County News
Tree policy
Council sends new policy back to staff for further review
At Thursday’s Committee of the Whole, an in-depth report dealing with tree management and preservation in the Prince Edward County was referred back to staff to deal with a host of issues, but most importantly to council was the cost to roll out the program. The report suggests the need for a full-time arborist on staff, a new watering truck at a cost of $75,000 as well as an increase in the operating budget to plant more trees, from $20,000 to $83,000. This cost does not include maintenance of the trees.
Susan Banks, Chair of the tree policy ad hoc committee, spoke to council, noting this policy had been a long time coming. “It has been a long road since councillor Lenny Epstein moved a motion in November 2015 to update the municipalities tree policy,” said Banks. The ad hoc committee spent over a year working on the new policy, all while receiving guidance from an urban forest professional, arborists and other municipalities. “The committee felt that it was important to save trees rather than clear cut. Mature trees provide the community with more benefits than small trees,” noted Banks.
Councillor Brad Nieman wasn’t mincing words on the new policy. “I think people in the County are smart enough, They know what trees they want and where they want them. I’m quite prepared to leave it in staff’s hands. We don’t need policies for common sense,” said Nieman.
Councillor Ernie Margetson had a list of concerns, but at the top of the list was the cost for a one-to-one replacement of trees. Margetson was hoping changes could be made to preserve trees, rather than replace them. Margetson explained that when ditches and roadsides are brushed, many trees end up damaged, and later removed. “Often mature trees are hit with the brusher, with significant scars, trying to get to the brush around them,” said Margetson, who suggested doing minimal clearing where the operator does not get so close to the trunk.
Councillor Phil Prinzen wanted to know if the policy could be put in place without a full-time arborist on staff. Director of Operations Adam Goheen said that would be arduous. “It will be difficult to implement a number of these components of the policy without a qualified professional on staff or available to us. And to have an arborist on contract for one-off reports is quite expensive,” said Goheen. Prinzen then asked how this would effect the upcoming budget. “Are we putting the cart in front of the horse? We are coming into budget and here we are getting asked to approve a tree policy with budget asks. I’m afraid we are backing ourselves into a corner.”
CAO Marcia Wallace confirmed that if council approved the policy, it would be entered as a budget item, and that staff has not yet found room in the budget for the items identified in the policy. “Our normal process would be to bring it forward to the next available council meeting which would be November 24. If it is the wish of council, I think maybe a motion to direct whether this should be delayed past budget. Otherwise this is the path we are on,” said Wallace.
Councillor John Hirsch tried to show council the upshot of having an arborist on staff. “If we did hire an arborist, since we are putting requirements on developers to provide arborist reports in certain cases, we can actually do the reverse, and allow them, at cost, to use our arborist. That would help reimburse the cost,” said Hirsch, who also said that there are many members of the community who would be willing to help with maintenance of the trees to save on costs.
Margetson didn’t see the need for an arborist. “It’s my view that this municipality, and with the size of the urban area that we have, we don’t need a full-time arborist. We need someone that knows trees, and is practical, and can help the department, and when they are not doing trees, they can do something else,” said Margetson. Councillor Nieman agreed, pointing out that current staff members had taken courses to be able to identify problems with trees and if they are in good condition. Goheen confirmed that some staff members did have the training. Nieman also pointed out that boulevards aren’t the best place for trees. “When you plant a tree in a boulevard, where there is a service going through, you will be cutting that tree down and digging that service up. You are going to pay for it 10 times or more just to replace that service,” said Nieman.
Ultimately, council chose to refer the policy back to staff.
Not completely true. The Tree Policy as developed by the Ad Hoc committee volunteers details an environmentally superior alternative to the status quo. One day, rational argument will triumph over FUD.
It certainly appears that:
1) the council does not want to preserve, plant, or spend money on trees, or have staff knowledgeable about trees
2) staff are not interested in managing trees
3) staff and council believe complex biological organisms can be managed by a person with a one day training course and the public can maintain trees
4) the tree policy ad hoc committee has accomplished nothing.
Imagine if the interested people planted one tree per year since 2015, we would be 6 trees ahead of the the current situation.
I am sure the issue will die until the next high profile tree is cut, then a quick resurgence of interest until development and tourism overtake all other issues.
4)