Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk City reports 454 trees planted in 2024; limited capital will constrain spring plantings
Summary
City staff reported 221 trees planted in spring and 233 in fall for a 2024 total of 454, said planting leads, who also warned that most ARPA funds are spent and only limited city capital will be available for spring plantings.
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk City reported 454 trees planted across 2024 and said limited city capital budgets will sharply constrain citywide plantings this spring, members and staff said.
The totals come from spring and fall planting rounds: "spring 2024, Paul and I got 221 trees on the ground," and for the fall "we were able to plant 233 trees," Peter, committee member, said. Together, he added, those rounds produced "our total for the calendar year of 2024" of 454 trees.
The figures matter because much of the recent work was paid with one-time federal relief funds. "In the spring, to plant those 221 trees, we spent $180,000. In the fall, to plant the 233 trees, we spent $193 [thousand]," Peter said. He reported the two rounds together cost about $374,000 and that the city had expended the remaining ARPA funding allocated to the program.
City staff emphasized that available capital is now constrained. "As of the spring, what we have available across our capital budgets is very low. There's maybe $10 to $12,000 left in terms of capital, which means citywide," Peter said, noting that a separate U.S. Forest Service grant through the Inflation Reduction Act—described elsewhere in the meeting—will provide new, but targeted, funds.
Staff described how contract terms and species selection influence per-tree costs. "Last spring, Paul and I estimated it was about $780 to $800 per tree," Peter said. "This season was $820." He added that planners often use an estimate of $900 per tree for contract planning because costs vary by species and planting complexity.
Species mix and planting constraints were a recurring theme. "For the fall season, only 43% of what we planted were shade trees. So I think that's very low," Peter said, adding that the percentage of shade trees is limited in many places by available planting space: "We can't plant a shade tree in a grass strip that's 2 and a half feet wide. So it's a number of factors that are limiting in terms of how large we can plant." He also said about 70% of the fall plantings were native species to Connecticut.
Staff described a December planting on the Norwalk River Valley trail/Riverside Avenue area coordinated with the Traffic, Mobility, and Parking (TMP) department. "So in December, we were able to plant 26 trees. We got some nice slender species, in the amenity zone to provide kind of a visual barrier from the road to the path," Peter said, naming "sargentii cherries" and "constellation dogwoods" as species used. The TMP representative said the department was "a little hesitant about the plan of putting so many there, but we kinda talked them into it; it's gonna really improve that one spot."
Staff said outreach and resident interest remain strong: Gay, tree liaison, reported having 22 adopt-a-tree forms for the fall season and that 42 trees were planted through her liaison work. Peter added that many residents call asking why they did or did not receive a tree, and that staff have to prioritize where grant or capital funding allows planting.
Looking ahead, planners said they are preparing an RFP for spring plantings that incorporates a $1 million grant from the U.S. Forest Service through the Inflation Reduction Act; Peter said about $500,000 of that grant will be available for certain types of plantings, including giveaways and contract plantings. But he cautioned that spring citywide planting capacity remains limited by the low capital balance.
The committee discussed warranty and maintenance issues for trees planted under earlier contracts and noted that some plantings should still be under warranty and eligible for replacement through contract terms.
The meeting closed with a procedural motion to adjourn. Peter moved to adjourn the meeting; Sonia seconded. No roll-call vote was recorded and the motion was carried by consent.
Less-urgent items mentioned during the discussion included follow-up pruning for tight crowns on newly planted columnar and in-between species, continued coordination with TMP on guardrail and path-edge plantings, and plans to revisit tree-pit creation in paved areas where conventional planting space is unavailable.

