The dialogue around tree management was multifaceted, focusing heavily on the Callery pear trees. A council member referenced a memo from Langan Engineering, which flagged these trees as invasive and prone to storm damage due to their weak branches. The council deliberated on whether to cease planting Callery pears, given their classification as invasive and the potential risks they pose. This topic sparked considerable debate, highlighting a past incident where a falling Callery pear resulted in a fatality.

While the council recognized the historical prevalence of Callery pears in the borough, there was a consensus to halt new plantings of this species. The council agreed to explore other white flowering trees as replacements, emphasizing the importance of consulting on site plans involving municipal rights-of-way.

In addition to the Callery pear debate, the meeting covered various other tree-related issues. The council approved a $10,305 budget for tree maintenance and removal, a decision made in light of various tree-related concerns, including a dead beach tree on Locust Drive and a large dead oak tree on Headley Avenue, which posed a risk to nearby wires. The council also discussed the health of two large oak trees on Juniper Drive, deciding that one tree required monitoring due to signs of oak fungus.

Further discussions highlighted the necessity for a clear tree management and replanting plan, particularly as the council considered updates on grants for tree-related initiatives. The John Porter grant, amounting to $2,500 for replanting trees on Silvin Drive, was awaiting a decision by the end of the month. Clarification was sought regarding two distinct grants: the Green Communities Grant for a management plan and a separate grant for tree replacement funding from the Department of Environmental Protection.

The council faced a challenge in reconciling estimates for a comprehensive community forest management plan, with significant discrepancies between proposals from Arbor Pro and Davey. The former estimated 3,500 trees, while the latter included 6,000 trees and vacant planting sites. This variance highlighted the complexities involved in managing the borough’s tree inventory within the constraints of available funding.

A significant portion of the meeting was also dedicated to addressing public inquiries and concerns. One resident, Lee Connor, raised the issue of delayed meeting minutes. Another resident, Charles Lcastro, sought guidance on tree removal within a right-of-way buffer zone, a matter the council assured would be addressed.

Discussions on a proposal for a fall tree planting phase included plans to send letters to homeowners for input and to consider areas without overhead wires for planting larger trees. The need for improved recordkeeping was emphasized, as members discussed the absence of a comprehensive tree inventory and the failure to conduct yearly surveys.

The council’s approach to tree management was characterized by both urgency and caution, as members navigated budget constraints and the necessity for community involvement. Frustrations were voiced over a lack of progress on certain initiatives, with calls for better external communication and consensus-building among council members. The suggestion to establish subcommittees or working groups aimed to facilitate more efficient discussions and outcomes.