trees. You have reports that say the tree canopy has been reduced. Let's get the money out there for trees and make it easier for people.”
Carol Ann Bennett reviewed recent spending she said was inconsistent with canopy goals, citing $5,000 listed for six crape myrtles at the Veterans Memorial and a $35,000 entry for Jim Walters Park. “How many live oaks could have been planted at fire stations in honor of Joe Cholera with that $5,000 instead of 6 crepe myrtles?” she asked.
Speakers referenced the 2019 tree code change requiring annual reporting on fund expenditures; several asked whether those reports had been provided to council. Carol Ann Bennett said the city’s “tremendous program” showed only 15% of purchases were shade trees, arguing that replacement trees should be planted as close as possible to where original trees were removed.
No formal council action was taken during public comment. Speakers urged follow‑up steps including stricter specification of replacement tree species, better vendor reporting, and annual accounting of fund receipts and expenditures. Council members asked staff to provide clearer breakdowns of funds by district, and residents said they would continue to press for audits and more public reporting.
