Syracuse work session reviews wide-ranging updates to city tree code, including new advisory board and tree fund

Syracuse City staff and a consultant presented proposed updates to the city's public-tree ordinance (Chapter 22) at a work session, urging stronger protections for large trees, clearer permitting standards and a new tree fund to pay for replacement and planting.

Karen Firehock of the Green Infrastructure Center, the lead presenter, said large trees deliver substantially greater ecosystem and health benefits than small trees, citing U.S. Forest Service estimates that a large tree can be worth about $7,411 in ecosystem services versus roughly $450 for a small tree. "That's why we want to try to preserve large trees in our city," Firehock said.

The package staff described would add definitions to the code, create an appointed eight-member Tree Advisory Board to support Parks and Recreation on outreach and education, and adopt a companion tree design manual (not codified) to centralize technical planting standards and an allowable tree list the city can update without amending the ordinance. The manual would reference ANSI professional standards and serve as a practical guide for contractors and staff.

On protections and enforcement, staff proposed expanding prohibitions on damaging public trees (including storing heavy materials on root zones and applying brine), clarifying permitting rules for construction activities that affect public trees, and formalizing emergency removal procedures that require follow-up notification (presenters cited a 48-hour contact window after emergency work). When a public tree must be removed, the draft would require replacement on a 1-inch-for-1-inch (caliper) basis planted in the same neighborhood to help recover canopy cover.

The ordinance would also reference an existing fine-and-fee structure already adopted in Chapter 24, Streets and Sidewalks (section 24-37). Firehock said the code would allow the city arborist to accept a replacement tree in lieu of a fine on a case-by-case basis.

Staff proposed establishing a designated Tree Fund so fines, fees and donations related to tree work would be held and spent for tree planting and maintenance rather than going into the general fund. The fund could also accept philanthropic gifts: "Mrs. Smith loves trees in the city and her legacy she would like to leave you $5,000 for tree planting," Firehock said as an example.

Presenters also described a surplus-wood utilization program that would allow the city to sell high-quality municipal timber (for example, trees removed after storms) to local woodworkers or carpenters rather than chipping it for mulch, with proceeds returning to the Tree Fund. Firehock said program viability depends on a consistent supply of material.

Councilmembers raised questions about utility pruning and topping practices, naming Spectrum and National Grid, and staff noted that utility line work is regulated by the state Public Service Commission, which has a reliability mandate that can constrain local authority. "They are following state mandates that we cannot control unless we are willing to relieve them of their liability and take it on ourselves," a presenter said.

Other topics discussed included exceptions to allow foraging on public edible plantings, volunteer pathways for community stewardship (staff said an email/form process exists for residents to sign up), and forthcoming zoning changes in Article 4.5 that would aim to require preservation of large trees on private development sites or impose off-site mitigation and bonding to guarantee two years of tree survival.

Staff said they conducted multi-stakeholder outreach, including a committee of citizens, advocates and developers, two open houses and an online survey; Steven Harris also presented to neighborhood sectors. Firehock characterized the engagement as broad and largely supportive of stronger protections.

The work session produced discussion and clarifying questions but no formal vote on the ordinance. A motion to close the session was made and seconded; the meeting adjourned by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will revise ordinance language based on comments and return the proposal for further consideration; specific dates for future hearings or council votes were not specified during the work session.