Stow Tree Commission weighs cost-share, replanting policy and sidewalk mitigation

Stow City's Tree Commission spent the meeting debating whether the city's opt-in cost-share approach to replacing removed street trees helps or hinders urban canopy goals and public safety.

Speaker 3 (commission member) summarized the practical effect of the current policy: when crews remove a tree from the tree lawn, residents typically must apply and pay to have a new tree planted in that same spot. "If you want another one, you have to pay for it," Speaker 3 said, describing the opt-in process that has been in place for roughly a decade. Commissioners said that approach has reduced complaints in some neighborhoods but may depress replacement rates and slow canopy growth.

Commissioners and staff discussed the city's sidewalk mitigation program, which a speaker described as a resolution that has allocated about $200,000 per year for repairs. Speaker 1 (commission member) said the program's technical threshold (discussed in the meeting as a small movement, sometimes cited informally as a half-inch) has meant many sidewalk segments meet the repair standard, slowing the city's ability to address the most hazardous locations quickly.

Liability and recordkeeping surfaced as a central concern. "You are a 100% liable for any tree on city property if we know that it could be an issue and it falls against something," Speaker 3 said, urging preventive inspections and a clear paper trail. Staff said the forestry division keeps an inspection database to document maintenance and due diligence.

Commission discussion included several operational details: staff estimated recent annual removals closer to 50 trees and a rough planted-tree unit cost in discussion of about $200 per tree (figures commissioners described in the meeting as approximate); the commission also noted exceptions when grants covered broader plantings, such as ash-borer response efforts and a past grant-driven replacement in Sherwood Acres.

The commission agreed it would formally review the management plan and come back with marked-up recommendations, examining whether grandfathering, altered cost-share tiers or alternate funding sources could better align the policy with the city's canopy goals. No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting.

Votes at a glance - Chair/vice-chair motion: Motion to reappoint the existing chair and appoint Andy as vice chair was made and approved by voice vote (see separate item).

What's next: Commissioners asked staff to prepare proposed edits to the management plan for discussion at the next working meeting and to provide clearer cost and program data to inform any changes.