On the Agenda: Who Should Pay for Street Tree Upkeep?
The policy committee and tree advisory commission in the borough will discuss how to move forward.
The issue of who should pay for street tree maintenance and removal in Phoenixville hasn’t been settled yet.
Tuesday evening, the policy committee will devote its meeting to the issue and the tree advisory commission will be on hand to participate in the meeting. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in borough hall.
In the past, the borough maintained the 2,040 street trees. Of that number, approximately 1,200 abut residences or businesses. Due to budget constraints, no money was budgeted for regular tree maintenance or removal in 2011.
There is $10,000 in the account for emergencies, and $23,000 was carried over from 2010 as part of a $150,000 chunk of funding dedicated to completing a large backlog of trees needing service.
The typical tree budget annually was between $40,000 and $80,000. Now, with no money, the responsibility for paying for street tree maintenance and removal could fall on the homeowners and business owners who abut the trees.
However, in discussion so far, it seems the borough will still have control over the trees, so a homeowner wanting to trim or remove a street tree on the borough registry may have to come before the tree advisory commission to get the OK. Then, the homeowner would be responsible for the financial end of caring for the street trees.
At the April policy committee meeting, Borough Manager Jean Krack likened the funding for street trees in the borough to a retirement fund. The trees were planted forty, fifty or sixty years ago. However, no money was ever set aside for when the trees aged.
“The trees are retiring en masse,” Krack said. “We’ve got to address this for both sides [the borough and the residents] sooner rather than later.”
Paul Kusko, who chairs the tree advisory commission, said at the beginning of the program, many of the trees chosen were just what the borough had available rather than trees that were good fits for a street tree program. Additionally, they were “planted in the most difficult condition the tree could grow in,” between the sidewalk and street.
The number of requests for tree service has gone up in the past few years, Kusko said, and the borough was seeing more removals than before. A removal costs the borough approximately $1,500, while pruning costs $200 to $500.
Ten to 15 trees were removed per year several years ago. In the last few years, that number has been closer to 30. The borough contracts with professional tree services to take care of any issues with the trees.
Councilman James Evans (D-North), who heads the policy committee, said more time must be devoted to getting a workable ordinance in place for the financing of tree care. Councilman Dave Gautreau (R-East) agreed.
“I just think it’s too important of an issue to try to squeeze into an hour-long policy meeting,” Gautreau said.
Krack gave out copies of the existing ordinances, the one that established the tree advisory commission and the one putting the street tree program in place.
He said that two months ago, borough staff tried to draft a whole new ordinance to address the funding of street tree care.
“That didn’t go over well at all,” Krack said.
Looking at what’s already on the books, however, Krack explained that it never says the borough must pay for street tree maintenance and removal.
“It refers to costs, but it doesn’t necessarily define who pays the costs,” Krack said.
The ordinance says the borough pays when it has funds—which now, it doesn’t. The issue is further defining the financial responsibility.
“There needs to be a clearer definition of the ‘who’ and ‘how,’” Krack said.
The meeting on street trees will be held Tuesday at borough hall at 7 p.m. and the policy committee hopes to hear from the public.
To see the current ordinances dealing with street trees, visit the borough’s eCode page and click on Chapter 25.
Sharon
11:28 am on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Borough selected & planted the trees. Since then, they have been responsible to maintain the trees that THEY planted. But now, since borough funds are tight, homeowners, whose funds are also tight, might now have to ask PERMISSION to maintain the borough trees that the homeowner never asked for or planted in the first place. Gee, that sounds fair.
Dianne
12:24 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
How is it fair that we, the homeowners, may have to take over full responsibility for trees that we did not plant, yet the borough still wants to maintain control over what we do with them. I have to put up with all the sap and acorn damage from the 50 year old oak trees but I don't have the option to remove them? I'm all for trees. In fact I have planted at least 10 new ones on our property since moving there 11 years ago. I also made sure I chose proper sized trees for the property and not ones that are too overwhelming for the amount of space we have or ones that drop acorns and sap all over cars. The street trees do nothing but cause damage to cars, sidewalks, etc. Make up your minds, either they are YOUR trees or they are OUR trees. If they are YOUR trees than continue to maintain them. If they are OUR trees then let us do what we want with them. You can't have it BOTH ways!!!
Linda
3:25 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I agree! I also feel that the borough should care for the older trees and do a full pruning of ALL the trees prior to reqiring ANY homeowner to take full financial responsibility. My tree was approved for pruning and shaping LAST AUGUST and hasn't been touched, is now dying, and drops pieces in high wind events! Aside from being liable for any damages and injuries from the tree itself, we are also liable for injuries on our SIDEWALKS that are being damaged by these dangerous trees! Phoenixville could, perhaps grandfather certain trees ant be accountable for them, but place the small new trees directly to the residents control. These trees are smaller and would cost less to care for from the start. The amount of $ we might be looking at for caring for our trees??? Well, I already spent over $1500 to replace a sidewalk, and an arborist told me it would cost &750 to prune my tree (Plus additional cost because high tension electric lines are imbedded in it), or around $1400 to remove it. I am currently coming off of unemployment and cannot afford tree care or a hugh lawsuit because of injuries!!!
HeiligKuh
2:08 pm on Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Street tree liability is a sticky legal issue for cities and one that isn't going away anytime soon.
Enacting ordinances making the maintenance of those trees the responsibility of the homeowner is not going to relieve the City of it's legal liability for the lack of proper planting and maintenance practices prior to the existence of said ordinances or even afterward.
There is still clear evidence of negligence on the part of the City with regard to the mitigation of hazardous conditions created by improperly maintained and/or planted street trees.
Even if they pass ordinances shifting the maintenance onto the homeowner they still need to address the issue of past liability.
Any homeowner who has a dangerous or questionable street tree(s) in front of their property should promptly notify the City via registered letter so they have proof of the Cities liability should that dangerous tree cause injury to another party. Should the City not respond in a reasonable amount of time then they will be clearly negligent and thus liable for said injury.
Laura S
1:30 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The borough is paying $1500 for tree removal?! I've had a similar sized tree removed for 2/3 of that cost. I think the problem lies in waste when they choose contractors. I'm presuming the attitude is: it's not my money, so I don't care.
Linda
3:35 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Perhaps some mismanagement in the ranks??? How did they figure that they could plant trees all over the borough and NOT BUDGET to care for them although the ordinance states they would??? HUGE mistake on someone's part!!! Very little accountability seen here!
Joan Kalavik
1:45 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Joan Kalavik
We have a tree that the borough planted at least 25 years ago that has needed attention for about 2 years. My husband brought this to the attention of the tree committee then and again about a year ago. He spoke at the last tree meeting about this issue and it was agreed by the supervisor of the tree cutting employees,that he had indeed put in an order to have the tree trimmed immediately-a year ago. To date, nothing has been done about the tree and the hazards it presents. We are on a tight budget,just like everyone else and do not have the thousands of dollars it would cost to have this tree trimmed-perhaps one of the council members who is voting to push tree trimming on the homeowner can pay out of his/her pocket for this service. Obviously,you have more then enough money to live on and can spread it around to those who don't.
Bud Horenci
1:52 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
This proposal is rediculous. Just because the borough doesn't have money this year doesn't mean they'll never have the money yet they are proposing a forever ordinance to shurk their responsibility for trees. How about the way normal households budget money....gee.... this week/month/year we're a little tight on money so I guess I will give up a nice big steak.......FOREVER! Are you kidding me? How about a modest bare bones budget when money is tight and then grow it again as the revenue stream grows again. Or does our Borough leadership think this is the level of revenue they'll see forever. And if they actually believe that than this Borough will eventually cease to exist. How about a little commom sense please.
djbemom
3:25 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Hmmm....Not sure what the fuss is about. In most municipalities there is an easement that is owned by the municipality but maintenace of it is the repsonsibility of the home/business owner. That space is typically where your sidewalk and/or street trees are. If your sidewalk is cracked, the municipality requires you to replace it. If your street trees are a problem, the municipality can require you to remedy that as well. It sounds like Phoenixville is simply coming in line with what other municipalities have already been doing. And, oh by the way, when you live in a newer housing neighborhood...the municipality often dictates the type of tree you can plant in front of your house and prohibit you from removing trees in your yard without replacing them with a tree that they approve of.
Linda
3:40 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
And it's just going to be whatever??? As citizens in this community, just as in governments throughout the US, the government works for the people. Period. If enough people stand up for something that is unfair to the citizens, they certainly have the right to address it. Governments have been putting more on the citizens so that they no longer will be responsible. Either you are not a Phoenixville resident with a problem tree, or you are reluctant to stand up to a local ordinance because you can afford not to. My opinion, just sayin'. PS- This issue is being addresses in "other Municipalities" as well.
Linda
3:41 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Please! Anyone who has a borough tree on their property and wants the borough to be accountable for their decisions - PLEASE come to the meeting tonight! 7:00 PM!
Erin Marie
4:00 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
I would come to the meeting if I lived in the borough, but I live across the river. What they're trying to do is disgusting and I hope enough residents speak up and don't allow the local government to bully them around.
S Halper
4:12 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The trees are pretty smart, they've essentially formed a union - maybe they would call it a forest - with union protection. Everyone knows that trees are important to the well-being and value of the community, so they have been provided generous care packages each year (maintenance, pruning, and admiration) funded by the taxpayers and have been fortunate to retire after 20 years with full healthcare and maintenance for the rest of their lives. As their numbers and benefits have risen, they have outpaced the ability to pay for all of them. Like a teachers union, we are now obligated to pay for 2,040 trees when only 800 are actually working hard in our community - looking nice, providing efficient oxygen and not destroying sidewalks and parked cars.
If the tree advisory committee were smart, they'd blame it all on the end of federal stimulus funds, just like the school district and the state. Then they could ask for a tax increase so that the trees could keep their generous benefits at the public's expense, explaining that without the trees the quality of life would go down, as well as home values.
If the citizens were smart, they'd just chop all the trees down. They could get younger ones that require less care and benefits. We could avoid promising them eternal health care which we can't afford, and then make them contribute to their retirement costs. Or you could do like the governor wants, pay for your own tree's education - private charter arboretums.
Joan Kalavik
4:22 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mr. Halper,I have one question for you. Why are you not a borough council member?
Linda
6:29 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Mr. Halper, I so appreciate your comment! I wish that I could take my tree down and plant another - one that will not damage the sidewalk I pay for and care for for the borough citizens; a tree that will not cause root impingement into my pipe that I can do nothing about.
I agree the area benefits from the trees., and I would accept my treeand the costs as well EXCEPT: The tree has been neglected for many years,and I have already replaced a sidewalk and now have drainage problems because of the tree that does NOT belong to me!!!
Last July I requested tree evaluation- it drops branches - a hazard risk to all who walk on the sidewalk and drive up route 29. The tree was assessed and I was notified they would trim it...A YEAR later, I have watched OTHER trees get trimmed, MORE trees get planted...and now mine is full of dead branches, growing into an electrical transformer, and is STILL a risk to the citizens. I ask that the tree committee be responsible AND accountable for their errors and keep to their tasks. We continue to have more people move into the area because of how nice it has become, and more tax dollars have been generated through that. And planning? ...If the borough needs money, perhaps it should begin fining those who do not maintain their property, have heaved sidewalks that are a huge risk to health for all of our walking and wheelchairing citizens, and begin aggressive enforcement of the regulations that are already in place!
Joan Kalavik
7:07 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
@Linda-a sample of what the borough does not do-Griffin Street has a home that was foreclosed on. The sidewalks were NOT cleared of any snow all winter and now the grass is knee high and the weeds have taken over all the flower beds. Where is the responsibility of the bank that owns the property? Where are the fines against the bank for not maintaining the property as any other homeowner is expected?
Bill N.
10:04 am on Wednesday, May 25, 2011
If you have a complaint about a home, you need to email David Boelker of Codes Enforcement. They'll come by, evaluate, and if needed, send a crew to mow the lawn and then send the bill to the owner. Trust me, he'll act on it...maybe immediately but he will assist you.
Joan Kalavik
7:10 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
@Bud-How about that trash removal fee we had forced on us? Same principal-only now,again it amounts to double taxation!!!
Acorn
8:59 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Tree Advisory Commission should copy the PASD School Board and hire a Director of Continuous Pruning for say $150.000 and I'm sure our taxes will be cut down and more trees will multiply because after all we are paying more to get less...right?
Linda
10:33 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2011
OK - went to the borough Policy Meeting tonight, and the Main topic was the tree issue...I went in ready for static, and after I basically blasted the lack of mitigation, preparedness, financial issue and let them know I was a miffed homeowner with one of the Registered tree...I calmed down and the committee members where not only listening, but have heard most of it before from many others. Hears the deal - we need as many property owners with Registered tree to get to these meetings! Only do not come to fight, as I am not interested in our town being divided by foliage issues!!! After speaking one-on-one with several committee people tonight, I am more aware of the facts and think that we have a chance at getting this straightened out so that we are ok, the non-tree property people will be ok, and the borough will be able to redefine an ordinance that DOES need to be updated. Bottom line, the financing is not in the budget to deal with the trees...But if we work together and come up with some creative way to provide financing AND keep green, then I think it will be a win-win deal...
Bill N.
10:10 am on Wednesday, May 25, 2011
That's the best comment I've read here yet! As a town, we all need to come together and help out where we can. I pick up trash everywhere I walk in town. If I see something fishy, I tell one of my friends on either the police force or government. We can either waste everyone's time and energy by stomping around and complaining OR we can come together as a community and help each other out when the govt cannot assist. Think of it as Neighborhoods Helping Neighbors...sort of like Neighborhood Watch.
Kristin Pesnell
10:32 am on Wednesday, May 25, 2011
I had 2 trees removed with the stumps ground out, a retaining wall removed, the land grated over and seeded, trees on the the edge of my property pruned back, poles and a gate removed from my yard for $1500. I got qoutes from 4 local tree services. $1500 a tree is outrageous! I think the government is inefficient at using the funds available to them. No one in their right mind would personally pay that much to remove a tree. I think that they should allow the land owners to shop around to get more reasonable qoutes from tree services and the the government should provide the funding to remove the older trees. All recently planted trees should become the responsibility of the land owners and they should be allowed to care for the trees as they see fit just like any other tree on their property.