2026-10-27 - Sustainability and Environment Subcommittee

00:13Uh this is Springfield City Councelor

00:15Victor Davilla and I'm calling the

00:17meeting of the sustainability and

00:19environmental meeting to order. Uh the

00:22time now is 4:05.

00:25Uh here in the chambers uh we are being

00:27joined by uh the law department with

00:30attorney con uh did I pronounce that

00:33correctly? Conan

00:34>> Khan Khan

00:35>> Khan thank you for joining us attorney.

00:37Uh we're also joined by scan members uh

00:39Brian Skelly. Thank you Brian for

00:41joining us remotely. We are being joined

00:43by uh councelor Goban. Councelor Gan,

00:47thank you for joining us ma'am. We're

00:49also being joined by Bernie MacArthur.

00:52Bernie to have you. uh attorney Kane

00:55chef from the department remotely. Uh we

00:57also have our forest department uh

01:00extraordinaire [snorts]

01:03Mr. Alex Sherman. Alex

01:06>> everybody.

01:07>> Okay. And speaking of extraordinaire, we

01:10also being joined by uh Mr. Juan Laatori

01:14who is going to give us a quick overview

01:17in a second of uh the ordinance uh

01:21proposed um edits I'm going to call that

01:25uh and just a way of recap we met about

01:28three weeks ago I believe we met right

01:30and the law department was kind enough

01:32they drafted

01:34an ordinance regarding the ordinance uh

01:37we had a lot of input for like two years

01:40now we're going back and forth on is um

01:44and so the scan groups which is the

01:46group that Jay and Burn Bernie and Brian

01:50are representing uh you do have some

01:53suggesting attorney uh and so they send

01:55out a a memo. Did you get it?

01:59>> I do not have a copy of it.

02:00>> Okay, I will have the staff give you

02:02this. Um and so give me a copy of this

02:06in a second. Okay. And then um

02:10so

02:12Jay I know you are remote and can you

02:15hear us today Jay?

02:17>> Yes good afternoon counselor. I hear you

02:19just fine.

02:20>> All right. So Jay uh so why don't you

02:23start off and uh give us the quick

02:24overview of the proposed edits that uh

02:28the scan group uh suggests. I know you

02:30guys met uh what a week ago or so maybe

02:32a week and a half. [snorts] Uh can you

02:35just give an a quick overview of the

02:37proposed edits of the ordinance?

02:40>> Yes. Uh thank you councelor. Um good

02:44evening everyone. So, um, yes, Councelor

02:47Davila, the scans organization met, uh,

02:51back on October 9th, and what we did was

02:56we went through the, uh, entirety of the

03:03law department's

03:04um,

03:06I won't call it the law department's

03:08ordinance, but rather the law

03:10department's rewriting of the urban

03:13woodlands for uh, ordinance. in a format

03:17suitable for uh the city charter and

03:20list of ordinances. So um we went

03:23through their um rendition so to speak

03:26as well as their red lines and what we

03:29produced was a summary document of some

03:32of the recommended changes. Um, that is

03:37the document that I believe the attorney

03:39hasn't seen yet, but um, that will get

03:41presented to him and anyone else. We put

03:45our, um, edits and recommendations into

03:49two sections and we labeled them based

03:53by the page number of the law

03:55department's version. Um the first

03:58section which is just related to syntax

04:02um we just provided some simple um you

04:06know edits that we felt were

04:07appropriate. For example, there's some

04:11um sections where chapter 368 is

04:15transposed with chapter 386.

04:18Um that's a typographical issue. Uh and

04:22then we found a couple of other

04:24instances where it looked like um

04:28certain language was started in a

04:31sentence but not completed. And um you

04:34know it's if you if you read it out loud

04:37you catch it very easily which is what

04:39we did. And so, um, that document also,

04:44you know, highlights some of those

04:46examples that, um, we believe that once

04:49the law department sees them, they'll be

04:51able to very quickly, uh, make the

04:53adjustments. So, rather than, um,

04:58focusing on the syntax errors or edits,

05:03I should say that, um, I think will be

05:06very easy to clarify. Uh we had some

05:10content um errors or edits I should say

05:15that we think need to be made before

05:17this goes to city council. And before I

05:21continue uh councelor Dava would you

05:24would you like me to go through all of

05:25them or maybe just highlight some of the

05:28main ones?

05:30>> Yeah I see that they have um yeah

05:34highlight the main ones. I don't know if

05:36the training has been given copy of the

05:38uh of the edit uh document that you guys

05:41sent to us. Uh yeah, just if you could

05:43hit DMA once, please.

05:45>> Okay. So, if we're looking at the

05:47section that starts with content edits,

05:50I'll just highlight uh a few of the main

05:53points that we came up with. um starting

05:57on um page six and and maybe I should do

06:01these one at a time and we can add some

06:04commentary. Um, one of the the thoughts

06:07that we had was during the um urban

06:13woodlands commission

06:16um hearing after the permit um has been

06:20submitted, accepted uh approved by the

06:24planning and economic development um

06:27office.

06:28We felt that there should be some

06:30opportunity

06:32to um allow the commission to uh I guess

06:38accept amendments or proposals from the

06:43applicant in the same way that the uh

06:47city council

06:49um oftent times while you know uh

06:53deliberating with a petitioner that say

06:56is applying for a special permit permit

06:59can extract

07:01uh concessions, amendments

07:04in real time to allow the permit to move

07:09forward following the hearing. The way

07:12we interpreted

07:14the uh ordinance as drafted by the law

07:18department and then how we read it was

07:20that the Woodlands Commission would only

07:25be able to uh judge the

07:29um application as written without any

07:34ability for the commission to

07:37um perhaps negotiate

07:40um on any key issues within the

07:43application that might prevent them from

07:46approving the application. So that was

07:49our interpretation and I would be

07:52curious to know you know what the law

07:54department thinks about that.

07:58>> Uh

08:01that concludes your your commentary your

08:03commentary Jay

08:05>> on on that particular point. Uh,

08:07counselor. Yes. Would you like me to go

08:09through the other ones or would you like

08:11me to pause there?

08:12>> Uh, wait. Well, attorney come. What

08:14would be easier? You want to answer or

08:16you want to wait to the end?

08:17>> Um, I can go through the end and create

08:19a dialogue so we make sure we hit all

08:21the points. Um,

08:22>> so you want to go one by one?

08:24>> Oh, can outlay kind of some of their

08:26concerns and I'll I'll make notes and

08:28respond to them um on the back end.

08:30>> Okay, go ahead J then.

08:32>> Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay, so

08:35I'll continue. Let me um pull this back

08:38up.

08:41Okay,

08:44bear with me.

08:48Okay, so continuing here.

08:52Uh if we go to the section uh again,

08:56this is under the content edits uh and

09:00go to page seven. Um, one of the

09:04concerns that we had generally about the

09:08proposal as written is that we think it

09:12may be too complicated for an applicant

09:18that is working on a large wooded lot.

09:22The way some of the um ordinance from

09:27the law department is written, uh we

09:30interpret it as meaning the uh applicant

09:33would have to document

09:36basically um every tree and try to

09:40determine what percentage of the tree

09:43canopy was going to be lost in

09:46calculating the potential fee that the

09:49city might assess for a permit.

09:52And we felt that based on our experience

09:56uh working with city forester Alex

09:59Sherman that um that process might work

10:03well for a a small lot. Think like a 50

10:06or 100 square foot lot that might host a

10:10single family home on it. But that that

10:13process is going to be too burdensome

10:17um if a developer wanted to clear say

10:22several acres for a subdivision.

10:26And so what our notes indicate is that

10:30while we don't propose specific

10:32language, we know that from working with

10:36Alex that there are some standards

10:38within the forestry field that talk

10:42about using uh a cross-section of a plot

10:47of land and uh US Forestry Service uh

10:52tables based on the geography that we

10:56live in to come up with uh an estimate

11:00of tree density. And by doing that, um,

11:05anyone who was applying for a permit

11:07and,

11:09um, you know, had a rather large lot

11:12that they were seeking to clear, um,

11:16would not necessarily have to be

11:18burdened with surveying the entire lot,

11:21but would rather have to just survey

11:24uh, a small subsection of it for the

11:28purposes of the application. since um

11:32you can make some assumptions about a

11:34lot having uh a homogeneous density of

11:38trees across the entire lot. Uh so that

11:42was the second piece. Uh you know we we

11:44don't want this to become so burdensome

11:47that it stops development in its its

11:50tracks. Um we just want to make sure

11:53that the city is and its residents are

11:57uh appropriately,

11:59you know, um considered um when an

12:02applicant pursues a permit.

12:05And then I'll just probably mention one

12:08additional point, counselor, and then

12:11allow others to speak up. The the

12:14language in the draft ordinance as

12:17proposed by the law department gives the

12:21uh woodlands commission some flexibility

12:25to offer um financial relief to the

12:29applicant once the permit um or I should

12:34say the the

12:36um not the permit fee but but rather the

12:39assessments

12:41um on what the loss of trees means in a

12:44financial sense would look like. And so

12:48the the the board is going to have the

12:50authority to consider a number of

12:53factors in including you know the

12:55challenges of maintaining the trees, the

12:58cost to maintain the trees, the the cost

13:01of the project, you know, the benefit to

13:04the community through economic

13:05development, etc., etc.

13:08And the way the ordinance is written,

13:11the the board would have the authority

13:14to wave up to 100%

13:18of the total calculated

13:21um

13:23uh fee, I guess you would say, for the

13:25the cost of the removal of the trees.

13:28And we don't feel meaning scans that um

13:36allowing the board the ability to wave

13:38up to 100% of the cost

13:42um is consistent with

13:45the merits of what we're hoping to

13:48accomplish for the city and its

13:51residents. So we would recommend that

13:53there be some sort of limit imposed. uh

13:57we don't necessarily have a

13:59recommendation on what that is, but we

14:01just don't feel that uh there having

14:04them an ability to do 100% is

14:06appropriate. Um with that, Mr. Chairman,

14:10those are my initial remarks.

14:12>> All right. Thank you. Uh Jay, uh thank

14:15you so much. Uh Brent, did you want to

14:18add something to it? Very quickly, we we

14:21discussed the need to have a uh an entry

14:25for climate change mitigation in the

14:29definitions

14:30so that we could

14:33so

14:33>> would you mind saying that again please?

14:35>> We we discussed the need to have an

14:37entry for climate change the term

14:41climate change mitigation in the

14:44definitions

14:46>> in the definitions section. Would you

14:48mind explaining to me how would that

14:50apply to the

14:51>> so because so that we could consider so

14:54that we could list it as one of the

14:56criteria for our decision making because

14:59right now it in our law it's not one of

15:03the criteria for our decision making

15:05when we decide officially when we decide

15:08to up to to to give somebody a permit or

15:11not. And one of the main things we're

15:13trying to accomplish here is to make it

15:18an explicit criterion for judging

15:22whether to accept a permit or not.

15:24Whether or not it uh you know whether it

15:29you know it it whether it's pursuant to

15:32climate change mitigation or ill

15:35pursuant to climate change mitigation.

15:38>> Yeah. It's not only informative to to an

15:40applicant, but it it's the whole reason

15:42for the uh the dream ordinance

15:46>> and I should say other

15:48>> sorry Frank other we found it in all of

15:52the other uh examples of uh of of uh

15:57ordinances from the 12 other cities that

16:00climate change mitigation is we just

16:03neglected to have a definition.

16:05>> Do you have a do you have a suggest

16:06definition? Yes, I do. And I have it

16:08here. And

16:09>> can you can you did you see it lightly

16:11or

16:11>> No. And I'm reading I'll read it and uh

16:15and the lawyers are willing to to make

16:18it better. I said definition of climate

16:20change mitigation measures taken to

16:24reduce or prevent environmental harm

16:27which harm runs counter to the purposes

16:29of achieving and maintaining an

16:31ecologically sustainable economy.

16:35I wanted to stay away from too much

16:38science about

16:40>> I understand.

16:40>> Yeah. Just clear simple point.

16:43>> Yeah. Thank you, Brian. Uh so what I'm

16:45going to do later.

16:46>> Yeah. And uh um so why don't we have the

16:50attorney uh give us uh initial uh

16:53responses then we can open up the floor

16:56uh to counselors and then to uh to

16:58everybody else. Uh attorney.

17:00>> Sure. So just starting with the kind of

17:03provisions regarding application fee. I

17:05think simplifying the process is one

17:07doesn't present legal issues. Um you

17:10know the the sliding scale fee or the

17:12additional search charges were an

17:14attempt to kind of um

17:17uh maintain some of the provisions that

17:19were included in earlier drafts

17:21regarding um measuring the scope and

17:23impact of tree canopies. So that can be

17:26removed. The one assessment that we

17:28would want to obviously have in place is

17:30through if we're going to centralize

17:32everything operating through the

17:34forestry department um department um

17:37just looking at what the cost for

17:38implementing this would be so that we

17:41are making sure that the fee is slightly

17:43one thing that would be looked at is if

17:45the fee is kind of commensurate with the

17:47implementation of the law. So we would

17:48consider that as well. The all the

17:51additional kind of element with

17:53establishing a fee is if there are

17:54penalties associated with uh

17:58non-compliance, you would want to make

17:59sure that you know how you're measuring

18:02penalties. It's not cheaper to just

18:04violate the law itself pay a penalty

18:06upon enforcement rather than pursuing a

18:08permit. So I'm sure Alex may have done

18:11some assessments on on coming up with a

18:13figure that's included in some of these

18:15recommended edits. I would just make

18:17sure that you know on establishing that

18:20that the penalties are actually

18:22penalties and not kind of a get out of

18:24jail free card or get out of jail for a

18:26lower cost card.

18:28>> Um so I don't think that is an issue if

18:31it is you know scans and kind of the

18:33thrust of this that having a flat fee

18:36and not having fees necessarily

18:37associated with the removal of canopy

18:41lengths or the removal of particular

18:43trees that you know that is fine. Um

18:47on the amendment procedure um I know

18:50that scans has recommended also

18:53including kind of additional lead time

18:55for reviewing the application. So right

18:58now the reason that there is no kind of

19:01um explicit amendment procedure one is

19:04if there is a fee that's associated with

19:06the amount of trees that you are going

19:09to be removing and it's um by allowing

19:13for amendments you would have some um

19:15friction in between what an individual

19:16is required to apply pay um upfront

19:20versus what their you know cost might be

19:22after an application is approved. So,

19:26say I put in an application for the

19:27removal of 20 trees and then in a

19:30negotiation and I pay that fee that's

19:32assessed based off of a flat fee plus a

19:35search charge and then I go before the

19:38council or the commission and the

19:39commission then says, "Well, we'll

19:41approve it if you remove 10 trees." Then

19:43there's a little friction between what

19:44I've paid for my application versus what

19:46I'm getting approved for. By creating a

19:48flat fee, some of that friction is

19:50removed as well. There's a little bit of

19:51an expectancy. So I think we can also

19:54include language to allow for

19:55amendments. We would probably want to

19:58just to make sure that there's an

19:59expectation and consistency amongst

20:01parties create some language about what

20:03would be reviewed. You know, taking in

20:05consideration the factors that are

20:06already kind of enumerated in reviewing

20:08an application for a dialogue and then

20:11also creating some form of structure in

20:13which those amendments are kind of

20:15agreed upon. So it follows the same

20:17resolution. So that's all kind of

20:19procedural and technical. It shouldn't

20:20raise um issues. it's just about, you

20:23know, how much you would kind of put

20:25into the commission directly. Um, so I

20:29think those are all, you know, pretty

20:31consistent and obviously I'm happy to

20:32work with Alex to get, you know, um,

20:35language on some of the technical, you

20:38know, triangulation, um, language um,

20:41and obviously deferred to him as it

20:43seems like scan has in, you know, the

20:45capacity for a smaller lot size owner to

20:49kind of implement some of these skills

20:51and techniques. Um, you know, one thing

20:54that we can obviously talk about is if

20:57the forestry department is going to

20:59assist individuals with this and they

21:01would need additional personnel if that

21:02would affect the ultimate application to

21:06offset some of those administrative

21:07costs. Um, so that would be, you know, a

21:10secondary discussion. Um in terms of

21:13[clears throat]

21:15climate mitigation um one as as long as

21:18we can I think find objective criteria

21:21that we would want to establish so that

21:24an individual coming in um you know is

21:27[clears throat] able to in their

21:29application incorporate kind of specific

21:31metrics so there isn't an arbitrary kind

21:34of you know decision that the commission

21:36might make between applicants on what

21:38climate mitigation means. that would be

21:40extremely helpful. Okay. Um I know in an

21:43earlier or an earlier draft there was

21:46kind of more technical language about

21:47carbon sequestration

21:49>> which yes I realize you know like the US

21:52um forest department they have some

21:54calculations.

21:55>> Yes.

21:56>> To go by um

21:58>> in terms of mandating that specific

22:00calculation might be too ownorous on an

22:02individual where they're trying to

22:03figure out what the species of the tree

22:06they have, how how large of a size it

22:08would be. Um but we can look at

22:10including you know additional language

22:13that would say steps that are being

22:14taken for ecological deforestation.

22:16>> Yeah, we swung one way and then we swung

22:18the other the other way. And I guess my

22:20question would be um you know we do

22:23there in the ordinance consistently has

22:25been kind of replacement trees which I

22:27know is in other kind of sister

22:29jurisdictions. Um, would you use that

22:32replacement tree kind of metric as part

22:35of a climate mitigation calculation or

22:38is that a separate in in your mind?

22:40>> We would say that's separate because

22:42replacement trees uh don't uh they don't

22:47produce climate effects for 30 years or

22:50so. And so we we're worried about um

22:55we're worried about the present tense

22:57and um

22:58>> so replacement trees really doesn't do a

23:01good uh

23:03>> Okay,

23:04>> sounds good enough.

23:05>> Okay,

23:07[laughter]

23:08>> yes, I just have one question. Um, so

23:10under the definition of climate

23:12mitigation that you've proposed, what

23:13would be kind of tangible steps that you

23:16would want to see someone include in an

23:18application to meet or to show that

23:20they've taken climate mitigation steps?

23:23>> Well, I wasn't thinking very technical

23:25way, but not even in an arbitrary way. I

23:28was thinking

23:30I had the experience of of going to uh

23:35um the to to a a hearing for a permit

23:40and the the permit was accepted uh even

23:43though

23:44it the ev the people brought evidence of

23:48climate uh harm to the climate that was

23:51going to be that was that was

23:56might be an effect of this development.

23:59And later on I I asked some of the

24:02members and they said, "We don't have

24:04we're not empowered to make decisions

24:08about permits that have to do with

24:11climate uh you know, that have to do

24:15with climate change mitigation. I'm

24:17thinking we don't have to reinvent the

24:19wheel. We know what climate change

24:22mitigation is. It's it's it's a widely

24:25accepted

24:26notion in our society and we don't have

24:29to try to turn it back into a technical

24:31term

24:32>> and just allow um people in government

24:37who are making decisions to say yes or

24:39no to use their judgment about what

24:43constitutes climate change mitigation.

24:45We don't really argue about that

24:47anymore. We all understand cutting down

24:50a whole bunch of trees without necessity

24:53is a climate is a climate um deficit.

24:58And so basically I was trying to stay

24:59away from having to turn it back into

25:01it. But I agree with you that we can't

25:04just let it be an arbitrary thing but I

25:07don't think it is arbitrary anymore. I

25:09think it's entered into a phase where we

25:11have widespread agreement about what it

25:13is. And so I would be very open to you

25:17guys rephrasing this definition. Uh

25:20because I did not send it to you because

25:22I thought it was a perfect wording. Um

25:26and so and I will by the way it will be

25:28in your hand in a minute.

25:31>> All right. All right. Thank you Brian.

25:33Um sure Francis I'm sorry before you go

25:36attorney is that pretty much sums up

25:38your your responses.

25:39>> Yeah.

25:40>> Okay. Francis.

25:41>> Yeah. Well, I I want to pick up where we

25:44are in fees and and waiverss. Um, again,

25:48it's important that when they when the

25:53tire hits the road that the applicant

25:56understands

25:58the intent of the entire tree uh

26:00ordinance and the importance of trees to

26:04heat mitigation. So, when you get down

26:07to, and I'm going to ask both Jay and

26:09and Brian, are you okay with um part B

26:14where it's $10 a tree and $2 a tree? I

26:18can't remember our discussions, but we

26:21can deal with that later. The really

26:22important part is in part E. Um,

26:26>> and we're talking about page three to

26:28page where are we talking? What? I don't

26:30know if you're calling it 26815 or X7

26:33depending on which

26:35>> 360. Okay. It's it's um you've got to

26:38jump to

26:40>> 15 and see the 12. So if you turn the

26:43pages or

26:45>> but it's definitely E.

26:47>> The numbers are

26:49>> so fee waiver and reduction you're

26:51talking about on page seven.

26:53>> Seven. Thank you. Yeah, I have a seven

26:55now. All right. So let me address that.

26:57Um I think it is extremely crucial in E1

27:01that um this board this commission it

27:06says shall cons shall uh you know or

27:10shall consider I don't know the next

27:12word and I think that it should be may

27:14so that so that an a really pushy

27:18applicant is going well you shall

27:20consider it and these are all my reasons

27:22and going on and on at a meeting where

27:24they may consider it is

27:27dutifully

27:30warning that the power is not in the

27:33appellent hand. It is, you know, it is

27:36is this group of people. And uh in in

27:39part two, I'm so pleased to see that it

27:42follows through that replacements of

27:45trees are significant. I I really when

27:49people start seeing fees, then they pay

27:52attention. Never mind the terminology

27:54and the heat mitigation. I agree with

27:56Brian. Um the whole purpose of this is

28:00to continue to build an awareness

28:03of why there's a tree ordinance in in

28:05for for Springfield. So I'm I'm

28:08stressing that the word in E1 changes

28:11from shall to may. And that's really the

28:14heart of um

28:18>> what Brian is. And I came in late on

28:21Jay, but um I wanted to really make sure

28:24that

28:26>> All right. Thank you, Francis. Uh

28:29did you want to respond at all?

28:30>> Sure. So I I think that's you know an

28:33edit that can be made. I think the the

28:34purpose initially of shall rather than

28:36may was the intent that this would be

28:38kind of a closed list the only elements

28:40that can be raised and considered for

28:42financial hardship. M

28:44>> so and I think we are kind of achieving

28:46the same purpose where you don't want

28:48you want it to be a better phrasing

28:51might be the commission shall

28:52exclusively consider

28:54>> exclusive

28:54>> like something of that nature. So one it

28:57gives expectancy to the applicant of

28:59what they want to provide in their

29:01request and two it reduces someone

29:04coming in saying I have these other

29:06financial considerations that I'm going

29:07for

29:08>> and and also I just wanted to raise

29:10because it it may have come up and I may

29:12have miscon

29:18language about um the cost incurred um

29:21for the actual activity.

29:24>> Yes. So I think you know there is a

29:26split. This is obviously an issue of uh

29:28of interpretation. So

29:32you know in my reading if I saw someone

29:34saying they need a hardship waiver

29:36because they're already spending $20,000

29:39on a project that would run counter to

29:41kind of the overall fee that's being

29:43assessed against them. particularly if

29:44we're moving it to a flat fee of around

29:46$125

29:48as opposed to an individual who is maybe

29:50on a smaller parcel, you know, trying to

29:53where they're showing that the estimated

29:56cost is kind of, you know, the is it's

30:00already costly to them to do this

30:02smaller project on their personal

30:04parcel. Um, and thus that might be a

30:07positive in removing their their

30:09application fee or fee waiver. Um, so I

30:12think it cuts it. I don't think it's

30:14meant to be kind of a get out of, you

30:15know, or a loophole for a big developer

30:18to come in and say like, I'm expending

30:19these funds

30:20>> now. I'm sorry.

30:21>> Yes.

30:22>> Uh, is that much?

30:24>> Yes.

30:24>> Yeah. Yes. Well, if you allow me, I want

30:26to turn the floor. I'm going to get back

30:27to you in a second, Brian. Uh, I want to

30:30go remote. Uh, council, ma'am, do you

30:32have any thoughts?

30:34>> I do. I do. First of all, um I want to

30:37thank you um council Davila for

30:40continuing this discussion on the um

30:43urban woodlands um ordinance that we're

30:46working on creating. And I would

30:48especially want to thank Stans and um

30:51the Springfield Climate Justice

30:52Coalition for partnering um with me in

30:56the last few years to get this moving

30:58along. I really like the direction that

31:01it's taking. Um Jay Lator has done so

31:05much work on this individually and I

31:07truly appreciate that. Um from what I

31:11see of the ordinance now, I think it's a

31:14great ordinance and the commission um

31:17will be able to make sure that we

31:20continue to think of Springfield as a

31:22place that climate justice is going to

31:25be um at the forefront. We just had a

31:28meeting earlier today on the zombie

31:30biomass plant that keeps coming back to

31:33try to um pollute our air some more. So,

31:36you know, looking at um at the ordinance

31:40the way it is, I think it's a great tool

31:42for us to use. And Alex, you know, your

31:45tree planting project, I I love that.

31:49You know, it's it's been great. I a

31:52couple of people complained that they

31:53had a tree planted in front of their

31:54house and nobody talked to them. But you

31:57know what? It's for our future. That

31:59tree is not going to bother anybody. You

32:00know, 10 years from now, they're going

32:02to be happy that there's a tree in front

32:03of their house, you know, shading them

32:05from the sun and the wind and all that

32:08stuff. So, um I just want to say thank

32:10you and I think, um, you know, going

32:13forward this is going to be something

32:15good for our city and our kids. And I

32:18gohead.

32:18>> Thank you. Uh, Alex, uh, do you have any

32:21thoughts? By the way, Alex, did you get

32:23a copy of the edits by the way?

32:28>> I do don't believe I got a copy of

32:30scams, uh, edit.

32:32>> So, I'm going to ask uh, staff to send

32:34it out to you shortly. Okay. Um, uh, it

32:37was a very good uh, uh, resume. J, my

32:41compliments to you guys for putting this

32:42together. It's a pretty straightforward,

32:44pretty good um, pretty impress. So,

32:47Alex, um, any thoughts? I

32:50>> I'll just say I did submit my comments

32:52to the law department on the draft that

32:55they proposed initially from our last

32:57meeting and um, yeah, be continue to to

33:01be available for, you know, technical

33:03support and advice

33:05as they move through the process.

33:07>> Okay.

33:09>> Is there anything that you heard today

33:11that gives you pause that we should

33:13know? Alex, you are the expert in the

33:16room, Alex.

33:19>> I mean, it always just comes down to um

33:22again, I'll just reiterate um the

33:24ability of our division to to manage

33:26this ordinance. So, I just hope that

33:29that at some point um that's considered.

33:35>> So, the ability to manage the ordinance

33:38uh I feel like I need to ask you to

33:39elaborate if you could.

33:42uh it's going to you know theor

33:45potentially be a lot more work for an

33:47already strained and limited staff. So

33:49um additional staff may be um you know

33:53requested you know to effectively

33:56enforce and administer

33:59um you know this type of of you know

34:01pretty complex

34:03um regulation

34:07>> or county and city council. Uh, go

34:10ahead, Francis.

34:11>> We would be counting on city council to

34:13to uh be putting into the city budget

34:17that um it needs personnel

34:20>> to protect our environment.

34:22>> Alex, we can have a more robust

34:24conversation on this subject offline

34:26later. You and I, Alex, uh,

34:31>> let me ask you this. So I think what

34:33you're saying is you're concerned that

34:36over your ability to to effectively

34:38carry out this ordinance. Is that pretty

34:40much what you're saying?

34:42>> Yeah, I would just say you know we've

34:44gone through a lot of work. A lot of

34:45folks here have gone done a lot of good

34:47work on this and

34:49>> you know then at at someday it's going

34:51to be up to us here in the forestry

34:53department to implement this and I would

34:55just hate for you know us with all of

34:58our other responsibilities that we have

35:01um

35:02um not be able to fully implement and um

35:06you know enforce this ordinance like

35:08everyone here is is hoping and and you

35:10know expecting. Um and you know which

35:15may just not for a lack of trying may

35:17just be a you know a function of um you

35:21know lack of of you know staffing and

35:23ability and capacity um within the

35:26forestry division. There's essentially

35:28two administrative

35:30um folks here u myself and Nate Puckco

35:33in the whole division. So, um, we do all

35:36the tree inspections, you know, we we,

35:39um, answer all the phone calls, we

35:41answer all the emails,

35:44um, you know, we have no administrative

35:46staff, you know, it's just us. So,

35:47that's that's where I get concerned

35:49about adding another,

35:51>> um, layer to that already heavy

35:53workload, but that's I'm just throwing

35:55that out there and and asking for some

35:57consideration of that as we move through

35:59the

35:59>> And I'm sure this will this will come

36:01I'm sure this will come with our pay

36:02raise for you guys.

36:04extra work. But uh Alex, uh let me ask

36:07you this. If you had a magic wand and

36:10you could get more staff, how many would

36:13you wish for?

36:16>> How many guys do you need?

36:18>> Um so I mean, yeah, we would we we could

36:22we could easily use at least one more

36:25threeman tree crew. Um you know,

36:27certainly if we had two more that would

36:29be great. We currently have six working

36:32arborists. Um so you know 9 9 to 12

36:35would be kind of an ideal um um you know

36:39complement of of workers

36:42at least one or two other um

36:45administrative staff especially with an

36:47ordinance like this in place.

36:49>> Great. I'm going to give the floor to a

36:50second to uh councelor Kaval, but Alex,

36:52at least for my part, let me tell you

36:54that I appreciate your your kind your

36:56cander on this your straightforwardness.

36:58uh it is a concern that needs to be

37:02validated and understood right because

37:04at [clears throat] the other day we

37:05don't want to pass anything that is

37:06going to be useless at the end of the

37:07day right uh however my feeling is that

37:10we've been working on this for two years

37:12you say a lot of hard work has been done

37:14on this and so uh I I I myself uh I am

37:19committed uh to help you get those

37:22people that you may need because

37:24one of those department all departments

37:26are critical but uh you know like not to

37:29sound cliche but we do need trees for

37:32oxygen otherwise there's no life simple

37:34as that so um Alex I will follow up with

37:38you on this um but thank you Alex for

37:43your comments uh council

37:47>> thank you Mr. chair. Um, and and Alex, I

37:49hear you. And I know that's been I think

37:52the main concern with this ordinance.

37:55Um, so I'm thinking about the

37:58conservation commission. Is that a paid

38:01commission?

38:03>> I'm on it. No.

38:05>> No. Okay. So, I'm wondering if we could

38:08have

38:09a resident um le maybe um urban

38:14woodlands commissioned. Right. We have a

38:16lot of people in our city interested in

38:20preserving our our our forestry and our

38:23our wood our um urban woodlands. So, I'm

38:27wondering if that might be a way to do

38:28it because I know that money is tight

38:30and you know, you hear me all the time

38:32talk about we don't want to raise any

38:33property taxes. um we don't want, you

38:37know, people to be paying more in their

38:38property taxes

38:40and I think that this is a great um

38:43investment in our future. So, if we do

38:46need to put some money into it, I agree

38:48with Council Davila that we could maybe

38:51get somehow creative, right? Because um

38:53we need to do this. This is something

38:55that I feel like it's not optional

38:58because our trees are are getting cut

39:01down. I just drove up there up where um

39:04Frank and and you guys live um off of

39:07Allen Allen and Street and I saw

39:09the three houses that were there that

39:11are now there and there used to be a big

39:14forest there. Um, so prioritizing that I

39:18think is going to be key. And I'm

39:20wondering if that might be a way for us

39:22to go initially at least. I don't know

39:24if if it's going to cost anything um,

39:27you know, to implement something like

39:29that, but I think that might be an

39:31option for us to think about and we can

39:33even put it in there. you know, a mayor.

39:36Um, it could be a five person commission

39:38or whatever, maybe some neighborhood

39:40representatives, a mayor appointed

39:42person, a city council appointed person,

39:45um, or something like that. So, that's

39:47that's the way I'm thinking because that

39:48is at the back of my mind. I don't want

39:50us to pass an ordinance that we're not

39:52going to be able to, you know, uphold.

39:55So, thank you, Mr. Chair.

39:57>> Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to a quick

39:59time check. It's 4:45. Uh there's

40:02another meeting coming up at five of me

40:04here. Uh so uh Francis I'm going to get

40:06to you a second. Uh I have one uh one

40:09first and then followed by Francis

40:12one.

40:14>> Yes. Um thank you councelor Dava. I'll

40:16be brief. Um, I just want to mention to

40:19councelor Govan that um, the ordinance

40:23does propose uh, I believe it's a

40:26sevenperson urban woodlands commission

40:29and it is a mix of city personnel and

40:33um, you know residents with the

40:35requisite experience. So I I won't go

40:38into all the details. I'll just let you

40:40know that exists at a high level. Uh,

40:43and then the only other comment I wanted

40:45to make would be through the chair to

40:48Alex. Alex, um, I know that, um, we

40:52haven't seen your comments to the law

40:54department. You haven't seen our

40:56comments to the law department, so we'll

40:59get a chance to compare notes. I'll just

41:01say at a high level um as we were

41:03reviewing our notes uh and our review of

41:07the uh law department's revision, one of

41:11the reasons why we highlighted

41:14the need to get input from you is that

41:18we felt at a high level that the way the

41:22law department's revision was written

41:26that it your fears could be realized. It

41:30could be a lot of work to um ask of the

41:34forestry division to look at a potential

41:38uh woodlands clearing and there might be

41:42limited um compensation back to the city

41:48and specifically the forestry division's

41:50tree fund um for the removal of those

41:54trees. So, um, as I mentioned, we

41:57haven't seen your edits, but I I suspect

42:00that some portion of your edits kind of

42:03takes that into account and and is

42:05designed in a way to make sure that if

42:07we are going to do this, um, that, you

42:10know, there's appropriate revenues

42:13coming back to the city and specifically

42:16that tree fund. Um, as you know, you

42:20know, it's it's our hope that this

42:22ordinance curbs clear cutting um or at

42:26least limits it or encourages developers

42:30who might want to clear cut to not

42:32clearcut as much. Basically giving them

42:35a financial incentive to not clearcut

42:37anything more than they have to do. But

42:40in the event that they do clearcut and

42:42and we know it will continue to happen

42:46um that the compensation from the city

42:52um I'm sorry to the city be commensurate

42:56not only with the loss of the trees but

42:59with the the work put in by the

43:03departments reviewing the application.

43:05And so to that end, um, councelor Dava,

43:09um, I think the attorney brings a really

43:11good point up that, um, you know, the

43:15the compensation for the loss of the

43:17trees is important, but the,

43:22um, you know, the application fees or

43:24the review fees, whatever term we're

43:26using, that's pretty important, too,

43:29because, um, Alex brings up a really

43:32good point that, um, you know, it it

43:35could be quite a bit of technical work

43:37to review these applications

43:40and um those fees should you know

43:44reflect that. Um and so um those are my

43:48comments. Thank you.

43:49>> Thank you Jay. Uh Francis,

43:50>> right on along that same line, I have 30

43:53years of experience in working with a

43:56variety of excellence departments here

43:58in the city and um I think for the sake

44:02of of Alex and the forestry department,

44:05uh Tina Quagler Tina

44:08Sullivan now at this point is fantastic

44:10at writing grants. So that too could and

44:13I'm telling both counselors that that

44:16too uh would be a a marvelous thing to

44:19to set to suggest set into motion uh to

44:23get this started the first year.

44:25>> That's a great idea. Uh Francis, I will

44:27have a conversation with Tina. Uh Alex,

44:30uh um in your past experience has that

44:34have you guys got any grants for your

44:35department?

44:39I mean, we're currently administering

44:41over $7 million worth of grants.

44:44>> Um, so it says yes. Okay.

44:47>> Yeah.

44:48>> This is unique. Yeah.

44:50>> Okay. All right. Uh, go ahead. Um, one

44:53just the one thing I wanted to pass on,

44:55I'll pass this on, get your email and

44:58pass it on to, uh, Alex later. Um there

45:01seems to be something missing here that

45:04a good ordinance should have and that is

45:06because we included it in the language

45:08but didn't make any um give it any teeth

45:12that said the city determined that the

45:14preservation and protection of its

45:16woodlands. We don't say anything about

45:18protection in the other woodlands

45:20ordinances and maybe this is partly my

45:22fault for not noticing it. They have at

45:25least one um mention of nobody something

45:30of the nature of no person shall perform

45:32actions on a property which harm the

45:35health of existing trees on that

45:37property including its root system

45:39because people I know in the in in the

45:41developing business and the tree

45:43business say one of the big problems is

45:45not just clear cutting it's all the

45:47trees that get killed by um the big the

45:51big tractors that that just drive over

45:53root system without being careful about

45:55where the trees are.

45:57>> Okay.

45:57>> So, I will get something to you about

45:59that.

45:59>> Thank you, uh, Brian. So, it's now 4:50.

46:03Um, I do,

46:07you know, make a second decision. Um,

46:12councelor Govan, ma'am, this is what I'm

46:14thinking.

46:16Uh, we've been working at this for two

46:18years.

46:20I'm also cognizant of the concerns that

46:22Alex expressed.

46:25Uh what I'm thinking is attorney

46:29do you think please go back let's look

46:33at the suggested edits and uh made those

46:37edits uh those that are applicable

46:40tomorrow. Uh of course then

46:45we can regroup on November 9th which I

46:48believe is a Monday

46:50I believe.

46:51>> Yes it is.

46:52>> It is a Monday. uh November 9th

46:56at uh 4:00. Uh

47:004:00 sounds good for

47:02>> if I may. Um Mr. Chair.

47:05>> Yes.

47:06>> What if um on that day if we could also

47:09um bring forth and I don't know if who

47:12can do this. I don't know if Alex if you

47:13can or not or the comm the committee

47:16scans or SCJC

47:19could put a budget together for the

47:20commission. What would it entail? Right.

47:24Um if we have

47:25>> budget

47:27>> Yeah. budget

47:28>> put a budget together for the uh Wood

47:31Urban Woodlands Commission and see what

47:33that would look like. Just, you know,

47:35see how much we would need.

47:37>> Okay, great idea. Alex, is that

47:40feasible?

47:46>> Sure. I can I can try to put something

47:48together.

47:48>> Okay. Uh

47:50>> something basic. that you know doesn't

47:51have to be so

47:54>> right. So what I'm thinking is I work

47:56with group the night and I really I

47:59really really because the legislative

48:01session is coming down to an end in

48:03December. I really to I would like to at

48:06the very least pass first step this year

48:09in December.

48:11uh it's going to come back to us anyways

48:13to committee and then we can keep

48:16looking at what's happening uh in uh on

48:19the woodland ordinance and then when

48:22it's mature we can bring it back to to

48:25uh to uh to the full body for

48:28consideration because I think I think we

48:31need to move forward

48:33>> you know start getting the the the

48:35general council's feeling as well

48:37because we can talk one here but we have

48:40you know, they have to vote. They have

48:41to think. So, I would like to hear what

48:42they have to think. And so, um, Gasan is

48:46that, uh, Do you agree with that plan,

48:48ma'am? But

48:49>> I think it makes sense.

48:51>> Okay. Uh, thank you, G.

48:54>> Vern has his

48:55>> Yeah, Vern, go ahead.

48:56>> Yeah. I just wanted to express the firm

48:59support of the Springfield Climate

49:01Justice Coalition for this measure and

49:05um [snorts] the importance of it. I I

49:08think that it would be really helpful to

49:11have a clause in there about climate

49:13mitigation

49:14uh to re help remind people about what

49:17this is really all about. Um so

49:21appreciate all the work that's gone into

49:22this and the the the movement forward.

49:24I'll leave it up to others to fine-tune

49:27all the language,

49:29but uh yeah, we we are really

49:33appreciative of the work that's gone

49:35into this. Thank you.

49:37>> All right. Thank you, Vernon. Uh, all

49:38right then. With that being said, uh, we

49:40will regroup on November 9th at four

49:43o'clock here as well. Attorney, um,

49:47please make sure that we get verified,

49:49uh, including the scan group, please, as

49:51well. Uh, Alex, I will give you a call

49:53in the next couple of days to talk

49:55offline and get more details on your

49:58thoughts. Uh and so if anybody has no

50:02other comments, questions, concerns,

50:04nothing, then this may

```*