Tree-removal controversy prompts Winter Springs to promise clearer permitting guidance and policy options

A heated public discussion about tree removals, permitting and costs prompted Winter Springs city staff on June 22 to defend the city's proactive hazardous-tree mitigation work and to commit to a series of follow-ups including clearer website guidance, procurement records, and policy options on arborist use and replanting.

Resident Al Lisonbee Moore told the commission he had waited weeks for city follow-up after contacting staff about canopy trees overhanging his roof, and said vendors told him they would not start work until the city permit process completed. "It started a wonderfully fun process with the city," Moore said. He said the lack of timely guidance left him without homeowners insurance and frustrated.

At the center of the debate was a pair of conflicting numbers. At public comment, a resident said the city had spent more than $427,000 on tree removals to date; City Manager Kevin Sweet said that figure was inaccurate and stated that year-to-date expenditures on tree work totaled $218,630 across three vendors. Sweet said the bulk of tree-mitigation funding was included in prior budgets approved by the commission and that the city is addressing a backlog of deferred maintenance.

To illustrate the safety rationale for the proactive approach, Sweet showed photos of compromised trees and offered dash-cam video from an April 2025 Moss Road incident in which a tree collapse sheared the roof off a Mazda Miata and seriously injured the driver. "This, folks, this here is the reason why we're proactively addressing our tree canopy and our tree issues in the city," Sweet said, arguing that insurance and public-safety exposure weighed in favor of mitigation.

Commissioner Mark Caruso said he had sought answers by email in April and, having received insufficient detail, filed a public-records request. He pressed staff for documentation about how vendors were selected, whether the city had direct contracts, and for the reports and photographs that should back vendor invoices. City staff said procurement rules were followed; they described a piggyback contract with county vendors and said several vendors had performed work over multiple years. Staff said Team Negritsch had been used as a subcontractor and that several vendors provided competitive pricing.

A second disputed point was the city's use of the title "city arborist" when the currently designated employee is not yet ISA-certified. City staff acknowledged the employee is not yet ISA-certified but said he is scheduled to sit for the ISA exam in August and that the code does not currently require certification. Brian Downigan, director of operations and administrative services, suggested the commission could clarify the code if it chose, while warning that a strict codified certification requirement could create compliance problems if the position were vacant.

Commissioners proposed multiple near-term changes: publish clearer step-by-step permit guidance on the city website, produce a resident-facing desktop help guide, make procurement and invoice documentation available to commissioners, consider a policy that requires arborist credentialing for city work or contractors, and adopt a tree-replanting/mitigation policy for removed city trees. City staff agreed to return with options and best practices to the commission and to share requested email and procurement records.

Why it matters: Residents raised both process issues (permitting delays and unclear communications) and policy issues (how the city determines removal vs. trimming and whether the city should require certified arborists). Staff emphasized that public safety and insurance requirements were primary drivers for the FY26 hazard mitigation budget and that failing to proactively address known hazards could increase city liability.

Next steps: Staff will prepare documentation and policy options on arborist certification, website and permitting clarifications, replanting/mitigation policy options, and procurement records; they will present those options at a future meeting for possible code or policy changes.

Attribution: Statements and numbers in this article are drawn from the city manager's presentation, staff answers, and resident testimony captured in the June 22 transcript.