A major item on the agenda was the proposal to address the city’s sidewalk problems. The commission discussed the introduction of a new Bond ordinance for sidewalk-specific projects, which would allocate funds for repairs and address uneven sidewalks. Although the funds for the project were not yet available, they were expected to become accessible in late August. In connection with the care of urban greenery, the commission debated the use of capital project funds to provide water for recently planted trees, considering a weekly watering schedule until September 21st at a cost of $4,800.

The watering of the trees sparked a debate among the commission members. Ultimately, the commission agreed to spend $4,800 from their budget to authorize the watering. Additionally, the commission approved the removal of 18 trees at Spicer Creek and discussed the responsibility for sourcing and planting new trees. During this discussion, a guest, Matt Notch, contributed to the conversation, focusing on the proposal for watering the newly planted trees.

Another issue was the need for licensing and safety standards for tree care companies. A representative from the New Jersey Board of Tree Experts Commission emphasized the importance of using licensed companies and the potential violations related to unlicensed tree care operations. Concerns were raised regarding the difficulty in verifying whether a particular tree care company was licensed to operate in Cape May, and the distribution of flyers by an unlicensed company was debated.

The regulation and protection of trees during construction work also featured prominently in the meeting. The commission discussed the enforcement of tree regulations, including fines and court proceedings for non-compliance. Additionally, the commission considered the relocation of a tree and the possible removal of two smaller trees to create new parking spaces.

The meeting included a discussion about two upcoming projects involving tree movement and removal. The first project would result in a net loss of one tree, while the second would lead to a net gain of four trees. Species selection for these projects was a focus, particularly the need to choose species that would not grow too tall near power lines. The commission addressed the issue of seating areas and the placement of benches near the library and the planting of street trees at the Franklin Street school.

The commission also revisited a property on Patterson Avenue, where the owner had not replaced two Bradford pear trees with Tupelo trees as agreed. The planting of Leland cypress trees too close to a house was another concern. Moreover, the commission discussed authorizing individuals to send letters on behalf of the commission and debated the appropriate response to severe pruning of crab apple trees at Madison and Maryland avenues.

The potential removal of damaged trees and replacement with new species was another focal point. The commission members debated the need to update and expand the list of suggested tree species for the city, expressing concern about the limited availability and the struggles of certain species, such as the Japanese tree lilac. Past instances where the state had planted trees without the commission’s input were mentioned, leading to issues like damage to electric lines and irrigation pipes. The need for a subcommittee to discuss tree species and the process for residents to plant trees in the city right-of-way was also brought up.

The commission considered a specific tree removal request and the damage caused to trees during construction work. There was a debate about the homeowners’ responsibility for the damage and the potential risks of a compromised tree falling onto a house. The possibility of requiring the homeowners to hire a certified tree expert to evaluate the tree’s viability was discussed.