The Road Commission of Kalamazoo County narrowed the scope of a federally funded roadside tree removal program, responding to weeks of vocal opposition from county residents.
The board met June 30 for what became one of its most heavily attended meetings in recent memory. Commissioner Andy Davis acknowledged the turnout directly, noting that typical meetings draw a dozen people at most.
The opposition centered on two related items: a proposed tree replacement policy that would require property owners to share the cost of replacing removed trees, and the “Safe Streets for All” program — a federal grant-funded initiative to clear roadside hazards along approximately 130 miles of Kalamazoo County primary roads.
The Safe Streets Program
The Safe Streets for All program is funded through a Federal Highway Administration grant. Its original design called for removing trees and other roadside hazards within 33 feet of the travel lane — a standard intended to create a clear recovery zone for vehicles that leave the road.
At this meeting, county engineer Ryan Minkus presented a revised approach: instead of the 33-foot standard, the project would use a 17-foot clear zone measured from the edge of the travel lane. The revision does not require a formal grant amendment and does not put the grant timeline at risk, Minkus told the board.
The practical effect of the change is significant. Under the original 33-foot design, the project had identified roughly 8,000 trees for potential removal. Under the 17-foot revision, that number drops to approximately 4,000. Trees whose trunks straddle the 17-foot line would remain; only trees falling entirely within that distance would be candidates for removal.
The board also noted that the project is being designed alongside additional safety measures — including rumble strips on road shoulders — that are expected to bring the combined safety benefit closer to what would have been achieved at the 33-foot standard. At 17 feet with no additional treatments, the projected crash reduction is approximately 44%. Coupling that with rumble strips brings the combined projected reduction closer to 75%, which is what a similar project on Sprinkle Road achieved.
The board did not take a formal vote on the revised scope at this meeting but signaled support for moving forward with the 17-foot design.
Public Comment
Residents turned out in force across multiple public comment periods. The concerns were consistent across speaker after speaker: mature roadside trees have environmental value that cannot be replaced on any meaningful timeline, the orange X markings visible on trees throughout the county have alarmed property owners, and the community had not been adequately consulted before the program began.
Speakers pointed to the ecological functions of mature trees — carbon sequestration, air filtration, cooling, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat — and argued that no sapling replacement program could recover what would be lost. Several residents noted that some of the trees marked for potential removal are 100 to 250 years old. One speaker, citing a letter from the Audubon Society of Kalamazoo, called for a science-based approach that targets trees genuinely posing hazards rather than applying a blanket removal standard.
Others questioned the safety premise directly. County engineer Minkus told the board that since a 2021 safety study identified the 130-mile corridor, eight fatalities occurred in which a vehicle struck a tree — over four years of data through 2025. Of those eight, 75% did not involve impaired driving, and none cited distracted driving as a contributing factor.
Some speakers also raised questions about the orange X markings already visible on roadside trees, asking whether all marked trees were slated for removal. Minkus clarified that not all marked trees will necessarily be removed — a reevaluation process will assess which trees fall within the final design parameters.
Commissioner Toni Kennedy offered a direct acknowledgment of the public’s concerns, saying she was not personally comfortable with the prospect of property owners being asked to pay to replace trees the Road Commission removes. She thanked residents for coming and for making their voices heard.
The Tree Replacement Policy
Separately, the board considered a draft tree replacement policy. Under the proposed framework, when a tree is removed as part of a Road Commission project, the property owner and the Road Commission would each cover half the cost of replacement — a 50/50 split. Replacement trees would be planted outside the road right-of-way. Under state law governing road commissions (Act 51), tree replacement is only available for trees removed as part of a formal project, not those removed due to storms or routine maintenance.
Public comment on the replacement policy was also predominantly opposed. Residents noted that a two-inch sapling costs between $200 and $400, making the cost-share a meaningful burden. Others pointed out that no replacement tree would achieve the canopy value of a 100-year-old tree in the lifetimes of current residents.
The board tabled the policy for further development and directed Managing Director Travis Bartholomew to bring a revised draft to the next meeting as a new business item. Commissioners indicated they want the policy to explore partnerships — including with the county conservation district, which Vice Chair Larry Stehouwer said has expressed willingness to work with the Road Commission on replanting in parklands and other county areas — to reduce or eliminate the cost to individual property owners. The board also wants the revised policy to address species diversity, native plantings, and whether shrubs and evergreens could count toward replacement requirements.
Stehouwer noted that it may be possible to use Arbor Day Foundation grants and similar funding sources to cover replacement costs entirely, at no expense to taxpayers or property owners..
Watch the full meeting recorded by Public Media Network with chapter indexing here.
