Legislation on Tree Maintenance, Dog Waste and Park Naming
Committee on Parks and Recreation
Meeting overview
The Parks and Recreation Committee held a hearing on six bills covering street tree transparency, tree removal permitting, park signage for dog waste, a dog waste composting pilot, and an administrative fix for honorary street naming biographical records. The session was substantive but not decisive — no votes were taken and all bills remain works in progress, with Parks opposing or expressing reservations about most of them while offering to continue discussions with sponsors.
Three of the six bills concerned street trees. Int 0089-2026 (CM Brewer) would require Parks to map all tree pits, occupied or vacant, on the City's online tree map and note why empty ones are unused. Parks opposed it, arguing the data does not currently exist in a usable form, that collecting it would be a massive logistical undertaking diverting staff from actual planting, and that their new Neighborhood Tree Planting Program already addresses the underlying problem by systematically surveying and replanting entire blocks. CM Morano and CM Brewer pushed back, arguing that if Parks already has partial data then withholding it from residents is indefensible, and that volunteers could help collect what is missing. Int 0576-2026 would require certified arborist credentials for tree removal permit applicants and annual reporting on removals. Parks worried — somewhat implausibly — that adding this requirement might push some people to skip the permit process entirely, and distinguished between arborist credentials (suited to care decisions) and the physical act of removal. They were more open to the reporting aspect. Int 0666-2026 would require Parks to publish its internal maintenance prioritization ratings for individual trees on its public tree map. Parks expressed support in principle, objecting only to a 30-day compliance window they called unrealistic for website development work.
The two dog waste bills generated the liveliest exchange. Int 0880-2026 (CM Narcisse) would require signs at all park entrances and relevant facilities stating the rules and penalties for leaving dog waste, and mandate signage responses to 311 complaints. Parks said it already posts consolidated rules at entrances and specific signage at dog runs, and was broadly supportive in principle but flagged that the 311-triggered signage requirement, which technically falls partly on the Department of Transportation, would be unworkable at scale — potentially mandating thousands of signs for complaints that may already be resolved by the time installation happens. The numbers from the hearing were telling: Parks issued roughly 20 to 22 dog waste summonses over the past several years citywide, against approximately 1,400 to 1,500 dog waste complaints on park properties annually and 25,000 to 26,000 dog waste complaints citywide. CM Narcisse's dry conclusion — that the near-zero enforcement rate explains why residents are still stepping in the stuff — was hard to argue with. Int 0864-2026, requiring a two-year composting pilot for dog waste collected at dog runs, was the bill Parks most clearly opposed, calling it outside the agency's mission and resource-intensive given that Parks employees do not currently enter dog runs for routine cleaning.
Int 0859-2026 (CM Brewer) was the least contested item. It provides a legislative pathway for DORIS to post independently researched biographical information about honorees when none exists in the Council's legislative record — primarily addressing the 9/11 first responder street namings from 2002 and 2003 where signs went up faster than biographies could be compiled. New DORIS Commissioner Sean Smith (one month in the job) testified that the agency has already built an interactive map of over 4,200 street co-namings dating back to 1902, researched 393 biographies connected to the 9/11 namings, and is down to one unidentified honoree on Staten Island. Parks noted its own practices already largely align with the bill's intent and expressed willingness to work with DORIS on implementation. CM Morano used the DORIS testimony to make a pointed broader argument: if a 50-person agency can build a map of 4,200 historical records with full biographies, larger agencies cannot credibly claim it is too hard to publish data they already hold.
Numbers
- Over 2,500 storm-related tree service requests received by Parks following multiple storms including the June 6, 2026 event.
- Over 3,500 tree inspections conducted as a result of those storm-related service requests.
- Over 2,500 work orders created for damaged and fallen trees and branches following the recent storms.
- Approximately 200 blocked streets resulted from storm-related tree damage.
- Approximately 60 trees fell on houses during the recent storms.
- Roughly 200 low-priority storm work orders remained outstanding as of the hearing date, from the June 6 and June 12 events.
- Approximately 1,400 to 1,500 dog waste complaints per year received specifically relating to park properties.
- Approximately 25,000 to 26,000 total dog waste complaints received citywide annually.
- Approximately 20 to 22 dog waste summonses issued by Parks Enforcement Patrol across all parks going back to 2021.
- Standard penalty for a dog waste rule violation in NYC parks is $100, defaulting to $200.
- Parks operates nearly 90 formalised dog runs throughout the park system.
- Over 4,200 New York City honorary street co-namings catalogued by DORIS from 1902 through 2026.
- More than 400 streets were named in honour of September 11 first responders under local laws enacted in 2002 and 2003.
- DORIS has researched and completed approximately 393 biographies connected to the 9/11-related street co-namings.
- An additional 28 biographies completed by DORIS for co-namings dating from 1940 through 1981.
- Of the 9/11-related biographies: 176 from 2002 to 2003, 73 from 2004 to 2005, 22 from 2005, 5 from 2006, and 1 from 2008.
- One honoree from Staten Island connected to the 9/11 street namings remains unidentified.
- DORIS operates with a staff of fewer than 50 people.
- Approximately 175 storm-related tree service requests came from Staten Island during the recent storms, meaning Staten Island was largely spared.
- The bill requiring publication of tree maintenance prioritization ratings (Int 0666-2026) as drafted allows only 30 days for Parks to comply, which Parks described as unworkable given website development timelines.
Action Points
- Parks (Matt Jury or designee) to investigate the status of the outstanding written authorisation for ridge route restoration work in CM Narcisse's district and provide an update to the Council member.
- Parks to revert to CM Nurse with an escalated response on rat abatement, trash removal and landscaping at Kelly Callahan Playground given ongoing construction disruption at Broadway Junction station.
- Parks First Deputy Commissioner to be briefed directly on the Kelly Callahan Playground situation at CM Nurse's request.
- Parks to follow up with CM Narcisse's office on the specific operational and technical concerns with Int 0880-2026 with a view to refining the draft.
- Parks to engage with the sponsor of Int 0576-2026 to discuss intended outcomes and explore how shared transparency goals on tree removals can be achieved.
- Parks to engage with the sponsor of Int 0666-2026 on amending the compliance timeline from 30 days to a more workable window for website development.
- Parks to work with CM Brewer and sponsors on Int 0089-2026 to explore whether partial or volunteer-assisted data collection on vacant tree pits could address concerns without the full resource burden.
- Parks to provide CM Morano with a breakdown of the 4,200-plus storm-related service requests by borough, including average response times for Staten Island versus other boroughs.
- Parks to provide CM Morano with a count of full-time employees working on public-facing digital information.
- DORIS to provide CM Morano with a count of how many of the 4,200-plus honorary street co-namings are located on Staten Island.
- DORIS to assess whether there are gaps in the historical record disproportionately affecting Staten Island veterans, first responders, civic leaders or community figures, and report back to CM Morano.
- DORIS to continue working with CM Brewer and Parks to finalise Int 0859-2026 and ensure the biographical research process and legal authorisation are aligned.
- Parks to continue the Neighbourhood Tree Planting Program and update the public-facing map so residents can see when their block is scheduled for survey and planting.
▸ Full Transcript
Good afternoon and welcome to the New York City hybrid hearing of the Committee on Parks and Recreation. Please silence all electronic devices at this time. Also, please do not approach the dais. If you have any questions, raise your hand and staff will assist you. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Good afternoon. I am Ty Hankerson, Chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation. I would like to welcome all of you to the hearing today. At this hearing we will be considering six various pieces of legislation introduced by my colleagues, which relate to various parks-related topics.
First is Int 0089-2026, sponsored by CM Brewer. This Bill would require the Commissioner to identify tree pits located on streets and in landscaped parks and display them on the City's online tree map within three years, and also update the map annually to reflect changes to tree pits and the creation of new tree pits.
Next is Int 0576-2026, sponsored by Council members. This Bill would specify that Parks only issue a permit to remove a City-owned tree if the permit application provides the name of the certified arborist who will remove the tree, and report annually on City-owned trees removed in the previous year, including the location of removed trees and whether Parks has replaced those removed trees.
Int 0666-2026 — interesting number — sponsored by CM Williams, would require Parks to publish any current maintenance prioritization rating assigned to each tree under its jurisdiction and the reason for the rating on its interactive tree map website.
Next is Int 0859-2026, sponsored by CM Brewer, which would specify the process to be used by the Department of Records and Information Services to comply with existing law that requires the posting of biographical information for the subjects of name changes of streets and parks when no biographical information can be found in the legislative record.
Finally, we have two Bills on minimizing dog waste through our City, which is quickly becoming one of the largest quality of life concerns. Int 0864-2026, sponsored by CM Epstein, would require Parks to establish a pilot program to collect dog feces from dog runs under its jurisdiction for composting. At dog runs, the Commissioner would install dog waste collection bins, provide compostable dog feces bags and post a sign at each of the bins recommending that individuals deposit dog waste in the bins. The waste would then be transferred to the appropriate compost facility.
And Int 0880-2026, sponsored by Council member..., would require signs at the entrances and exits of parks and at certain park facilities stating the rule prohibiting a person from leaving dog waste on the ground and the associated penalties for violations. It would also require posting signs on the New York State requirement concerning dog waste removal in public areas and associated penalties.
I look forward to examining these Bills in more detail and I would like to welcome everyone to testify. Thank you. With that, I am going to go over to my colleagues for their remarks, starting with Council member and then Council member. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Parks Department, for being present. Thank you to all the fellows in the room — I love you guys. You have been very helpful to District 46 and I will never forget that. I will always be there to support. I love to see young folks not spending this summer doing nothing but being present and participating, especially when it comes to our environment. So thank you for your time.
I am proud to sponsor Int 0880-2026. This Bill is simple. Dog owners are required by law to clean up after their pets whether they are in a park or on the sidewalk, but across the City that rule is rarely posted anywhere. You cannot expect people to follow a law or a rule they have never seen and never heard of. This Bill requires the Parks Department to put signs at every park entrance, playground, fitness area, picnic spot and dog run.
It also requires Parks to respond to 311 complaints about dog waste on sidewalks and pedestrian paths with signage in those locations, and it requires annual public reporting so we can track where the problems are and whether things are working. Signs work. They tell us which way to drive down the streets. They warn us when a beach is not safe for swimming and they can help us get a handle on the dog waste too.
I have heard every excuse under the sun: my dog is small, I forgot a bag, I did not see it happen. Well, your neighbors saw it and they are calling 311 about it. This Bill gives the City a clear and useful tool to back up a law that already exists. I look forward to working with the administration to get this implemented because this is simple for a lot of folks, but not for some — because when you step on it... I mean, I do not like it when I am going to my car or when children are running in the park and step in it. That is not good. So I am looking forward to making sure we implement this. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Councilmember.
CM Brewer, thank you very much. I am calling your attention to Int 0089-2026. I think we all know that trees die. There are vacant tree beds. Constituents contact our office about them all the time. They want to plant them and they want a tree. Sometimes the empty tree bed is still a viable planting site, or sometimes — as I am getting requests all the time now — it is more ecologically correct to expand the bed. Other times the tree bed cannot be replanted to meet the Parks Department's current standards. Perhaps the tree bed is too small, it cannot be expanded, it is in front of a building entrance, the sidewalk is too narrow to comply, or utilities are present below.
I know that is a concern, but I have to say in most cases there was a tree there and a new tree can be planted. Constituents and block associations place duplicate requests for the same tree bed, which can be time-consuming for the Parks Department and frustrating for constituents and block associations and nonprofits who are in the environmental world, because they all want to expand. We all want to expand our local tree canopy. We want to work with the Department of Environmental Protection to do initiatives like rain gardens.
Int 0089-2026 would require the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation to identify tree pits located on streets and in landscaped parks and display them on the City's online tree map within three years after the effective date of the Bill. The Commissioner would therefore have to update the map annually to reflect changes to tree pits and the creation of new tree pits. The map must note whether each tree pit contains a tree and, if a tree pit does not contain a tree, the reason for the disuse of the tree bed.
In developing the legislation we worked with the Nature Conservancy and Trees New York. These people work daily with trees. We were sensitive to not wanting the data collection process to be too onerous. As written, the Bill envisions that this information would be catalogued as part of the tree inspection process, which the Parks Department already does. The goal is transparency, the opportunity for greening locally and helping reach our City's aggressive sustainability goals while consolidating this information centrally on the City's tree map.
I have to say, I know that the Parks Department may currently be against it, but I hope they continue to work with us. The maps are important. People do not know why there is no tree
in a spot — they do need to know. I also just want to talk about Int 0859-2026. This Bill honors New Yorkers for whom street co-namings are done twice a year. I want to just be clear. We celebrated, as others have, the pianist Larry Harlow on West 86th Street. We have all done many, many honorings.
The Council — I believe it was in 2003 — passed Local Law 104, which called on the Department of Records and Information Services, known as DORIS — one of my favorites — to create a searchable map of these co-namings, and they did. It took me like 20 years to get this map, but they did. In 2002 and 2003, over 400 streets were named for first responders killed on 9/11. I went to many, many of those signings when the sign went up. Many of those streets lacked biographical information — the sign went up so fast.
Under the guidance of former DORIS Commissioner Pauline... and her staff, the stories of these individuals lost on that terrible day were compiled. Int 0859-2026 allows DORIS to update the map. A special note of appreciation to committee counsel Chris... for their work on Local Law 104 as well as Int 0859-2026, and I want to thank... from my office.
The background here is that I think the names could have just gone up on the website. However, to DORIS's credit, they felt that they wanted the City Council to bless them legislatively and legally, and then when they go up there is a feeling that the biographical information is correct. I believe we have got all but one person of all the signs in the entire five boroughs and we are still trying to get that one person from Staten Island who we cannot find. Thank you very much. Even Jimmy Otto cannot find them, but we are still trying. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Hankerson, members of the Parks Committee and other members of the Council. My name is Matt Jury. I am the Chief of Citywide Legislative Affairs for Parks and I am joined by Ben Osborne, our Assistant Commissioner for Street Trees. We are pleased to be here to testify alongside our fellow agency partners to discuss the various pieces of legislation being considered today.
First, since three of the Bills being heard today are related to street trees and our City's urban tree canopy, I would like to provide a quick update on the tree impacts that resulted from the numerous storms the City has experienced in recent weeks, including the June 6th storm, which produced the most significant tree impacts we have witnessed since Tropical Storm Isaias in August 2020. We are grateful to our expert street tree crews at Parks and to our partners at the downed tree task force, including Emergency Management and the Department of Sanitation, who all helped address tree-related storm conditions since May 20th.
We have received over 2,500 storm-related service requests, which led to over 3,500 inspections, resulting in the creation of over 2,500 work orders for damaged and fallen trees and branches, including roughly 200 blocked streets and 60 trees on houses. Our first priority following any storm event is to address those life safety hazards, especially blocked trees and trees on houses, which we aim to complete as quickly as possible using all available resources, including our emergency contractor and partner agency crews at the City and State level.
As of today, all work orders resulting from these storms have been completed except for roughly 200 low priority jobs remaining from the June 6th event and another thunderstorm on June 12th. To be clear, resolving tree-related conditions can be complex, challenging and highly dangerous work, especially in stormy or excessively hot conditions requiring the use of heavy equipment and large vehicles. So we thank New Yorkers for their patience and support as this work continues.
Beginning with Int 0089-2026, this legislation would require Parks to identify tree beds located on streets and in landscaped parks and display them on the City's online tree map, noting whether each tree bed contains a tree. To be explicitly clear, the presence of an empty tree bed along the street has no bearing on whether that site is viable for planting, because planting standards evolve over time and new infrastructure conflicts can arise. Similarly, the absence of a pre-existing tree bed bears absolutely no relation as to whether a tree can be planted at that location. We recognize that empty street beds which are no longer viable for tree planting can become unsightly and inconvenient over time. So through our neighborhood tree planting strategy, while we assess each and every block in New York City for street tree planting opportunities, we identify any empty street tree bed for planting and, unless the bed is going to be maintained as a garden, we revert them back to sidewalk alongside the
Other tree related work that is going to be done along that block, in hopes that these situations can gradually become increasingly rare. The citywide canvassing and geolocating of tree beds on streets and parks, as proposed by the Bill, would be a massive logistical undertaking and the investment of finite agency resources with little to no practical public benefit. The data set would become outdated nearly immediately after such a canvas were to be completed, leading to unnecessary public confusion. We are always happy to work with the Council to discuss the ways in which the agency can best engage with local residents regarding our new approach to planting and the improvements that it will bring to our city streetscape, but we oppose this legislation as it is currently drafted.
Next, Int 0576-2026 would require applicants seeking New York City Parks' authorization for a tree removal to provide the name of a certified arborist who will conduct the proposed tree removal. It would also require a report on trees under Parks jurisdiction that have been removed in the previous year. We appreciate the apparent intent of this Bill as our agency is keenly focused on growing and protecting our urban tree canopy and we only approve tree removals in very, very select circumstances.
To be clear, New York City Parks is the sole authority that can allow the removal of a tree under our jurisdiction. We take that decision very, very seriously and tree removal proposals are rigorously reviewed by our agency's highly qualified technical staff. We do not currently require tree removal work to be performed by a certified arborist, which is a credential that is more applicable to decisions pertaining to the care, maintenance and preservation of trees than the physical work of removing a tree.
It is worth noting that additional regulatory requirements for tree removal permits could inadvertently encourage parties to avoid seeking formal approval from Parks, which would result in the unauthorized removal of healthy City trees that otherwise would not have been allowed. As for the reporting requirement imposed by the legislation, Parks is committed to public transparency and is happy to look more closely at the types of data sets that best inform New Yorkers looking to learn more about our tree management efforts in an efficient and productive manner. To that end, we would like to discuss this Bill further with the sponsor to learn more about its intended outcomes so we can work together towards the goals we clearly share.
Int 0666-2026 would require New York City Parks to publish any current maintenance prioritization ratings assigned by Parks to each tree under its jurisdiction pursuant to a tree inspection, and the reason for that rating, on our interactive tree map website. We make a robust set of information available on our agency website to anyone looking to learn more about the individual street and park trees in our canopy, including their species, inspection and work order status and the ecological and economic benefits provided by each individual tree. We support the intent of this legislation and we are happy to work with the sponsor to discuss the ways in which legislation can best achieve our shared goals while providing sufficient time for any mandatory website development updates, which can be a time-intensive undertaking.
Turning to Int 0859-2026, this Bill would authorize the relevant agency or office to conduct its own historical research while posting biographical information related to individuals or entities for whom streets and parks have been co-named by local law, when no other biographical information can be found in the legislative record. New York City Parks already routinely provides biographical and historical information related to the persons or entities in whose honor our parks are named, both through historical interpretive signage physically installed at park sites as well as robust information available on the websites dedicated to individual properties on our agency website. We believe our current operational practices already largely comply with the spirit of this Bill. We look forward to working with the sponsor and our colleagues at DORIS to ensure the legislation can best help achieve our shared goals.
Lastly, we will turn to two bills regarding the presence of dog waste in our public spaces. We appreciate the Council's advocacy and efforts to help educate dog owners about the importance of picking up after their pets, as just about every New Yorker has had an unpleasant encounter with this persistent inconvenience at one time or another.
Int 0864-2026 would compel Parks to establish a two-year pilot program to collect dog waste from dog runs located within parks for the purposes of processing that waste into compost, and submit a report on the operational results of that pilot, including the amount of dog waste processed into compost and how or where any resulting compost was utilized. We share the Council's support for sustainable practices and we work closely with other partners in a variety of ways to ensure that organic materials like park yard and leaf waste can be kept out of the waste stream. We currently host nearly 90 formalized dog runs throughout our park system, a list of which can be accessed on our agency website, as well as information about areas in parks that allow dogs off-leash in early morning and evening hours.
To be clear, dog run trash receptacles are placed outside of each dog run and Parks employees do not enter dog runs to perform routine cleaning or maintenance, though we do work closely with the dog owners at each dog run as we advance necessary repairs or other substantial site improvements. In accordance with existing guidance related to organic waste collection, any dog owners visiting a dog run are expected to place their dog's waste in the adjacent trash bin. We appreciate the broader ecological goals of this legislation. We do not support this Bill as it is currently drafted, largely due to the fact that the processing of organic waste into compost lies outside of our agency's mission and expertise, and the pilot program and related reporting that would be mandated by this Bill would be incredibly resource-intensive in the context of our exceedingly finite agency resources.
Lastly, Int 0880-2026 would require New York City Parks to post park signage related to agency rules prohibiting persons from leaving dog waste on the ground and the associated penalties for violation. We believe all New Yorkers should have clean parks and our maintenance and operations staff work tirelessly to clean our park properties every single day to keep these spaces enjoyable for everyone. We want dog owners and their furry friends to do the right thing and responsibly enjoy our City parks. Our Parks Enforcement Patrol officers enforce park rules related to picking up after dogs and they routinely educate dog owners and other park visitors about the importance of following park rules. We do install standard consolidated rule signage in multiple languages at the entrances of each of our parks, including a reference to picking up dog waste. We install specific signage at dog runs to outline the specific rules and policies in place at those features. We very much support the intent of this legislation. We do have some technical and operational concerns regarding the way in which the Bill is currently drafted, which we look forward to discussing further with the sponsor. We will also additionally note that Int 0880-2026 would create a new signage
mandate for the New York City Department of Transportation outside of Parks. We defer to our sister agency on that aspect of the legislation, but I will note they have shared that it would create severe operational concerns to require an open-ended number of signs at any 311 complaint location. Dictating signage siting via 311 complaints would result in thousands or tens of thousands of mandated signs, particularly since the complaints may be or will likely get resolved before signage installation. They have further expressed concerns about the likely impact this legislation would have on their capacity to install traffic control signage.
Thanks for allowing us to testify before you today and for your continued advocacy and support for our City parks. We will now hand it over to our colleagues at
DORIS. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sean Smith and I am the Commissioner for the Department of Records and Information Services. I have had the privilege of serving as the Commissioner for DORIS since May 18, 2026, having joined City government only about a month ago. I come to this work with a professional background in libraries and archives, as a librarian and an archivist, and I appreciate your patience as I continue learning the culture and processes of municipal government.
In reviewing prior City Council records, I understand that about twice each year the Council recognizes New Yorkers through honorary street co-namings. In 2023, the Council enacted Local Law 104 to support and strengthen the commemorative process. Earlier local laws enacted in 2002 and 2003 named more than 400 streets in honor of first responders who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. However, many of those commemorative street designations did not include accompanying biographical information documenting who these individuals were and why they were honored.
Over the past year, DORIS developed the Honorary Street Naming Project to support the creation of an interactive public map documenting more than 4,200 New York City street co-namings from 1902 through 2026. The purpose of this project is not only to document where honorary street designations exist, but also to preserve and share with the public the stories behind them. The interactive map was developed using our data through 2026. To expand and enrich the historical record, DORIS also incorporated Municipal Library archival resources, including pre-1998 proceedings, local laws and microfilm collections.
Today, DORIS has researched and completed approximately 393 biographies connected to the 9/11-related co-namings and an additional 28 biographies for co-namings dating from 1940 through 1981. This work includes 176 biographies from 2002 through 2003, 73 biographies from 2004 through 2005, 22 biographies from 2005, five biographies from 2006 and one biography from 2008.
Int 0859-2026 would provide guidance regarding the posting of biographical information for individuals honored through street and park naming actions when that information is not available in the legislative record. Importantly, this legislation recognizes the value of archival and historical research already conducted by DORIS and allows that independently researched content to be incorporated into the public-facing website with sourcing information included where available. This legislation strengthens the historical record, enhances public understanding of those being commemorated and helps ensure that future generations understand not only the names on the signs but the lives and contributions those names represent. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and we welcome any questions.
All right, thank you. At this time I am going to turn it over to the Bill sponsors, starting with the Council member sponsors, immediately after which we will take questions. Thank you so much.
Chair, I want to start here. I see that you have spent six years restoring the ridge route over our wetland and it is ready to resume. They hold a permit, have met every Parks requirement and park staff confirmed there is no legal or liability barrier. Yet the written authorization still has not been issued and the removal season is slipping. Commissioner, would you direct your legal team to let them begin the work? Is that possible?
Thank you for the promotion.
They work in my district a lot. That is fine.
Thank you for the question. I am not as up to date on the status of that permit, but we are happy to take that back to our team and get you an update.
Thank you for that. What are the current signage protocols? Let us get to my Bill now. What are the current signage protocols for dog waste within parks?
Yeah, thanks for asking. We install standard consolidated rule signage in multiple languages at the entrances of all of our parks. That includes a reference to picking up dog waste. Additionally, we install specific signage at dog runs that outlines the specific rules and policies in place at those features, including the importance of picking up after your dogs.
Thank you. What are the relevant penalties for not cleaning up your dog's waste? And is this a commonly enforced violation by your department?
Thanks for the question. There is a specific park rule in reference to dog waste in Section 1 for control and removal of animal waste. The standard rule violation, I believe, is a hundred dollars and then defaults to two hundred. Those are handled by the Environmental Control Board via OATH hearings, as this is not a criminal court summons. Our Parks Enforcement Patrol officers — I will just note that they are in our parks enforcing park rules, including picking up after dogs. They are routinely educating dog owners and making sure that folks are aware. To be frank, the presence of a uniformed individual is sufficient enough to inspire dog owners to do the right thing, low and behold. So the issuance of a summons is kind of a last-ditch effort, if you will. It is not often that we have to actually issue a summons. The impact we normally have is educating and making sure that we are correcting the condition. Usually, frankly, when a dog owner is approached by a Parks Enforcement Patrol officer or other uniformed personnel, they usually all of a sudden, low and behold, find that plastic bag or what have you and do what they need to do.
Commissioner, you know I love parks, right? I love parks and I appreciate you. If there is one agency I am going to put my support behind, it is definitely Parks. But Commissioner, I have been in parks because I love to hang out in parks. I have not seen
yeah, my point exactly.
Well, and I have been around long enough, so you surely have. Our Parks Enforcement Patrol officers are out there. They are in parks patrolling every single day. I will say that, again, their very presence usually ends up reminding dog owners. So it is pretty uncommon that those interactions happen because when people see... first of all, most dog owners, far and away, are doing the right thing and picking up after their dog. To be clear, dog waste is definitely a condition that we do witness on the interior of parks, but the truth of the matter is it is actually far more common and prevalent on the exterior of parks along sidewalks, just as it is a common occurrence on sidewalks all over the City. On the interior of parks where we are responsible to clean it up, we do so regardless, obviously, in the course of doing our trash removal and other pickups. But I will note that
it is not as common a concern on the interior of parks. So it is reasonable that you have not witnessed an actual interaction between a Parks Enforcement Patrol officer and a dog owner, because we approach that dog owner and low and behold the waste gets picked up and everything is, you know, everything is fine. So that does not surprise me. It is something we take very, very seriously. But I think most of the dog owners that are coming up to the interior of our parks to enjoy those areas are by and large doing the right thing. If that is not the case, if we see dog waste, that is something that is taken very, very seriously. It is a condition that is addressed by our maintenance staff when it is observed.
I appreciate that, but how many summonses did you give over the year?
Your example for last year, so in 2025... just to put it in context, to step back, just as a frame of reference, we received about 1,415 to 300 complaints about dog waste specifically on park properties. That is sort of what we are seeing, about 1,400 to 1,500 complaints per year. So that is
not a small number. As a frame of reference, the City receives about 25,000 to 26,000 dog waste complaints. So that is just to give you that frame of reference. Specific to summonses issued specifically for dog waste, it is pretty low. I can say that in the past few years... let me pull it up here. We have issued about 22 over the last... going back to 2021. Currently we only have 20 to 22 summonses. Yes. And that is why you are stepping on waste every day in my community right now. So it is a
lot going on. So if we could put this on you... the way I am getting to the point, I want to bring it home to you. When you see the signage all the time, like right in front of you, you would be more careful. People will remind you kindly, "There is a sign here, you need to pick up." People will feel more comfortable and people will bring more awareness to what they are doing.
Sometimes people just need a little nudge.
That is all. Last question I have: what areas of the City are more problematic in terms of dog waste complaints and noncompliance with disposal rules?
So there are a couple of different ways in which we are assessing this condition in our park system. I mentioned the 300 requests. That is actually relatively distributed throughout the City fairly equally. Additionally, we have what we refer to as our Parks Inspection Program, which is sort of our independent secret shopper. Separate from our maintenance and operations team, we have an independent audit team that is getting out there and observing. By and large we are not seeing any drastic geographic distinctions in terms of where this is being observed. It is something that happens, it is addressed when it is observed, but we are not seeing any drastic geographic distinction.
I am just sharing a picture of somewhere that put gates all over, and I cannot read it for you. I am hot. Take whatever it is and ticket it. Elsewhere is the worst word that you can use. That is mean. People are tired.
Sure. And I did not hear that. It is something about it. That is someone who is putting up their own signage about the no... I am telling you that it is just like some kind of life effect.
So I guess I just need to talk. And then because the person is tired, when I went in, you know, I stopped my car. I went in to have a conversation because in my district. And she said, you know what, I do not know. Everywhere it is people are normalizing it, and we should not. And that is what I am asking you for your help. So we need to do something about this Bill.
We agreed that Bill has to be believed in. New York dog owners need to do the right thing and pick up. People have to do it. We have to.
Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate your... Tell us, member. Thank you. Okay. First I want to thank Commissioner Smith Cruz. Welcome. We love Doris, and we look forward to working with you. So thank you so much. I am very excited about it. It looks to me like, as a result of Doris's efforts, all of the names that are up on the signs who have contributed and have passed will be there, and that is a big deal. All their biographies. Thank you. Tree pits. Okay. How many do you have any idea how many exist? I get nauseous every time I see one, but I do need data. You only have data and you do not want to provide the data, but you...
Have any sense of how many there are?
Thanks for the question. I am going to turn it over to our Assistant Commissioner for Forestry, Ben Osborne.
Good afternoon, Council Member. Thanks for that question. So we do not track the number of tree pits that are unplanted in the City, but of course we have heard concerns from the Council and from constituents for years about empty tree beds and the hazard that they can present. So for the first time in the City's history, we now have a plan to address this through our Neighborhood Tree Planting Program.
Under this program, we will plant every available location on each block, regardless of whether or not a tree bed exists, and close tree beds that do not meet our current planting standards, unless they are being maintained as garden space by residents. I would... what I do is I pull up the flowers and say you are going to get a tree. But okay.
I mean, you know what I am saying though. So you are saying... but that is part of that neighborhood where you go... the Neighborhood Program. You are not going to do individuals. It is when the program is in that area for the tree planting, and then you will obviously take into consideration whether tree pits can be planted, right? Is that what you are saying?
Yeah, as part of the comprehensive service that we are providing through the Neighborhood Tree Planting Program, we will plant every available planting space regardless of whether a bed exists, and close those beds that are not to be planted. There are some vaults and this and that, but where there is a garden you should have a conversation because the tree arbor is more important than the...
Gardens. The flowers or other horticulture in those beds does not preclude us from...
Frank Nicholson. Yeah, all right. But I mean, why is this so hard? I am a big... I passed the open data bill. I believe in data. You have the trees. But why is this so difficult? I do not think it is. Who includes the tree pits? So you have a sense of what the overall citywide number is. Why is that so hard?
So I can do it.
So again, this is not something that we have data on. The collection of this data would be a massive undertaking. To do so in the three-year time frame under this Bill would actually likely take away resources from the staff who oversee planting, so it would slow down our planting efforts. Okay.
I mean, I do think we just need to continue to discuss this issue, because I think you could do it with some volunteers. You have many volunteers. Are we willing to do it? And you would put a little asterisk that says this is not assigned by the Parks Department. There are ways to do it. Those people really want to know where there is a tree pit that is vacant and where there is a stump that needs to be taken out. They can then do some planning of their own. Data, data, data. Thank you very much.
Thank you. CM Morano, followed by...
CM Nurse.
Thanks very much. A couple of quick questions for Parks and then one or two for Doris if there is time. You testified that identifying empty tree pits citywide would be a massive undertaking with little public benefit. But does not Parks already know where many of these locations are? And basically, if the agency already possesses a lot of this information, why should not taxpayers have the same access to it? I will...
Hand it over to Commissioner Osborne in just a second, but I guess I just note that in addition to the resources that it would take to undertake this effort systematically and comprehensively, I think that is being weighed against what the public would gain from that information, noting as the Commissioner has just said that we now have funding in place and a comprehensive plan to essentially address these empty, unplanted tree pits over time. So I believe what we are ultimately trying to say is that overall, would the public benefit from that knowledge? What would be gleaned from that, weighed against the undertaking that it would require? So I think I just wanted to put it in that context, but I would like to hand it over to Commissioner Osborne.
Sure, and thank you for the question, Counsel. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this introduced legislation, this is not data that we have kept because it is not operationally useful.
So sure, we know where we have had trees in the past, but that does not indicate whether or not there is a tree bed there. In some cases, especially in Staten Island, there are contiguous long strips which do not exactly meet the definition of a tree bed.
Because this is not... because we do not require a tree bed for planting.
This is simply not data we have.
So since you mentioned Staten Island, Staten Islanders frequently contact my office asking why an empty tree pit on their block is vacant for years. If you oppose publicly identifying vacant tree pits, how exactly are residents supposed to know whether the location is awaiting planting, deemed unsuitable, or simply just being overlooked?
Well, you know, as part of our Neighborhood Tree Planting Program, now they can look on our website and know exactly when we will be on their block, surveying the entire block looking for planting opportunities that meet our current standards, whether or not there is a tree bed present. If there is no tree bed present but the location is suitable for planting, we will create a new tree bed. If there is a tree bed present and it is not suitable for planting, we will close it at that time. So they can use our map to know exactly when we will be there.
On tree removal, you testified that additional permitting requirements might discourage people from seeking approval before removing trees. Is the department really suggesting that transparency requirements should be weakened because some people might break the...
Law? No, sorry, to be clear, that testimony was in reference to a new requirement. What the legislation proposes first is that someone who is performing tree removal work needs to be certified as an arborist, which is a relatively lofty designation for that. We are arguing that adding that additional layer of regulatory burden could inadvertently inspire someone to not seek that approval. So that is not in reference to the reporting requirement.
Understood. You did mention that more than 4,500 storm-related service requests were in the pipeline. How many came from Staten Island and what was the average response time in Staten Island compared with the other boroughs?
Give me a moment to find those...
Numbers. While you look for that, Commissioner, a question about Int 0880-2026, which I am happy to be a sponsor of. If a tree near a school, playground or home has been internally identified as a maintenance priority, why should not the public be allowed to know that?
I mean, so we... yeah, I think we very much appreciate the... we are not opposed to the Bill, so I am sorry if that was unclear. Just to be clear, I think anyone who submits a service request regarding a tree risk issue, whether it is pruning or removal or what have you, that person is already notified about the risk assessment level. This Bill would essentially take that information and display it in a map format, and we are open to that notion. With respect to your question...
About the storm, the several storms we have had over the past month or so, Staten Island was largely spared from these events. Thankfully, only about 175 service requests in total came from Staten Island.
Step down and pretty well. Final questions for Parks quickly. The department says website updates are time consuming. Can you tell us how many full-time employees currently work on public-facing digital information, and what specifically makes posting a prioritization rating so burdensome?
So I will answer the second part first. It is not the nature of the project that is burdensome, but the Bill as it is currently drafted only provides for 30 days for compliance, which is just pretty tight, given the volume of projects that the agency is undertaking. We are always trying to make our website more robust and more informational, and there is a list of projects to be executed by that team with finite staff. I actually do not... I apologize. Except to note that they are by definition finite, but we can check on that for you.
I have just one Doris question if I may, Chair. Thank you for your testimony and welcome aboard. Good luck. Of the more than 4,200 honorary street co-namings you have catalogued, how many are on Staten Island, and have you identified any gaps in the historical record that disproportionately affect Staten Island veterans, civic leaders, first responders or community figures?
I love that question. Of course I do not have the answer, but I would love to get it back to you because I think it is a good question. I did hear that CM Brewer pointed specifically to Staten Island being absolutely representative in the set, so I can check in to see how many of the larger 4,200 represent Staten Island. But it is a map and so one could go to the map itself, and it is interactive, so one could zoom into the map over Staten Island and see which names are represented in that location.
So you were able to create an interactive map with more than 4,200 co-namings and hundreds of biographies. What lessons should other City agencies learn from this effort when they claim it is too difficult or resource-intensive to make information available to the public?
I think that all of you... thank you for the question. I think all of the agencies do a really, really great job of making information available to the public. Doris has a very tiny staff of less than 50 and we are doing our best to match up to everyone else's robust web environment. So I think that we are all working collaboratively to make it happen. What Doris would love to do is work with agencies to have some of our municipal archives and our materials from inside of government online, so we can just work together and do more.
Thank you all. Thank you.
Thank you for your patience. I want to acknowledge that we have been joined by CM Krishnan and now we are going over to CM Nurse. Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon. I also want to double down on the...
Comments and acknowledgement made by CM Nurse about New York City H+H, and they do a lot of great work at Highland Park in the original Red Hook area. I hope to see them continue to do that work there. We support their interns there who are learning a lot about water ecology. I am going to ask about a district thing. I am sorry, I am off topic, but that is how we have got to do it. I am getting a ton of incoming from residents who live around Kelly Callahan Playground because obviously there is a lot of demolition work and construction around the Broadway Junction station. It is going to be a very long project, so we are going to have a very long problem of rat burrows being shaken up and rats just coming out of the ground. I mean, subway demolition, excavation work. So we are asking for an extraordinary level of attention to this park for abatement and consistency in trash removal as well as landscaping...
Work that needs to be done to keep areas looking tidy, because obviously this is a brand new park that just got done. It is beautiful. We love it. We love that Parks made that happen, but now people want to enjoy it and they are so upset and saying that we are not doing our job. So if I am getting told I am not doing my job, I have got to revert to you guys and say you guys are not doing your job, because I am not the one in charge of cleaning the parks. I know that this administration has not fulfilled the funding goals of the 1% for Parks or increased that, but we really need that. Because I am, you know, we are at a point where I have got to start yelling if I am getting yelled at. So I will say that Marty has been excellent and super responsive. We talked this morning and he has escalated the work, but we need more because it is just unfortunate that that construction is happening, but it is going to keep happening. Yeah. Thanks.
Thanks for that, Council Member. I am very glad to hear Commissioner Marty is, you know, obviously just an icon, so responsive. That is excellent. But we are absolutely happy to also take this back to our First Deputy Commissioner to make sure there is even more keen awareness. Obviously you are in good hands with Commissioner Marty, but having said that we will certainly elevate it. It does happen, you know, when there are reverberations and ripple effects from adjacent construction. It is especially unfortunate when it is a newly completed, renovated project that lends itself to some of those factors. But yeah, that is something we will obviously take back and look at very...
Closely. It is going to be for a while because it is not just that station, right? There are the plazas that are being... all that, the transit precinct is going to be demolished. This is going to be like a decade of just disruption and we are just into groundbreaking and already people are upset with me. And that should not be the case. We really need those resources there and ramped up. I do not know how many people are on shift there. I know Amelia was great when he was there before he retired, but we need... I need some dynamics to change quickly or else I have to change my dynamic with the agency. I do not want to do that.
Understood and appreciated. Would love to continue to have support on this for sure. Thank you.