The commission highlighted the necessity for at least two individuals, including one township employee, to complete core training for proper accreditation with the New Jersey Community Park. With two employees, Carlos and Dave R., already trained and a previous participant, Mark Theus, no longer with the town, the commission suggested Steve Higgins as a candidate for the upcoming training starting in March. The cost of $30 per person led to a motion, which was approved, to allocate up to $150 to fund the training for interested individuals.

Tree management was a focus, with discussions on how to effectively incorporate tree-related education into the school systems and the challenges faced by the commission in accessing and enrolling in Certified Urban and Community Forestry courses. The members expressed difficulty with course providers’ responsiveness which hampers their educational outreach efforts.

Questions arose over the adequacy of the fees charged for tree removal and whether they should align with state guidelines. The commission debated the implications of increasing the developer price for tree removal from $350 to $750. The complexities of tracking the reasons for tree removal were also discussed, highlighting the need for a more efficient system.

Mayor John Napolitani Sr. voiced concerns about the inadequacies of the current database, Jungle Lasers, used to track tree permits. The commission underscored the importance of accurate details in the database, particularly differentiating whether the trees removed were dead or alive. The limitations of the present system and the feasibility of a transition to a more effective platform were debated, recognizing the challenges faced by the Construction office and the need for comprehensive information tracking.

Further discussions on the stewardship plan revealed a potential miscommunication regarding the scope of work undertaken by B Resource Group, tasked with conducting a survey and management plan for the town’s trees. This led to a debate on the clarity needed for the project’s timeline and deliverables. The commission also tackled the specifics of recording and reporting hours spent on tree-related activities, essential for the grant project.

The TreeKeeper software’s functionality and accessibility were scrutinized. Members debated the public’s access to tree survey data and the software’s capability to protect sensitive information. Concerns were raised about data modification rights and the access levels within the software.

The commission planned to survey all parks and schools, with a particular note on the significant number of large trees at the Middle School lot. A proposal to involve a scout project in identifying public right-of-way trees along Ma Street was considered, utilizing the tax map system. The logistics of organizing a training session on tree management software were discussed, including the format and the nature of the session to ensure it does not classify as a public meeting. The use of webinar features and insights from other towns’ experiences were contemplated.

The commission also considered the environmental impacts of the software and the possibility of involving the Environmental Commission in the learning process. Discussions about comparing the state tree ordinance with their own were slated for upcoming sessions, emphasizing the need for more descriptive information in permits, especially for fieldwork and permit processing.

The tree giveaway program, integral to the commission’s community outreach, faced logistical challenges with the distribution of free trees at Greenfest and to third graders. The commission planned to coordinate with the Garden Club for distribution around April 24th or 25th, considering the proximity to Easter and Passover. However, the program for third graders faced issues with the state nursery, prompting the commission to consider alternative sources. With seedlings estimated at $3 per student, the commission intended to contact Dave Brown for program funding discussions.