Residents press Birmingham Commission to consider citizen role in city tree policy after wave of removals

A group of Birmingham residents urged the City Commission on July 14 to slow and better explain removals of city-owned trees and to involve citizens in shaping public-tree policy.

Rodney Lockwood, who said he submitted a FOIA request covering 2022–2024, told commissioners the records included about 950 tree reports and described removals of many large-diameter specimens. Lockwood and other petitioners asked the commission to consider an advisory or preservation body and to review whether the city’s tree-manual criteria are being applied consistently.

The issue prompted an extended presentation by Scott Zelensky of the Department of Public Services, who laid out the city’s inventory and practices. “We actually have from the report, we talk about that there's 25,000 trees. And of the 25,000, there are approximately 15,000 along our right of way,” Zelensky said, adding that the department maintains a list of about 650 consultant-recommended removals but prioritizes safety. He described an internal review process that seeks agreement of at least two certified arborists before removals that are not exigent public-safety actions.

Zelensky described communication steps the city takes before removals — in-person contact when possible, door hangers and postcards when not — and said the city aims to replace removed trees within about a year when site conditions and budgets permit. “We are up to, I believe, we're just shy or just over we're just over 400 trees this year, and we intend to keep it closer to that level in our budgeting for it in future years,” he said, and staff later referenced roughly $404,175 in annual planting budgeting.

Residents and some commissioners pressed for additional non‑staff review tools such as noninvasive testing, more visible marking that differentiates imminent-removal trees, and consideration of advanced husbandry techniques (pollarding, sonic/resistograph testing) for mature specimens. Lockwood and others argued some removals appeared premature and that better public notice and a citizen role could improve trust.

Commissioner Host moved to place “further discussion of solicitation of citizen input on tree policy and procedure” on the next reasonable agenda to allow additional public comment and time for staff to present technical background and qualifications of city arborists. After a friendly amendment to clarify the motion’s scope and assurances that staff would present additional detail on evaluation protocols, the commission voted in favor.

Next steps: the commission directed staff to add the item to a future agenda for fuller public engagement and for staff to present evaluation methods, staffing, and options for citizen involvement. Residents were told to share dates they would be unavailable so they could participate in the scheduled discussion.