One of the primary challenges discussed was the commission’s budget, which saw a modest 2% increase compared to the previous year. Despite this increase, the budget for planting and removing trees stood at $8,000, a sum that had not yet been allocated. A member underscored the urgency of using these funds effectively before the December deadline, emphasizing the need to “get that sweet” funding used efficiently. The commission agreed to return with proposals for the most effective use of the budget, highlighting the need for actionable ideas to maximize the impact of these funds on the community’s urban forestry.

Another discussion revolved around the process of identifying and removing hazardous trees. The commission clarified that a licensed tree expert, identified as Sherry, holds the authority to determine if a tree is hazardous and requires removal. Nick, another key figure, is responsible for submitting permits for the removal of trees larger than six inches in diameter. This process raised questions about transparency, as one participant expressed a desire for clearer understanding of the hazard list and prioritization criteria. The commission proposed inviting Nick to a future meeting to elucidate the decision-making process.

The commission explored funding strategies, including the potential use of the Shade Tree Trust Fund for planting on private property, contrasting with municipal budget funds restricted to public lands. Discussions also addressed the role of community donations in enhancing tree planting initiatives. Public comments suggested engaging with the Monmouth County Shade Tree Commission as a resource for planting efforts, particularly on county roads.

The meeting addressed the need for improved organization in tracking tree removal and maintenance, with calls for a clearer annual plan for tree removals. A member expressed concern about the exhaustion from previous discussions, fearing that time constraints hindered the attention given to new business topics. However, there was a proactive move to identify areas in town affected by tree loss, prioritizing them for future planting efforts to restore the urban forest effectively.

In addition to budget and maintenance concerns, the commission discussed strategic tree planting and maintenance plans. The members recognized the importance of integrating tree management into construction contracts. The commission emphasized the need for strategic planting, focusing on areas where trees would thrive and contribute positively to the urban landscape, rather than planting indiscriminately.

The commission also discussed the significance of involving the Department of Public Works (DPW) in establishing tree maintenance schedules to ensure proper care for planted trees. This collaborative approach aimed to prevent discrepancies between the number of trees planted and those that perish due to neglect. The commission highlighted the need for ongoing communication with utility companies, which could offer funding programs to support the borough’s tree planting initiatives.

While the commission acknowledged previous educational efforts had been sporadic, they suggested a more structured approach to enhance community involvement. Ideas included involving schools in tree planting days or contests, such as a poster contest, to raise awareness and foster community spirit in urban forestry.

This approach included partnerships with utility companies like JCP&L to manage trees posing risks to electrical services and collaboration with engineering departments to mitigate conflicts between tree planting and sidewalk maintenance. The members expressed a strong sense of urgency to develop a plan encompassing all aspects of urban forestry, from planting to maintenance.