Residents and tree advocates press Tampa council to block transfer from Tree Trust Fund

Dozens of residents and members of the Tampa Tree Advocacy Group urged City Council to deny a requested transfer of $334,748 from the Tree Trust Fund so the money not be used to reimburse city street‑planting projects that organizers say relied heavily on type‑3 (small, non‑native) species rather than large native canopy trees.

Speakers pressed two recurring themes: transparency and species selection. Several said the trust fund was established to mitigate the long‑term loss of large live oaks and that city records show the recent streetscape plantings were planted mostly with smaller, non‑canopy species. “Of the 275 trees planted at the two locations, only 36, or 13 percent, were type‑1,” one member of the Tampa Tree Advocacy Group told council (00:40:01). They asked the council to require district‑level accounting, annual reporting consistent with the trust’s management plan, and a policy that prioritizes type‑1 native trees in future use of trust funds.

Why it matters: Speakers said the fund’s purpose is to restore canopy lost to development and hurricanes; speakers noted the fund’s balance and the discrepancy between mitigation fees collected ($300 per tree) and city planting costs (staff cited figures near $1,400 per tree). They argued that using the trust fund to reimburse completed street projects risks rapid depletion without restoring the canopy the fund was intended to replace.

What was said: Lisonbee Gate of Tampa Tree Advocacy Group asked council not to disburse funds until the city provides a detailed report and accounting for prior plantings, noting the fund’s requirement that money remain in the district where it was collected. Richard Rivas and Steve Micolini echoed concerns over stewardship and accountability in testimony focused also on equitable enforcement and the importance of planting mature native oaks rather than ornamental shrubs.

Council response and status: During the public comment period multiple council members listened but no final council vote on the transfer appears in the transcript excerpt. Staff repeatedly described prior reporting and project funding sources at several points in the meeting but members of the advocacy group and residents said required annual reports had not been produced or made public. Several speakers recommended specific policy changes, including removing crepe myrtles from the approved mitigation list and ensuring future projects prioritize type‑1 native species.

What to watch: The transfer request (staff item 63 and related item 25) remained before council; council will have the opportunity to act in a later agenda item. Advocates asked council to require a thorough accounting and to reserve Tree Trust Fund dollars primarily for large native canopy tree plantings.