The Blueprint
- Developers say fees and escrow deposits exceed city authority
- Lawsuit cites $1M+ in tree replacement costs since adoption
- Case follows similar challenges in Dayton, Corcoran and Woodbury
A Roseville-based homebuilder association is suing Edina over the city’s tree ordinance, arguing among other things that the ordinance “exceeds the city’s authority under Minnesota law.”
Housing First Minnesota, which represents about 900 businesses, says the ordinance requires property owners to submit “tree protection plans” and “either replant or pay fees based on tree size” when trees are removed for construction.
In a complaint filed Monday in Hennepin County District Court, Housing First said the city has unlawfully required developers and landowners to pay more than $1 million in tree replacement fees.
Since 2023, Housing First’s members have been required to pay more than $165,000, according to the complaint.
Housing First Minnesota is asking the court to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, which applies to grading, demolition and building permit applications for “principal and accessory structures,” including a “garage, deck or a pool.”
Finance & Commerce reached out to the city of Edina for comment.
On its website, the city says the “goal of the ordinance is to protect well-established and healthy trees and preserve the nature, character and beauty provided by Edina’s tree canopy for generations to come. The ordinance also accounts for and mitigates the loss of trees and wildlife habitat on sites of development and redevelopment.”
In addition, the website notes, “protecting and improving Edina’s trees helps reduce heat island effects, stormwater runoff, [and] air pollution and contributes to a reduction in energy use by buildings adjacent to them.”
Nick Erickson, senior director of Housing Policy for Housing First Minnesota, said in an interview Tuesday that the ordinance has an impact on housing affordability, resulting in higher costs for both new construction and remodeling projects.
The cost varies from case to case, Erickson said, adding that the formula is based on “how many trees you’re tearing down, how large those trees are, which types of trees they are” and other factors.
“The basis is, if you cannot plant the amount of required trees, depending on what you tear down and what you can replace, you have to either plant those trees off site at your own cost or you can pay the fine,” Erickson said.
Under the ordinance, Housing First said, developers must deposit “110% of the city’s calculated replacement value into escrow, with funds only returned if new trees are planted and survive for up to one year after the certificate of occupancy is issued.”
“If the applicant never replaces protected trees,” the complaint states, “the city may keep the entire escrow amount ‘permanently,’ with no requirement that the city use those monies to fund planting of replacement trees.”
The Edina case isn’t the first time Housing First Minnesota has challenged city fees.
In 2021, as previously reported, Housing First sued the cities of Dayton and Corcoran, claiming that the cities violated state law by using millions of dollars’ worth fees collected from builders and developers as a slush fund of sorts for unrelated projects.
Erickson said Tuesday that those cases are still being litigated, with no resolution yet.
In its court filing against the city of Edina, Housing First cites the 2018 Harstad v. City of Woodbury case. In that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court said Woodbury lacked authority to impose a nearly $1.4 million “major roadway assessment” on developer Martin Harstad.
Housing First targeted Edina in the most recent lawsuit, in part, because the Edina ordinance is “the most exclusionary tree ordinance that we have seen,” Erickson said, adding that the issue has long been a concern.
“Throughout last year, we worked with our members to engage the city of Edina to try and change the ordinance to fall within the parameters of the Harstad v. Woodbury ruling. The city has not yet done so,” Erickson said.
James Vagle, CEO of Housing First Minnesota, said in a statement that the “law is clear: Cities can only charge fees that the Legislature has authorized, and no such authorization has been given. It’s a base expectation for homeowners across Minnesota that city policies follow state law.”
