Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chipping Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs options for branch chipping after contractor bids and budget constraints
Summary
After prior budget cuts eliminated chipping service, staff presented contractor quotes and council debated once-a-month service (~$26k/yr), emergency-only responses, or a short trial. Residents raised equity and service-quality concerns about routes and emergency definitions.
Get email alerts on the Chipping Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continued a multi-meeting discussion about restoring branch-chipping services and reviewed quotes from contractors. Staff reported multiple bids: Davey at approximately $2,100 for once-a-month service, Elvis Tree Service at $2,200, and TrueCut a placeholder figure; the existing contractor (Fontenot) said it would not do a single-day, once-a-month route but would be available for emergency or storm response (Staff member, SEG 779-788).
Council members and residents debated three main options: (1) reinstate a once-a-month service at the low bid (estimated $26,000 per year), (2) purchase emergency-only responses on a case-by-case basis (staff estimated $8,000-10,000+ for a true storm recovery), or (3) run a six-month trial to learn utilization and value. One council member said the monthly plan "puts us on a hook for, what, $1-23,000 dollars?" (Council member, SEG 960-966) and worried about weather variability; others suggested defining "emergency" consistent with county declarations or road-blocking events.
Residents asked for procurement transparency and suggested a formal RFP process and clearer definitions of emergency service conditions. Staff said the quotes were based on an 8-hour day estimate and that the city can contract for emergency services and separately designate areas or hub locations, while Fontenot's earlier contract had included return trips at no extra charge when houses were missed (Staff member, SEG 878-887). No final decision was made; council left the service status unchanged and asked staff to return with clearer definitions, procurement options, and estimated maintenance/cost impacts.

